Bad Education - Festivals and Awards Watch

[jo]

It is surprising how many think that Hugh's other portrayals are not as grounded or as character-building. Some even say that he is too theatrical. I wonder if they are simply overwhelmed by his personality? I think his portrayal in LES MISERABLES is very underestimated ( except by the AMPAS which gave him an acting nomination) -- take out the singing -- and unpeel the layers of his dramatic portrayal. It is an excellent portrait of a man who gained redemption and tried giving back by living an exemplary life. There were many scenes which echoes his many different skills as an actor ( despair, anger, joy, resolve, peace). He did deserve that Oscar! Had there been less political echoes with the AMPAS, Hugh Jackman should have already attained EGOT status! Now he might be deprived again of that chance

I think many always view Hugh not as a disciplined actor but someone with strong physicality and too much charisma that they tend to overlook how much he gives to his portrayals.

Jo

[jo]

I think this is why I really like watching him in a straight play on stage! Not with musicals - where his other talents can totally distract.

And especially so if I have a chance to see him a number of times for the same portrayal.

On stage, he is all on his own, creating his portrayal right before a live audience ( and even more if one is able to sit very close to the stage, to enable one to see his facial expressions-- maybe the tilt of the head, expression of the eyes, body language, expression on his face). There is no one coaching him all the time. He does not have the advantage of retakes. An actor whose medium is the stage, completely in charge!

You can appreciate how well he has honed his acting skills!

I always mention one scene in A STEADY RAIN. He went to the back of the stage ... to let the character played by Daniel Craig deliver his monolog. Instead of simply being a shadow in the back... Hugh stood there, not moving...but seeming to look intently at something far away ...or was he thinking of something deeply. He was in character, even if he let the other player take the spotlight.

Jo

[JH4HJ]

Dec 12, 2020 2:34:39 GMT -5 jo said:

I always mention one scene in A STEADY RAIN. He went to the back of the stage ... to let the character played by Daniel Craig deliver his monolog. Instead of simply being a shadow in the back... Hugh stood there, not moving...but seeming to look intently at something far away ...or was he thinking of something deeply. He was in character, even if he let the other player take the spotlight.

I agree that Hugh Jackman is a fine actor and I, too, particularly appreciate his talents *live* on stage - BUT - you're not much of an actor if you "drop character" whenever someone else is speaking. It is your JOB to be consistently "present" while on stage. This is not a skill/gift/talent limited to Hugh.

The best example I have seen on stage recently was Kyle Scatliffe (replacement as Tom Robinson) in To Kill A Mockingbird. He didn't have much to do (mostly sitting at a table in the courtroom) and he never distracted from the focus of the scene, but he was an impressive, eloquent, unerring presence on stage, even while still and silent. He's not a newcomer, but I am not familiar with his previous work. I do hope to see him again when Broadway resumes performances. He was very impressive indeed.

While I'm sure you would have been focused on Hugh regardless, if he distracted others from concentrating on Daniel Craig's monologue I suspect HUGH would consider that a failure on his part, not a success. It's not his prerogative to "LET the other the other player take the spotlight" - and HE knows it. Theater is a "team sport" - always was, always will be. Hugh is an excellent and most elegant team player, which is why so many other actors thoroughly enjoy working with him.

Just my opinion.

[jo]

Yes, Hugh has always been a generous co-star.

But that is what I meant when I wrote that Hugh's physical attributes and charisma sometimes draw the audience attention away unwittingly even from the acting he carefully does...or from the other players on stage. Or as his Mum said that even when he was small, he would stand on a chair to be noticed. Also, someone connected with early productions in Australia - a mentor- said that Hugh Jackman unwittingly steals the spotlight from others, but that it was never his intention ( it was from an interview re the Sunset Boulevard revival).

In A Steady Rain, he wasn't trying to draw attention away from Daniel's monolog -- it was just my impression that he still played his character in full even while in the shadows...Or it could be that it was not meant to be Daniel's solo moment - it could have been designed as an interplay between the active player and the player who lurked outside the spotlight?

I am looking forward to getting a ticket if and when I can return to NYC ( for the Music Man) and also be able to watch TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. I have been assured by the Telecharge Customer Service agents ( when I was rearranging my Music Man tickets) that TKAM and West Side Story will reopen. Hope this will all come true.

Jo

[JH4HJ]

Dec 12, 2020 15:33:15 GMT -5 jo said:

In A Steady Rain, he wasn't trying to draw attention away from Daniel's monolog -- it was just my impression that he still played his character in full even while in the shadows...Or it could be that it was not meant to be Daniel's solo moment - it could have been designed as an interplay between the active player and the player who lurked outside the spotlight?

And I'm saying that is what he was supposed to be doing. That is what all actors are supposed to do - be fully "present" ALL THE TIME on stage, not just act intermittently when speaking their own lines. It is their job to BE their character in the play, the whole entire play - every minute of it. This is not a skill/gift/talent unique to Hugh. I saw that play too. I personally assure you, Daniel did the same when Hugh spoke. This is as it should be. Both men gave excellent performances. (This is one of the reasons I prefer stage to film where your perspective is "forced" by the director's selection of the image on screen.)

C'mon, Jo. You've seen plenty of theater - some of which did not involve Hugh Jackman at all. I find it hard to believe that you never noticed anyone else - ever - who managed to "remain in character" while on stage despite not being the focus of the scene.

I dread the thought of (eventually) seeing a production of The Music Man where the entire cast says, "We don't have to bother performing to our best ability. We can just 'phone it in' because the eyes/ears of everyone in the audience will be riveted to Hugh Jackman and what we do doesn't really matter much at all." That would be appalling. I am willing to guarantee it will NOT happen.

[jo]

Of course, that is what professional actors do and should do. Maybe because this one just struck me in particular.

But also maybe it is a personal attention issue? I can get distracted easily. I saw WAR HORSE at Lincoln Center ( which show that season I preferred the most compared to the musicals I saw - Catch Me If You Can, How to Succeed..., and another one I forgot). At most of the play, when the puppet horse was on stage, despite the other players emoting, I kept looking at it from the side of my eye. I think the puppetry was such a sight for me. I also remember when I saw DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS, my attention was mostly on what Norbert Leo Butz ( Freddy) was doing on stage even when the scene was focused on the other main character played by John Lithgow. When I saw THREE DAYS OF RAIN, I stopped paying full attention to Julia Roberts during her scenes because she was so lackluster and I focused on the 2 unknown actors who were in the play with her. Unknown to me at that time -- because the actor I enjoyed the performance of was Paul Rudd. The other actor is also very famous now - Bradley Cooper ( but I rated him only second to Paul). Maybe I am too distracted sometimes? But I must admit I am happy with that. Incorrigible of me

Re Music Man -- Hugh will be competing with 6 other TONY winners -- all stars on their own on stage. There is someone like Jefferson Mays ( The Mayor) - he is bound to be a scene stealer because of his particular gift. I would like to be surprised by Sutton - I have seen her only in DROWSY CHAPERONE ( a comedic role for and suits her sunny personality) - in Music Man, she is going to be portraying a serious woman and disdainful of Prof Hill -- this seems like a change of image for me ( although she is known to have done dramas, too) -- but I am sure that she will be on equal footing with Hugh.

But I will not be surprised if my attention will be focused most of the time on Hugh when he is onstage I will have to blame that mainly on his commanding stage presence ( what drew me when I first saw him in London in Oklahoma! - because I was seated at Front Mezz and could not even see his face clearly-- but I remember following his movements on stage most of the time). Remember that comment from that Australian mentor who said that Hugh is a natural scene-stealer although he does it unwittingly because he is just " a natural showoff" ). Ben Brantley once called him The Master of Mass Flirtation ... Sorry, I am looking at the performer again, not the play itself!

Yes, the stage is the actor's medium and we force our eyes to direct our attention to the focus of the scene (but sometimes one can get distracted) while film is the director's medium and his artistic preference leads us to who or what to focus on ( via how he works with the cameraman on his focus). For serious dramatic plays, I sometimes like how I can see the facial expression and body language better on film, as distance from the stage for most will not allow the same privilege. Such as in PRISONERS - that scene where Keller sees the bloodied sock of his daughter -- it is such a poignant moment seeing the man first start to tremble and then see tears well in in his eyes. Such a dramatic moment.

I am not an actor nor a performer by profession... nor am I involved in the performing art in any capacity other than audience member. But I have taken so much pleasure ( and some knowledge) when watching actors interpret roles. It is truly a gift!


Jo

[JH4HJ]

Dec 13, 2020 13:30:53 GMT -5 jo said:

Re Music Man -- Hugh will be competing with 6 other TONY winners --

RE: The Music Man - I am sincerely hoping to see a collaboration for the benefit of the production as a whole, not a competition - which would be childish and extremely unprofessional. Hugh seems to have no problem with this concept and demonstrates it beautifully whenever I have had the pleasure of enjoying him on stage.

[jo]

Lol - wrong choice of words.

Collaborating, not competing. I meant that Hugh would have to be at his best, performance-wise, because the rest of the major cast are all strong stage actors! Besides, it is a show built on different interesting characters, so there is room for much enjoyment of each characterization.

Jo

[jo]

Re Music Man - people are waiting to hear when additional casting will be made.

*The Barbershop Quartet -- hope this is retained. It brings back that time when it was such a popular cultural form of entertainment.

*The casting of Winthrop is interesting to some because theatre board posters who say that it will be difficult to reconcile middle-aged Sutton ( she is in her mid-40's) but playing a younger theatre role... with a 6-8 year old brother Winthrop. People forget that theatre is wonderful because of suspension of disbelief.

*Others colorful personalities in this story of small-town Americana.


Jo

[jo]

Dec 10, 2020 20:48:10 GMT -5 hughmanity said:

BAD EDUCATION comes in at #3 on People Magazine's list. Can't help but wonder if there would be inclusion on more lists had it had been intended for a "theatrical" release. Too much ambiguity when a film is not Oscar eligible...☹


people.com/movies/the-top-10-movies-of-2020/

Now in the current issue --

[jo]

In a way 2020 was a a very good year for watching movies! Movies not of the blockbuster type ( which are sometimes too noisy to delve into good old ways of storytelling) but human stories portrayed with excellent acting skills!

This movie site puts up a top ten list --

and BAD EDUCATION is cited as year's best!


thecomeback.com/pop-culture/the-best-worst-and-wtf-moments-of-220-movies-in-2020.html


They single out BAD EDUCATION for BEST MOVIE and Hugh Jackman for BEST PERFORMANCE!

1. Bad Education – Sometimes good people do bad things. Because of that, they never see themselves as villains. Superintendent Frank Tassone (Hugh Jackman) and his assistant Pam Gluckin (Allison Janney) know they are committing a crime, yet there’s never any sense of guilt. Embezzling millions of dollars almost seems like jaywalking to them. The only time they feel remorse, like many thieves, is when they’re caught. Based on the real-life scandal in Long Island, New York, Bad Education weaves a fascinating tale of charismatic criminals. It works splendidly because of the performances, particularly Jackman.

Top performances
Best Actor: Hugh Jackman, Bad Education

Due to the Academy Award’s rigid standards, Jackman isn’t eligible for an Oscar (rules stipulate that a movie must have a theatrical release before streaming). Too bad. Jackman probably would’ve been a shoo-in nominee.

Too bad about not being eligible for Oscar consideration. Is there anyway the AMPAS will rewrite its rules for this year and include all movies made for the big screen for Oscar consideration! Or will they consider WRITE-IN votes?


Jo

[njr]

Jo, I think you’re just beating a dead horse, as they say. ☹️

[jo]

A Twitter LIKE the other day --

from Felice Makowsky whose son Mike Makowsky wrote the script for BAD EDUCATION.

Felice Makowsky
liked your reply
Maybe @theacademy would reconsider its rules for 2020 to include all movies made for the cinema ( check out the technical aspects of filmmaking) for Oscar consideration? Bad Education and Hugh Jackman deserve the recognition!

[jo]

Hope his next chance for showing an award-winning portrayal has better chances of being allowed to compete for an Oscar!

(Although the uncertainty of the release plans for REMINISCENCE is unresolved -- will Warner Bros give it this chance?)


Jo

[jo]

Whoa??!!

Have they found a way for the movie to qualify for Oscar consideration. Why would Deadline Hollywood sponsor a FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ad?

Hope this is true!


Or is this for the Golden Globes?


Jo

[jo]

Pinned Tweet
Deadline Hollywood
@deadline
For Your Consideration | Bad Education

For your awards consideration - Bad Education, the HBO original film that Variety hails is “Incredible,” noting “Hugh Jackman Delivers an Acting Masterclass” and “Allison Janney is Astonishing”

It is a PINNED TWEET on the Deadline Hollywood Twitter account!

Is it April Fools Day??




JO

[jo]

You may want to add your LIKE on the tweet-ad of Deadline Hollywood to show support!

Please click on the ad to get to the original tweet.

[jo]

On its website, Deadline Hollywood is promoting several FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ads, including that of BAD EDUCATION.


Is this a general campaign for Oscar and other awards ? One ad for what seems like a TV entertainment show addresses the GOLDEN GLOBES, the SCREEN ACTORS GUILD, etc, but not for Oscar consideration.

Maybe the Bad Education ad (which emphasizes that it is currently screening via HBO-MAX and highlights its EMMY win)) is for the same non-Oscar categories?


Jo

[jo]

It looks like the ad for BAD EDUCATION may be for the Golden Globes and the SAG awards?


deadline.com/2021/01/sag-awards-golden-globes-preview-covid-19-analysis-news-1234663471/

Excerpts --

If you are an awards pundit looking to past habits to predict the trajectory of this awards season, think again. All bets are off as we are clearly, and rather obviously, in uncharted territory when trying to assess how voters, particularly the early ones at SAG and the Golden Globes will be leaning. Although on the TV side of things, which both groups celebrate in addition to the current Oscar season for movies, the big question will be how influential September’s pandemic-affected Emmy telecast will actually be? As for the way the winds are blowing on the movie side, that is really where all bets are off this year.


Let’s start with that because if anyone can tell you who is leading the Oscar race in this craziest of crazy years, they will first have to realize that all roads must probably go through SAG and the Golden Globes. Covid-19 has ripped a hole through a season which has seen numerous projects sidelined and moved to next year, leaving the field largely to streamers flooding the race with one hopeful after another, along with a few stragglers from the studios. How this affects the race is anyone’s guess, but it could mean the playing field is really levelled to a degree it never has been before.


Both the Globes and SAG have proven in the past they often have the Midas touch in predicting, maybe even influencing, the direction of Oscar voters. In terms of timing, both SAG and the Globes followed Oscar’s lead in extending their eligibility periods to the end of February, as did BAFTA, Critics Choice and all the major guilds, so some late-breaking contenders may factor.

That said, this year could finally be the one that sees Netflix take the crown (and not just that much-talked-about British TV Series). The premier streamer is aggressively on the hunt for gold, and appears to be throwing every one of their best bets against the wall to see what sticks with voters, like the lavishly campaigned-to Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which will be handing out their Golden Globes on February 28, and SAG voters, whose televised show is also nearly two months later than usual this year on Sunday March 14 ( and now being forced to compete against the Grammys after Covid fears have pushed music’s biggest night to that same date).

The Globes NBC airdate could be particularly significant, since Oscar nomination voting will not even start until almost a week later on March 5, with ballots due on March 10. SAG nominations will also be a factor, even if final winners there will come in just one night before Oscar nominations are announced on March 15.


So, with so much on the line, who is out front at this point at SAG and the Golden Globes?

The Undoing
HBO
In the Limited Series/Movie lineups, Emmy nominees like Unorthodox, Mrs. America, Little Fires Everywhere, I Know This Much is True (at least for Emmy-winning star Mark Ruffalo), and Normal People will land at Globes, SAG, or both in various races, but I expect post-Emmy new entries in the TV-verse to hugely dominate these Limited Series races, making frontrunners out of the buzzy The Undoing from HBO with Nicole Kidman and Hugh Grant, and the beloved Netflixer, Queen’s Gambit and its star Anya Taylor-Joy (also making waves on the movie side in Emma) eating up most of the attention.

Showtime’s The Comey Rule, with sterling work from Jeff Daniels and Brendan Gleeson (as Trump), as well as their new intense hit, Your Honor with Bryan Cranston, could be potential players, as well as Jude Law in HBO’s creepy thriller The Third Day, along with Hugh Jackman in their Emmy-winning Bad Education. FX could factor with the return of Fargo and new star Chris Rock. Don’t discount Ethan Hawke’s The Good Lord Bird, Steve McQueen’s five-part Amazon group of films Small Axe (which actually won the top theatrical movie prize (!) at the LA Film Critics even though McQueen made it as a limited series, or Michaela Coel’s critically acclaimed I May Destroy You—all in the mix in a category of talked-about entries that may be the year’s strongest at SAG and the Globes in either television or theatrical movies.

[jo]

[hughmanity]

So I know I am beating a dead horse, but forgive me because after the Golden Globes and SAG awards snubs of the past two days, I really feel the urge to vent.  Once I resigned myself to the fact that Hugh was not eligible for AMPAS recognition, I consoled myself with the thought that he'd be a shoo-in for the above, but alas not to be, in large part due to lumping what clearly is a film with the limited seroes category.  Disappointing as the Emmy result was, at least he was nominated.  Obviously there is more to the life of an actor than awards recognition, but this was a shining moment for Hugh that seems to have slipped through the cracks in many ways.  
April 2020, when it was released, seems like an eternity ago.  Whatever interest it held has for the most part given way to newer and "buzzier" projects.  But again, and more significantly, it is pitting a one-off cinematic production against the very different structure of what can be an 8 -episode limited series arc.  Just because of their longevity they have a built-in staying power that a "film for tv" may not. ( and those are air quotes).  Well the guy from INDIEWIRE says it better than I, so I will quote him here.
Regarding GOLDEN GLOBES:

"Bad Education” can’t compete with limited series

Another top-quality HBO film, another year of snubs at the Golden Globes. Following last year’s unforgivable omission of “Deadwood: The Movie,” the HFPA again excluded great film work in favor of limited series, blanking “Bad Education” despite its impeccable star turn from Hugh Jackman. Not a single nominee in all three Limited Series or TV Movie categories included a nod for any TV Movie. It’s just one more reason they should be treated as films, sans modifier, and categorized with their “big screen” peers.
www.indiewire.com/2021/02/golden-globes-snubs-bridgerton-the-boys-i-may-destroy-you-1234614368/

Regarding SAG:

Another bad day for “Bad Education” and “TV” movies

Hugh Jackman hasn’t been nominated for a SAG Award since “Les Miserables” in 2013, a streak that was set to end this year thanks to a career-best performance in “Bad Education.” Alas, his highly touted movie role again couldn’t topple TV’s limited series contenders, as Jackman again had to suffer a snub because he’s competing in the wrong category. Given hours and hours to spend with a performer typically can’t compare to the more fleeting attachments made in a less-than-two-hour film, and yet the SAGs, Globes, and Emmys all force TV Movie actors to compete with their serialized peers. At the Emmys, that may be more understandable, given how few TV Movies there are, but at the SAGs and Globes, where film categories are plentiful, why not accept the reality that movies are movies and let Jackman and others compete on an equal playing field?
www.indiewire.com/2021/02/sag-awards-snubs-normal-people-what-we-do-in-the-shadows-2021-nominations-1234614716/

Thanks for indulging me--

[mamaleh]

Yes, it was doubly a bummer to realize that HJ’s career-best performance, as per most critics, was overlooked two days in a row by the two major awards bodies. Maddening!

Ellen

[jo]

Yet the Golden Globes qualified a filmed stage production of HAMILTON as a motion picture candidate and its actor for acting awards in the Film Acting category?? Nothing against Hamilton but it was never a film adaptation - it was simply a filmed version of the stage production.

Something tells me that maybe the ghost of Harvey Weinstein ( who was known for giving freebies like paid vacations and super-lavish parties) could be back? Two major streamers (Netflix and Disney+ )are getting the awards coups -- maybe I am wrong, but " something is rotten in the state of Denmark"


Jo

[jo]

www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/2021-golden-trailer-awards-nominees-nominations-list-1234978230/



BEST COMEDY TV SPOT (FOR A FEATURE FILM)
6 Underground, “One Shot”, Netflix, Monster Creative
Bad Education, “Race Car”, HBO, Motive
Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, “Changed”, Prime Video, Motive
Jojo Rabbit, “Bedtime Stories”, Searchlight Pictures, Motive
JoJo Rabbit, “Unsinn”, Searchlight Pictures, Mark Woollen & Associates