View image Catherine O'Hara, the funniest person on the planet, with John Michael Higgins, who's no slouch himself.
Please note that, in the list of Categories in the column at right, there is one topic that still has no entires. That is "Oscars." Because, really, after last year what's even left to joke about? And it's only November.
Nevertheless, I have a couple of Chicago Sun-Times/RogerEbert.com reviews this week, and one of them is of Christopher Guest's "For Your Consideration":
Hey, I heard Catherine O'Hara is so splendid in Christopher Guest's latest ensemble comedy, "For Your Consideration," she's a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination.Also: "Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus":It's true -- she is that good. And she's long overdue. (I would already have given her an Oscar, an Emmy, a Grammy, a Peabody, a Nobel and a People's Global Golden Choice Award for her performances as Lola Heatherton and Dusty Towne in the 1982 SCTV "Network 90" Christmas special alone.)
Perhaps the two biggest problems with "Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus" are the last two words of the title. This through-the-looking-glass "Beauty and the Beast" fable has little to do with Diane Arbus, the famous photographer, or with her work, which is not seen in the film. As a Lewis Carroll title card explains, this "is not a historical biography" but instead "reaches beyond reality to express what might have been Arbus' inner experience on her extraordinary path" to becoming an artist. Sure. All that's missing is a sense of who Arbus was, and how the fictional journey depicted in the film is reflected in (or, rather, distilled from) her art.Meanwhile, over at The Onion, the question is considered: "Are Oscar Prognosticators Evil?."
I'm extremely over joyed to say I'm one of the first general public Americans to have seen "For Your Consideration" (least that's what they said at the midnight showing). I'd have to say as far as pathos and tragic under tones this Guest film has the most bite. I also don't wish to give anything away. I will say piggy back and say it takes a true genius to stay ahead of the audience curve, especially one that Guest more than likely realizes is a touch more sophisticated than the "general viewing audience". In the other pseudo-documentary films he was able to forgo the feeling of improv with actors that spoke directly to the camera, in this, it was a touch more difficult to hide that but - in the end - I would say far more effective. Guest's hand has become more subtle and patient as a director and writer, there are very few cheap laughs and more pleasant oddities (which Hollywood, I've found, is full of). I would add "Guffman" to that best comedies of all time list, and this another classic in the repertory's repertoire. Would you go so far as say he's the new Cassavettes? Or better?