More stories

  • in

    Critics Choice Awards Winners 2024: See the Full List

    “The Holdovers” wins early trophies. Going into the night, “Barbie,” with 18 nominations, led the field. Its closest rivals, with 13 apiece, were “Oppenheimer” and “Poor Things.”Stars from “The Holdovers” were early were early winners in the Critics Choice Awards on Sunday. Da’Vine Joy Randolph won best supporting actress and Dominic Sessa won the newcomer award. Going into the evening, “Barbie,” packed with a cast of household names and filled with hit songs, had by far the most nominations — 18, far ahead of its rival all season, “Oppenheimer,” and “Poor Things,” with 13 each. “Killers of the Flower Moon” also made a strong showing, with a dozen nominations.Whether multiple nominations will translate into wins remains to be seen. The ceremony is being broadcast on the CW with Chelsea Handler as the host. We’ll be updating the winners’ list all evening long.FilmBest Supporting ActorRobert Downey Jr., “Oppenheimer”Best Supporting ActressDa’Vine Joy Randolph, “The Holdovers”Best Young Actor or ActressDominic Sessa, “The Holdovers”Best Animated Feature“Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse”TelevisionBest Supporting Actor, Drama SeriesBilly Crudup, “The Morning Show”Best Supporting Actress, Drama SeriesElizabeth Debicki, “The Crown”Best Supporting Actor, Limited Series or TV MovieJonathan Bailey, “Fellow Travelers”Best Supporting Actress, Limited Series or TV MovieMaria Bello, “Beef” More

  • in

    With Producers Guild Nominations, the Oscar Picture Gets Clearer

    “Barbie,” “Oppenheimer” and “Killers of the Flower Moon” made the cut as they did for the directors and actors groups. But “The Color Purple” was left out.Rounding out a busy awards-season week that included the Golden Globes and nominations from Hollywood’s directors and actors guilds, the Producers Guild of America announced the 10 films nominated for its best feature award on Friday. As expected, the group included “Oppenheimer” and “Barbie,” twinned box-office behemoths that have so far dominated awards season just as they ruled the summer.Here is the producers’ list of feature-film nominees:“American Fiction”“Anatomy of a Fall”“Barbie”“The Holdovers”“Killers of the Flower Moon”“Maestro”“Oppenheimer”“Past Lives”“Poor Things”“The Zone of Interest”The producers organization is considered the group with the best track record of presaging the Oscars. Over the last five years, only six movies snubbed by the this guild went on to receive an Oscar nomination for best picture.Three of those came just last year, when PGA picks “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” “Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery” and “The Whale” were supplanted by eventual Oscar nominees “All Quiet on the Western Front,” “Triangle of Sadness” and “Women Talking.” Those substitutions illustrate the difference in sensibilities between the populist-leaning producers and Oscar voters, who are more inclined to support international and independent films.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    Golden Globe Awards Takeaways: ‘Oppenheimer’ and ‘Succession’ Win Big

    The 81st Golden Globes kicked off Hollywood’s awards season on Sunday in a chaotic and sloppy manner, with the host, Jo Koy, delivering a train wreck of a monologue, winners alternately seeming to take the ceremony seriously and not at all, and prizes going to a wide array of films and television shows.“Oppenheimer,” which entered the ceremony with eight nominations, emerged as the movie to beat in the coming Oscar race, winning five Globes, including for best drama, Christopher Nolan’s directing and Cillian Murphy’s acting. “Barbie,” “The Holdovers” and “Poor Things” also won notable movie awards.Here are the other main takeaways:The most nominated film, “Barbie,” which received citations in nine categories, won two Globes, including the one for best cinematic and box office achievement, a newly created prize. Its other victory was for best song.HBO’s “Succession” was the top television winner, as expected. The show collected Globes for best drama, actress (Sarah Snook), actor (Kieran Culkin) and supporting actor (Matthew Macfadyen).“Poor Things,” a surreal science-fiction romance, won best movie, comedy or musical. Emma Stone, the film’s star, received the Globe for best comedic actress, while Paul Giamatti (“The Holdovers”) received the statuette for best comedic actor.Lily Gladstone won the Globe for best actress in a drama for her performance in “Killers of the Flower Moon,” becoming the first Indigenous person to win the award.Da’Vine Joy Randolph (“The Holdovers”) was honored as best supporting actress. Robert Downey Jr. (“Oppenheimer”) won best supporting actor.Netflix’s “Beef” and FX’s “The Bear” each won three Globes. “Beef” was named best limited series, and Ali Wong and Steven Yeun collected Globes for their acting in the show. “The Bear” won the trophy for best comedy and two of its stars, Ayo Edebiri and Jeremy Allen White, were honored for their performances.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    How to Watch the Golden Globes 2024: Date, Time, Streaming

    Hollywood usually looks to the annual awards as a party, but this year they also have an unlikely mission: A bid for relevance.The bar for a successful Golden Globes is usually low: Did at least one winner crack an acceptance-speech joke they’d probably regret the next day? Was there unpredictable political pontificating? Was the champagne still flowing into the wee hours?But then a Los Angeles Times investigation in 2021 revealed that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the eccentric, cloistered nonprofit of about 85 journalists that voted on the Golden Globes for some seven decades, had exactly zero Black members. The event has spent the last two years undergoing a reboot: The H.F.P.A. was dissolved. Private ownership took over, and new leadership was hired.This year, the Globes are back on TV, in their normal Sunday-night slot. (NBC didn’t broadcast the event in 2022, and last year’s pared-back Globes were booted to a Tuesday night because of football.) Now they’re on CBS, and a diversified voting body of more than 300 entertainment journalists has chosen the winners and added two new categories. (Oh, and they also found a new way to nominate Taylor Swift.)Will it be enough to win back audiences? (The 2023 Globes had about 6.3 million viewers, down 10 percent from the last televised Globes ceremony in 2021; by comparison, the Oscars draw about 19 million viewers.) Will the A-listers show up? Will the ceremony be a nod to the boozy, freewheeling affairs of old or play it more strait-laced like last year’s sober — some said, “boring” — ceremony?We’ll find out Sunday night. Here’s how to watch.What time does the show start, and where can I watch?The ceremony begins at 8 p.m. Eastern, 5 p.m. Pacific at the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, Calif. CBS is the official television broadcaster.Online, you can watch the show live on the CBS app, which is free to download, though you’ll need to sign in using the credentials from your cable provider. The show will also stream on Paramount+, though only subscribers who have the Showtime add-on will be able to watch live. For those who do not, the ceremony can be streamed beginning Monday on Paramount+. There are also a number of live TV streaming services that offer access to CBS, including Hulu + Live TV, YouTube TV and FuboTV, which all require subscriptions, though many are offering free trials.Is there a red carpet?Variety will stream red carpet arrivals beginning at 6:30 p.m. Eastern, 3:30 p.m. Pacific on its website and social media platforms as part of the official Globes preshow, which will be hosted by the Variety journalists Marc Malkin and Angelique Jackson and the “Entertainment Tonight” correspondent Rachel Smith. You can also watch on ETonline.com or the Golden Globes website.Who is hosting?The comedian and actor Jo Koy, who has released multiple Netflix specials and starred in the comedy movie “Easter Sunday” in 2022, will take the reins for the first time.Who is presenting?The lineup of actors, comedians and musicians who will hand out awards includes Amanda Seyfried, America Ferrera, Angela Bassett, Daniel Kaluuya, Florence Pugh, Gabriel Macht, George Lopez, Issa Rae, Julia Garner, Justin Hartley, Michelle Yeoh, Oprah Winfrey and Will Ferrell.Who votes on the awards?With the H.F.P.A. dissolved, an expanded group of more than 300 entertainment journalists from around the world is now responsible for selecting the nominees and winners. And the Globes have promised it’s a much more diverse group that now includes Black voters.What’s new this year?The Globes introduced two new categories, one for stand-up comedy on television and the other for blockbuster films — defined as those taking in at least $100 million at the domestic box office and $150 million worldwide (hello, “Barbie”-”Oppenheimer”-“Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour” showdown).With the exception of the blockbuster category, which has eight slots, the categories now have six nominees each, up from five. In other words, more stars to populate the televised ceremony and the red carpet spectacle.Who is nominated?“Barbie,” Greta Gerwig’s live-action take on the popular doll, leads the pack with eight nominations, including three in the original song category. (Yes, “I’m Just Ken” made the cut.) Close on its heels is “Oppenheimer,” Christopher Nolan’s three-hour blockbuster biopic about the theoretical physicist who led the effort that produced the first nuclear weapons. It’s up for best drama, director and actor, among other awards.On the TV side, it looks to be a big night for “Succession,” which ended last spring and earned a record nine nominations. The audience favorites “The Bear” and “Only Murders in the Building” picked up five apiece.What should you watch for?“Oppenheimer” will be looking to bolster its case at the Oscars with wins here in the best drama and director categories. But don’t count out “Killers of the Flower Moon,” whose female lead, Lily Gladstone, could become the first Indigenous performer to win best actress in a drama.Among the TV nominees, Meryl Streep, who is up for best supporting actress in a comedy for her role as the actress Loretta Durkin in Season 3 of “Only Murders in the Building,” could break her own record for the most Golden Globe acting wins with a victory (this would be her ninth statuette). Ali Wong, who played a successful businesswoman drawn into a road-rage-fueled feud in the Netflix comedy “Beef,” could become the first actress of Asian descent to win best actress in the limited series category.And, if “Succession” wins best drama, it will tie the record for most wins in the category (currently held by “Mad Men” and “The X-Files,” which each have three).Will Taylor Swift be there?The singer picked up her fifth Golden Globe nomination, for her concert film, “Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour,” thanks to the new blockbuster film category, but no word yet on her plans for the evening. Will the winners in the TV categories offer any hints about the Emmys next week?What a strange year: The dual actors’ and writers’ strikes that largely brought Hollywood to a standstill also bumped the Emmys from their normal September spot, even though voting took place in June. They’re now set to air after Jan. 15, even though the winners for the 2022-23 season were locked in months ago. Which is to say: Nope! More

  • in

    For Best Picture, Here are 13 Most Likely Contenders

    It’s a very competitive year for the top Oscar. With precursor awards like the Golden Globes coming soon, here’s what may make the cut.The good news is that it’s been a great year for movies.The bad news is that, now, the battle for best picture will be bloodier than ever.With such a wide field of acclaimed contenders, plenty of worthy films will be dealt a bad hand when the Oscar nominations are announced on Jan. 23. Even today’s self-imposed assignment to narrow the list to the 10 likeliest nominees proved a harrowing task; instead, I have hedged with an unlucky 13.Ahead of the Golden Globes on Sunday, and the bellwether industry nominations next week from the producers’ and actors’ guilds, here are the current contenders with the most viable shot at a best-picture nomination, ranked in descending order according to their certainty.‘Oppenheimer’Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster biopic has the feeling of an old-fashioned sweeper: It’s a highbrow film and a populist hit — exactly the sort of movie Oscar voters and general audiences should be able to agree upon. Still, this race isn’t sewn up. Recent best-picture winners tend to tug more at the heart than at the head, and there are a slew of contenders that can make a more effective case for that organ. And though Nolan has been nominated five times before, he has never been able to convince voters to actually hand him the Oscar: Even when he directed “Dunkirk” (2017), the sort of technically stupendous World War II movie that should have been a slam-dunk for the academy, voters flocked to the warm and cuddly Guillermo del Toro (“The Shape of Water”) over the crisp, professorial Nolan.‘The Holdovers’Could Alexander Payne’s Christmas movie be this year’s “CODA,” a scrappy little heartwarmer that defeats the imposing auteurist film it’s up against? Set in the 1970s and shot like a film from that era (even the precredits studio logos are appealingly vintage), this boarding-school dramedy couldn’t be more of a bull’s-eye for older academy members, who’ll be eager to give “The Holdovers” their they-don’t-make-’em-like-this-anymore vote. Paul Giamatti, the film’s lead, and Da’Vine Joy Randolph, have could-win heat in the actor and supporting actress categories, and movies that triumph in the acting and screenplay races have a nearly unbeatable portfolio for best picture. If Payne manages a best-director nomination, it’s a good sign that this underdog could slip past all the big-budget spectacles and go the distance.‘Barbie’Greta Gerwig’s plastic-fantastic comedy was indisputably the movie of 2023: This billion-dollar blockbuster went over like a rock concert in theaters, and its creative swerves had Hollywood types marveling at what Gerwig was able to get away with. Though Oscar voters have gotten a bad rap for ignoring mega-budget hits, they’re typically willing to make an exception for movies with a distinctive point of view and a high level of craftsmanship, which the deliciously decorated “Barbie” has in spades. A fun movie that’s full of heart and a standout in this group of contenders, “Barbie” is limited only by the not insignificant number of voters who’ll be thinking, “Can I really give Hollywood’s most prestigious award to a toy?”‘Killers of the Flower Moon’“Killers of the Flower Moon” could get a boost if Lily Gladstone is nominated for best actress.AppleTV+Martin Scorsese’s well-regarded movie would have a better shot at the top Oscar if “Oppenheimer” had been a contender in a different year: Between these two weighty, three-hour historical dramas, voters may deem Nolan’s more significant, simply because it made nearly a billion dollars worldwide. Still, the 81-year-old Scorsese has won only one Oscar and time is ticking for the academy to give him another. If his lead, Lily Gladstone, comes out on top of a fiercely competitive best-actress race, that could help burnish the film’s chances of picking up another significant prize.‘Poor Things’The Venice Film Festival kicks off awards season in earnest every August, and Emma Stone movies that play there often get a sensational launchpad: Just look at Oscar favorites like “La La Land” and “Birdman” and “The Favourite,” the last of which kicked off Stone’s very fruitful partnership with the director Yorgos Lanthimos. Their most recent film, “Poor Things,” won the Golden Lion at Venice this year and quickly established itself as a major contender, able to compete for up to three acting nominations (for Stone and her supporting actors Mark Ruffalo and Willem Dafoe) and a huge haul of below-the-line nods for its stunning costumes, cinematography, production design and visual effects. There’s no doubt it’ll be a best-picture player, but is there a narrative to push the film and Stone over the top in a very crowded year?‘Past Lives’Celine Song’s directorial debut was a breakout indie hit this summer, but this intimate romantic drama was in danger of receding once bigger and noisier rivals arrived in the fall. Fortunately, “Past Lives” begins this awards season in strong shape, earning the best-film trophy at the Gotham Awards, five nominations at the Independent Spirit Awards, and a key nomination for best drama at the Golden Globes. Like “The Holdovers,” it’s a smaller-scale film that some voters simply adore, and that passion will count for a lot in this field.‘American Fiction’There may be no more auspicious festival prize than the People’s Choice Award voted on by attendees of the Toronto International Film Festival: Every movie that won there over the past decade went on to score a best picture nomination, and three of them — “12 Years a Slave,” “Green Book” and “Nomadland” — actually took the top Oscar. This bodes awfully well for the writer-director Cord Jefferson’s contemporary comedy “American Fiction,” which hit big out of Toronto, netted crucial nominations at the Golden Globes and Indie Spirits, and ought to land its leading man, Jeffrey Wright, the first Oscar nomination of his long career. (I should note Jefferson is a friend.)‘Maestro’Bradley Cooper as Leonard Bernstein in “Maestro,” which he also directed.Jason McDonald/NetflixBradley Cooper’s first directorial effort, “A Star Is Born,” deserved better from the Oscars. It won only the original-song trophy when so much else about it, including Cooper’s ace lead performance, was also worth recognizing. Then again, Cooper had only himself to blame for that result: He was so determined to land the directing nomination, which ultimately eluded him, that he didn’t give his acting the push it merited. I wonder if something similar may happen this year: Cooper’s Leonard Bernstein drama, “Maestro,” is an even bigger directorial swing, and though he delivers exactly the sort of makeup-aided, transformative real-person performance that Oscar voters go gaga for, the fate of “Maestro” currently seems tied up in whether the directors’ branch will finally admit Cooper to the club.‘Anatomy of a Fall’The hip studio Neon has a knack for guiding Palme d’Or winners from the Cannes stage into Oscar’s inner circle, and the French courtroom drama “Anatomy of a Fall” could very well follow in the footsteps of Neon’s “Parasite” and “Triangle of Sadness.” It helps that the lead, Sandra Hüller, has enough heat to make it into the best-actress race, though the film was dinged by France’s decision to submit instead “The Taste of Things” as its contender for the international film Oscar: As fans of “RRR” found last year, it’s hard for world cinema to penetrate the best-picture lineup without a corresponding nod in the international-feature category.‘May December’Can Todd Haynes finally score a best-picture nominee? Though the director’s drama “Carol” got awfully close, “May December” is the most viable contender he has ever made, a favorite with critics’ groups and a mainstream conversation-starter since its debut on Netflix. If Natalie Portman, Julianne Moore, and Charles Melton all pick up acting nominations and the writer Samy Burch snags an original-screenplay nod, a place in the best-picture race ought to follow, but Haynes and his oeuvre have proved too smart for the room before. Let’s hope the academy’s tastes have caught up.‘The Zone of Interest’Jonathan Glazer’s audacious Holocaust drama is one of the most acclaimed movies of the year, the probable winner of the international-feature Oscar, and could even score Glazer an auteurist slot in the best-director category. Still, its chances for best picture are harder to predict. Every other contender on this list is likely to earn at least one acting nomination and any such recognition for “Zone” would come as a big surprise. It would also be the most challenging art-house film to make the best-picture lineup in ages: When older, more traditional voters cue the movie on their academy app and are met with a black screen and several minutes of unsettling score, will they stay seated through this unusual overture or close the app to call tech support?‘The Color Purple’Fantasia Barrino-Taylor in “The Color Purple,” which missed out on a Golden Globe nomination for best musical or comedy.Warner Bros PicturesThis musical take on the classic Alice Walker novel is banking on some late-breaking momentum, aided by a strong box office return on Christmas Day, to push it into the best-picture lineup. Still, it’s missed out on a few key nominations, failing to make the American Film Institute’s populist-leaning 10-best list or even snag a Golden Globe nomination for best comedy or musical, which should have been a given. Earning an ensemble nomination from the Screen Actors Guild on Jan. 10 is all but necessary to move “The Color Purple” up on this list.‘Society of the Snow’Last season, when the academy announced semifinalist shortlists in a wide variety of below-the-line categories, Netflix’s war film “All Quiet on the Western Front” had the sort of surprisingly strong showing that presaged a stellar nine Oscar nominations and four wins. That’s the reason I’m keeping an eye on the streamer’s Spanish-language plane-crash drama, “Society of the Snow,” which made the international-feature shortlist and also popped up as a semifinalist for visual effects, score, makeup and hairstyling (even edging out “Barbie” in the latter category). If all of these branches are already taking notice, don’t be surprised if “Society of the Snow” vaults past a better-known contender by the morning of the Oscar nominations. More

  • in

    America Ferrera and the ‘Barbie’ Monologue We All Talked About

    Listing some of the many perils of womanhood in a still patriarchal society, the monologue that the actress America Ferrera delivers in “Barbie” with the intensity of a rallying cry, became one of the most talked-about movie moments of 2023.“I’ve never been a part of something so eagerly anticipated,” Ferrera said during an interview at a Beverly Hills hotel restaurant. Originally from Los Angeles but based in New York, she was back in her hometown for an awards-season screening of the smash hit.Relaxed in a cozy beige sweater, Ferrera, 39, was recalling a prerelease press stop in Mexico City where 20,000 frenzied people welcomed the filmmaker Greta Gerwig and the cast of her pink-soaked comedy. “It was like a presidential campaign,” she added.Ferrera plays Gloria, mother and Mattel employee whose self-doubt and unfulfilled aspirations in the real world prompt an existential crisis in Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie) in Barbie Land. Ferrera’s plucky performance has landed her in the Oscar discussion this year.Though Gloria might be considered a supporting player in “Barbie,” Ferrera knows that it’s her flawed character who sets the adventure in motion. The performer, who broke through in “Real Women Have Curves” (2002) and went on to win an Emmy for her turn as the title character in “Ugly Betty” (2006-10), deeply admires how Gerwig dared to infuse a seemingly vacuous concept with plenty of meaning.“It’s huge for something that is both so commercially successful and culturally dominant to also be about many things at the same time, which is not easy to execute in the biggest movie of the year,” Ferrera noted.Here are edited excerpts from our conversation.Has the massive success of “Barbie” come as a surprise to you?I went into reading the script with really no attachment to Barbie at all. I didn’t grow up playing with Barbies. I was more curious about what Greta would do with it. It wasn’t just funny and subversive and delightfully weird. It was also about womanhood. When I was done reading the script, I was just giddy that this was the Barbie movie that no one asked for, but we were going to get. I felt it was going to be huge from the beginning.Why did you never play with Barbies as a child?We couldn’t afford Barbies. She was very expensive along with all of her stuff. [Laughs] I had a cousin who had Barbies, and I would play with them at her house, but they also seemed very far away from me. I didn’t necessarily feel represented in the Barbie narrative. It felt like a world that wasn’t accessible to me.Some critics took issue with her monologue as an oversimplification, but Ferrera countered, “We can know things and still need to hear them out loud.”Amy Harrity for The New York TimesSince you didn’t have a personal attachment to Barbie, how did you find your way into the character of Gloria and this world?One of the things that really gave me a glimpse into this character was the documentary called “Tiny Shoulders: Rethinking Barbie” that showed when Barbie expanded into many different sizes and shapes and colors. The woman [Kim Culmone] who led that as the head Barbie designer, a very cool feminist progressive woman, was getting backlash from all sides: From the legacy holders saying, “Barbie can’t change.” And from her progressive friends, angry that she cared about Barbie. “Why would you care about something that has been so bad for women?”But she had her own deep personal connection to playing with Barbies with her mother. She fought for this idea that she knew was imperfect but that still meant something to her. That gave me the insight I needed to play Gloria as a real adult woman and to understand why she plays with Barbie and wishes herself to Barbie Land.What did you think the first time you saw Gloria’s now incredibly popular speech?It definitely felt like an important moment, but Gloria was shining from the very beginning. She represents this quest for the permission to express yourself. She has to play the role of Mom and of responsible career woman, while hiding everything she loves underneath the corporate suit, being what she thought she needed to be. From the moment we meet her with her pink sneakers on to her getting to drive in that car chase, there was so much wish fulfillment and release for somebody who has been repressing so much.The monologue felt so right for Gloria. Yes, it breaks the Barbies out of their moment, but it’s also the natural breaking point for Gloria, where she has to say what she’s discovering on this journey. I recognized that it was a big moment and that it needed to work, but it also didn’t work independent of her entire search for more freedom for herself.Did the speech change at all?The text evolved a little bit. Greta asked me, “Why don’t you just tell me what you would say? Write it in your own words. What would you add?” Not every director starts out by inviting actors to rewrite their work. Some of what we talked about made it into the script. The line, “Always be grateful” came out of that conversation with Greta. She expounded on it adding, “But never forget that the system is rigged.” There were many versions that we did. We ended in tears. It ended in laughter, it got big, it got small, and I was able to do that because I really trusted Greta to know what would be right for the film.What are your thoughts on the discourse that some people believe Gloria’s speech oversimplifies feminism?We can know things and still need to hear them out loud. It can still be a cathartic. There are a lot of people who need Feminism 101, whole generations of girls who are just coming up now and who don’t have words for the culture that they’re being raised in. Also, boys and men who may have never spent any time thinking about feminist theory.If you are well-versed in feminism, then it might seem like an oversimplification, but there are entire countries that banned this film for a reason. To say that something that is maybe foundational, or, in some people’s view, basic feminism isn’t needed is an oversimplification. Assuming that everybody is on the same level of knowing and understanding the experience of womanhood is an oversimplification.From left, America Ferrera, Ariana Greenblatt, who plays her daughter, and Margot Robbie.Warner Bros.Gloria’s story is deeply intertwined with that of Barbie. How do think the two help each other overcome their struggles?Greta, Margot and I talked about Gloria and Barbie’s relationship as a love story. Not necessarily a romantic one, which some people on the internet have pushed for that reading of it, but we talked about it as Barbie and Gloria needing each other to be complete and to be the pieces of a puzzle that’s missing for each of them. The journey releases Gloria of the impossible assignment of being the kind of woman that she thinks she needs to be in the real world. And Barbie releases her herself from having to be an idea that is never going to satisfy all the things she’s meant to satisfy by choosing to be a human.What was your reaction when you first saw the doll made in your image for the Barbie collection inspired by the movie?Surreal. There were actually some similarities to me in the facial features. She’s the first Barbie doll fashioned after a Honduran American woman to ever exist. That’s really special, to know that no one had a Honduran Barbie doll to play with until now.Do you feel like your career has always been marked by firsts, like being the first Latina to win a lead acting Emmy? There’s a lot of pressure in being the first.I just took any single opportunity in front of me to do the best possible work that I could do in the hopes that there would be another opportunity after that. Looking backward, it’s much clearer to see that my career has been shaped by how the culture saw somebody like me. The opportunities that came my way were ones that kept me in very specific boxes. What I saw as my job as an actor was to inject those characters with as much complexity as I could, and not just play characters that were a foil to an expectation.Have things improved for Latinas in Hollywood since “Real Women Have Curves”?It took Josefina López, who wrote it, 11 years to get that movie made. And when the movie was successful, it didn’t result in a watershed moment for Latina writers and directors and actresses being given tons of opportunities. As you stated, I’m the first Latina to win an Emmy in a lead category. I’m still the only one and that brings me no joy. While I would love to think that things are different today than they were 22 years ago when “Real Women Have Curves” was made, the data shows that in large part, it hasn’t changed.That makes me think of Lupe Ontiveros, who played your mother in “Real Woman Have Curves,” and who made a career out tiny roles she managed to turn into screen gold.Ferrera in her breakthrough role in “Real Women Have Curves,” opposite Lupe Ontiveros.HBO FilmsShe was such a force, an incredible talent. [Ontiveros died in 2012.] I often think about all the incredible performances we were robbed of, that Lupe never got to give because those opportunities didn’t exist for somebody like her. And she still did her work. She took whatever scraps would come to her and she would fill them with humor and make them memorable. I think about her often, and all the Latino actors who’ve come before me, who did whatever they could with whatever they got.What does the ideal future for Latinos in the industry look like to you?The hope is that we get to actually have outlets for the immense talent that exists among Latinos. And that we can move beyond fighting just to be visible and that we can actually create and exist as full humans, as artists, with things to say beyond, “We’re here.” But it’s hard to find those opportunities. There’s a lot out there that is very transactional in terms of checking boxes to claim diversity. One of the most exciting things to me about this movie was, as a Latina woman, being invited to be a part of something so adventurous and joyful and fun. Gloria is Latina, but being Latina was not her reason for being in this story. More

  • in

    From ‘Poor Things’ to ‘Barbie,’ a Crybaby Year for Men in the Movies

    In 2023, male characters pouted elaborately after something they saw as their birthright was put in check.I’ve seen the greatest men of my generation regress into petulant babies — at least in the movies. Over and over in this year’s films, male characters throw elaborate temper tantrums, whining, huffing and raging like toddlers in their terrible twos.At Sundance in January, I joined the audience in cackling at “Fair Play,” in which a bratty finance guy devolves into a childish display of irascibility. Come summer, I saw the trend expand with the boffo success of “Barbie,” in which Ryan Gosling’s Ken makes an entire career out of pouting on the beach. And the fall saw a preschool’s worth of new baby men in “Poor Things,” “Dream Scenario” and “Anatomy of a Fall,” and one great baby man of history in “Napoleon.”The meltdowns themselves varied — one barked like a dog, another blasted music, a few made faces, most yelled, many cried — but the trigger was the same: a perceived loss of power to a woman.In “Poor Things,” that male torment is played for farce. Bella Baxter (Emma Stone) has only recently discovered orgasms when she meets Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo), a local rake who piques her interest. Their bond is simple: he is besotted; she relishes his sexual prowess. But trouble arrives when the pair voyages abroad and Bella, eager to indulge in new cuisines, sights and lovers, tires of Duncan’s micromanaging. She tries to send the stage five clinger packing, but he keeps popping up, alternating between profanity-laden outbursts and beseeching appeals to reciprocate his devotion.“I am not understanding this complicated feeling,” Bella remarks dispassionately at one point, as Duncan snivels over her sleeping with another man. The line lands as a joke; Duncan’s weepy reaction is entirely uncomplicated. But Bella’s confusion also hits on something real. Duncan doesn’t own Bella, as much as he would like to, and he sees himself as the victim of that reality.The comedy in “Fair Play,” directed by Chloe Domont, is cast in a darker tone, and centers not on concerns about sex, but career. Here, our petulant man is Luke (Alden Ehrenreich), a hedge fund analyst who, early in the movie, loses out on a promotion to his fiancée, Emily (Phoebe Dynevor). This means that Luke reports to Emily, while she wins coveted face time with the boss.To Luke, a silver-spoon-fed nepotism hire, nothing could be more intolerable. “I think I’m handling everything pretty well, given the circumstances,” he snarls at Emily before shrieking about how she “stole” his job.Luke makes his thinking clear: He wanted the promotion, so it belonged to him. This delusion of entitlement is echoed, to an extent, in Justine Triet’s “Anatomy of a Fall,” a tremendous work of drama that follows a novelist, Sandra (Sandra Hüller), after the sudden death of her husband, Samuel (Samuel Thesis). Samuel was also a fiction writer, albeit a more stagnant one, and openly resented Sandra’s success.In one crucial flashback, Samuel instigates a domestic scuffle with his wife. As the quarrel escalates, Samuel calls her selfish, chastises her for not learning his native language and accuses her of stealing his book premise. Finally, he prods, “I’ve given you too much — too much time, too many concessions. I want this time back and you owe it to me.”The gender dynamics of “Anatomy” are thornier than those in “Fair Play,” but the two films play well side by side. Triet and Domont share an interest in how power seesaws in contemporary straight relationships. By positioning their couples within the same professions and then pushing them to the brink, the filmmakers are conducting a kind of test. In this more equitable era, how do men and women balance being a good partner with self-realizing? At what point does envy trump affection? Is there any going back after it does?These are familiar questions with murky answers. The past decade has seen a cavalcade of bloated, juvenile men throw hissy fits after something they saw as their birthright — authority, prestige, admiration — was put in check. These spectacles can be sinister, pathetic and comical all at once, a semi-contradiction that movies, designed to pull in both directions, are ideally suited to dissect.No film this year synthesized these ideas more plainly than one about a plastic doll. Near the end of “Barbie,” once the Kens unlink arms and Gosling’s Ken stomps into the Dreamhouse, Barbie (Margot Robbie) hurries to comfort him. He sobs. She says she likes him as a friend. And then the pair agree to dismantle Barbieland’s system of male supremacy and instate a more just society.Wiping away tears, Ken confesses, “To be honest, when I found out the patriarchy wasn’t about horses, I lost interest anyway.” It’s funny to think it could be so easy. It’s excruciating to know it’s really not so hard. More

  • in

    In 2023, Movie Audiences Wanted Comfort, Not Superhero Spectacle

    Movie audiences flocked to Taylor Swift, “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” but were cooler toward returning superheroes like the Flash, Captain Marvel and Aquaman.Hollywood’s movie factories run on conventional wisdom — entrenched notions, based on experience, about what types of films are likely to pop at the global box office.This year, audiences turned many of those so-called rules on their heads.Superheroes have long been seen as the most reliable way to fill seats. But characters like Captain Marvel, the Flash, Ant-Man, Shazam and Blue Beetle failed to excite moviegoers. Over the weekend, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” which cost more than $200 million to make and tens of millions more to market, arrived to a disastrous $28 million in ticket sales in the United States and Canada. Overseas moviegoers chipped in another $80 million.In the meantime, the biggest movie of the year at the box office, “Barbie,” with $1.44 billion in worldwide ticket sales, was directed by a woman, based on a very female toy and spray-painted pink — ingredients that most studios have long seen as limiting audience appeal. An old movie-industry maxim holds that women will go to a “guy” movie but not vice versa.“The Super Mario Bros. Movie” collected $1.36 billion, a second-place result that also stunned Hollywood; studios have a troubled history with game adaptations. “Oppenheimer,” a three-hour period drama about a physicist, rounded out the top three, taking in $952 million and contradicting the prevailing belief that, in the streaming era, films for grown-ups are not viable in theaters.“The Super Mario Bros. Movie” stunned the film industry by bringing in $1.36 billion.Nintendo/Nintendo/Universal Studios, via Associated Press“Without question, change is afoot — audiences are in a different mood,” said David A. Gross, a film consultant who publishes a newsletter on box office numbers. “The country and the world are not in the same place. We’ve had seven years of divisive politics, a severe pandemic, two serious wars, climate change and inflation. Moviegoers seem less interested in being overwhelmed with spectacle and saving the universe than being spoken to, entertained and inspired.”The biggest box office surprises of the year fell into the “spoken to” category. “Sound of Freedom,” a crime drama that cost $15 million to make, catered to the far right, an audience largely ignored by Hollywood, and generated $248 million in ticket sales, on a par with “The Eras Tour,” which targeted Taylor Swift fans and also cost about $15 million.“Sound of Freedom” came from Angel Studios, an independent company in Provo, Utah, that supported the film with an unorthodox “Pay It Forward” program, which let supporters buy tickets online for those who otherwise might not see it. In a big break from Hollywood norms, Ms. Swift cut out the middle company (a studio) and made a distribution deal directly with AMC Entertainment, the world’s largest theater operator.“Our phone has been dancing off the hooks since the day we announced the ‘Eras Tour’ project,” Adam Aron, AMC’s chief executive, told investors on a conference call in November, referring to “alternative content” opportunities.Comscore, which compiles box office data, projected on Sunday that North American ticket sales for the year would reach about $9 billion, a 20 percent increase from 2022. (Before the pandemic, North American theaters reliably sold about $11 billion in tickets annually.) The average price for an adult general admission ticket in the United States was $12.14, up from $11.75, according to EntTelligence, a research firm.Worldwide ticket sales are expected to exceed $33 billion, an increase of 27 percent, partly because of a surge in Latin America. (Before the pandemic, worldwide ticket sales easily exceeded $40 billion annually.)Hollywood’s climb back from the pandemic is expected to stall in 2024. With fewer movies scheduled for release — studio pipelines were disrupted by the recent strikes — ticket sales will decline 5 to 11 percent next year, depending on the market, according to projections from Gower Street Analytics, a box office research firm.Reading box-office tea leaves is like pontificating about symbolism in works of fiction: Any halfway plausible theory works. But studio bosses need something, anything, to guide them as they make billion-dollar judgment calls for the seasons ahead.Here are five takeaways from this year:Moviegoers want comfort.People reach for nostalgia in times of stress, and movies that reminded audiences of the past — while also managing to feel fresh — have been succeeding. “Barbie,” “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” “The Little Mermaid,” “Wonka” and the retro-feeling “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem” allowed people to revisit their childhoods. “Insidious: The Red Door” hit pay dirt by bringing back the franchise’s original stars.“Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” could have tapped into nostalgia to become a hit. Instead, a huffing and puffing Harrison Ford, 81, simply reminded Indy fans that they, too, are getting old. “Dial of Destiny” cost Disney $295 million to make and took in a flaccid $384 million. (Theaters keep roughly 50 percent of ticket sales.)Tessa Thompson and Michael B. Jordan in “Creed III.”Eli Ade/MGMArt film has a pulse.Sophisticated dramas with modest budgets and aimed at older audiences have been showing signs of life after two years in the box office I.C.U.The streaming era has forever shifted the bulk of prestige film viewing to the home, analysts say. But theaters found a modicum of success in 2023 with offerings like “Past Lives,” a wistful drama with some Korean dialogue, and Hayao Miyazaki’s animated “The Boy and the Heron.” The bespoke “Asteroid City” managed $54 million.Early box office results have also been promising for Oscar-oriented films like “Poor Things,” a surreal science-fiction romance, and “American Fiction,” a satire about a writer who puts together a fake memoir that turns on racial stereotypes.Bigger is not better.For the past decade, Hollywood has kept audiences interested in sequels by making each installment more bloated and often nonsensical than the last. Bigger! Faster! More!That strategy may need rethinking — it’s just too expensive, analysts say, especially with Chinese moviegoers souring on American blockbusters. “Fast X,” the 10th movie in the “Fast and Furious” series, cost an estimated $340 million and took in $705 million worldwide, including $140 million in China. By comparison, “Furious 7” in 2015 cost $190 million and collected $1.5 billion, including $391 million in China.Tom Cruise in “Top Gun: Maverick.”Scott Garfield/Paramount PicturesTom Cruise’s seventh “Mission: Impossible” spectacle, released in July in the wake of “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer,” cost roughly $290 million to make and collected $568 million, including $49 million in China. The sixth “Mission: Impossible” in 2018 cost $178 million and generated $792 million, with Chinese ticket buyers chipping in $181 million.Increasingly, franchise sequels and spinoffs need to feel fresh to succeed. Lionsgate, for instance, delved deeper into the High Table underground crime organization in “John Wick: Chapter 4” and introduced “Hunger Games” fans to a new story line (and cast) in the prequel “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes.” Both movies were hits. Lionsgate even revived its “Saw” horror franchise by shifting the narrative back in time.“Each of those movies did something different than the prior,” said Adam Fogelson, vice chair of the Lionsgate Motion Picture Group. “It wasn’t just ‘spend more, make it bigger, make it louder and cram in more action.’”Some audience patterns remain intact.Horror continued to be a reliable performer, with “Five Nights at Freddy’s” and “M3gan” starting new franchises for Universal and its Blumhouse affiliate. Together, the two films cost $32 million. They collected a combined $469 million. Also notable was “The Nun II,” which cost Warner Bros. about $22 million and took in $366 million.Superheroes may be down, but they’re not out. Marvel’s rollicking, well-established “Guardians of the Galaxy” series returned for a third chapter and generated $846 million against a $250 million budget. Sony’s bold, anime-influenced “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” cost an estimated $150 million and collected $691 million.Stars matter.The conventional wisdom in Hollywood has been that movie stars are essentially part of the past. A celebrity name above the title no longer carries that much weight with ticket buyers. The underlying “intellectual property” is what fills seats.People pay to see Barbie, not Margot Robbie.Except that Mattel and various studios tried for at least 20 years to turn the toy into a live-action movie star. It took Ms. Robbie in the role (and Ryan Gosling as Ken) to finally make it happen. Other movies that benefited from star power in 2023 included “Wonka,” with Timothée Chalamet, and “Creed III,” anchored by Michael B. Jordan.Stars don’t have heft? Try telling that to the producers of “Gran Turismo,” “Haunted Mansion,” “Dumb Money” and “Strays,” all of which disappointed at the box office and arrived when their casts were barred from promoting their work because of the SAG-AFTRA strike. More