Are you there, Fox? It's me, 'Margaret'
Online petition challenges distributor to campaign for Kenneth Lonergan's troubled marvel
Matt Damon and Anna Paquin in "Margaret."
Are you a fan of In Contention?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
To call Kenneth Lonergan's "Margaret" my most anticipated film of the year wouldn't be stating the case with total accuracy. Rather, it's been my most anticipated film of the last few years running, repeatedly raising hopes of a sighting since 2006 before dropping from view amid ever more legal paperwork, like some form of film industry mirage.
We've touched on the film's tortured route to the screen several times over the years, but happily, we don't have to rehash that now. Through whatever process of grace or compromise, "Margaret" made it through the tunnel: the film is finished, released and here to be appreciated. Well, sort of. As if embarrassed by its complex backstory, distributor Fox Searchlight has seemingly attempted to fulfil its obligation to the film while sweeping it quietly under the rug: its September release was limited to say the least, with a number of major US cities left out of the loop altogether before it vanished from release. (Meanwhile, its UK release on Friday is a single-screen engagement in London.)
Now, with its hands full promoting the likes of "The Descendants," "Martha Marcy May Marlene," "Shame" and "The Tree of Life," Searchlight is neglecting to mount any form of awards campaign for the film -- despite some ecstatic reviews from the comparatively few critics privileged enough to see it. That extends even to the process of sending out screeners, denying many uninitiated critics and awards voters the chance even to consider it for their end-of-year lists and honors. (Kris, by the way, is one of them.)
If that's an unfortunate outcome for any halfway decent independent film hoping to find an audience, it's a deeply saddening one for a film as singularly astonishing as "Margaret," which I finally saw yesterday at its only UK press screening, and which fiercely redeems whatever tangled creative process Lonergan endured to get it to us. As critics, we're warned all the time to avoid using the word "masterpiece" at first blush, but I'm not sure I know what else "Margaret" is. Piercing, richly chaotic, fat with feeling and ideas, it's the work of a brilliant dramatist not just at the very peak of his powers but in active fear of them being taken from him: I can only hope you understand how much I adore his 2000 debut feature "You Can Count on Me" when I say that this tardy follow-up makes it look like a stepping stone.
If nothing else -- and trust me, it is plenty else -- "Margaret" deserves to be bookmarked as perhaps the most searching and true of all post-9/11 New York films, itching with social uncertainties about strangers and family alike. There are points where it directly (though never patly) addresses American society's ruptured sense of self and security over the past decade, notably in testily written classroom debates between Lisa, Anna Paquin's privileged Jewish protagonist and a challenging Muslim rival. Still, this thematic undertow is no less present in the film's core domestic drama, beginning with Lisa's innocent instigation of a fatal bus accident and extending to the wary network of acquaintances affected by it.
Related
-
Searchlight on taking the 'Shame' out of NC-17
Studio plans to use adult rating as 'badge of honor' in Oscar campaign
This is solitaire-structured storytelling in which every character's wants seemingly block another's, and no one trusts the other enough to clear the obstruction. As a kind of outsize parable of American middle-class manners, it's appropriately, enthrallingly messy; as one-on-one character study, it's precise yet detail-flooded, academic yet shot through with compassion. Lonergan shapes and splices his scenes in such a way as to surprise at every turn: conversations are left dangling, reaction shots teased, inevitable lines left unsaid, yet even the most abrupt of cuts maintains the thematic thread in parallel circumstances.
The ensemble is no less exacting or daring. Had this had a respectable, drama-free arthouse release a few years ago, there's little doubt in my mind that Anna Paquin would be a two-time Oscar nominee (at least) by now: her Lisa is as aggressively adult as she is maddeningly adolescent, holding this heaving narrative together with the desperate, clear-eyed conviction of those one more certain of the need to do the right thing than the method. J. Smith-Cameron is no less spiny or alternately tender as her lonely, high-strung mother; brief but incisive turns by Mark Ruffalo as the disaffected bus driver and Matt Damon as Lisa's perhaps over-kindly math teacher ensure not a performance goes wasted here.
You may have got the idea, then, that I think "Margaret" is one of the year's very best films, one as deserving of across-the-board awards attention (did I mention Nico Muhly's layered, plangent score?) as it is destined not to receive it. Nothing new there: it's par for the course with many of my favorites on an annual basis. The film is the reward, and all that. But it's distressing that, for many viewers and even critics, the film can't even be that: the least it can ask for is to be seen.
Happily, other people feel the same way. Today, coincidentally enough, I suddenly noticed the film's title cropping up repeatedly in my Twitter feed: closer investigation revealed that Slant critic Jaime Christley, another besotted fan of the film, has launched an online petition politely challenging Fox Searchlight to make the film available to critics and other awards voting bodies ahead of the upcoming glut of Ten Best lists and precursor awards. The plea goes as follows:
After a protracted post-production phase, news of which seemed to spell disaster, Kenneth Lonergan's MARGARET opened quietly in New York City and Los Angeles a few months ago, after which it seemed to disappear. (In fact, many major cities in the US didn't get the opportunity to see it at all.) In that time, the film became known as a miracle - a major work of cinematic art, against the odds - to almost all of the critics and cinephiles who were able to catch it during its brief appearance. It has all the earmarks of a grassroots-supported movie phenomenon. We, the undersigned respectfully request that film critics and other pertinent voting bodies be given the opportunity to view MARGARET prior to voting in applicable awards, or compiling applicable year-end "best of" lists.
I can't say I recall any awards-season precedent for this, and I heartily commend Christley for doing this. Its effect on "Margaret"'s long-flatlined awards hopes is immaterial; the victory will be if the studio is swayed to give even a little more exposure to this staggering film, the unexpected jewel of their already robust 2011 prestige slate. I've already signed; you can do so here.
For more views on movies, awards season and other pursuits, follow @GuyLodge on Twitter.
Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!
About This Blog
Spearheaded by editor Kristopher Tapley, In Contention represents a collective of awards obsessives who comment and reflect upon, muse about and attempt to decipher the Oscar season on a daily basis throughout the year, and especially during the Oscar crunch of the fall. Regular contributors include Guy Lodge, Roth Cornet and Gerard Kennedy.
Get Instant Alerts on In Contention
2011-2012 OSCAR NOMINATIONS
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Screenplay
Best Art Direction
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Film Editing
Best Makeup
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Sound Editing
Best Sound Mixing
Best Visual Effects
Best Animated Feature Film
Best Documentary Feature
Best Foreign Language Film
Latest Posts
-
Lee Daniels's bonkers follow-up to 'Precious' aims for camp-classic statusThursday, May 24, 2012
-
Long-delayed Jack Kerouac adaptation isn't quite worth the waitWednesday, May 23, 2012
-
Yep, that's a Baz Luhrmann movieTuesday, May 22, 2012
-
With 'Men in Black III' on the way, we look at the legendary makeup artist's careerTuesday, May 22, 2012



























Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup/3rt
November 30, 2011 at 9:17PM EST Reply to CommentWhat matters to me is that Christmas came early for you.
Dean
November 30, 2011 at 9:22PM EST Reply to CommentI really hope the DVD release date will be soon. Don't add another year to us not in LA/NY who have already been waiting 5 years! I wish they had released it through VOD.
Roth Cornet
November 30, 2011 at 9:30PM EST Reply to CommentThere are no words sufficient to express my affection for this title.
RichardA
November 30, 2011 at 9:37PM EST Reply to CommentI can't wait to see it. "You Can Count On Me" is one of my favorites.
cinephile
November 30, 2011 at 9:37PM EST Reply to Comment"despite ecstatic reviews from the comparatively few critics who have been privileged enough to see it."
I am sorry - but the film has got 61% at rottentomatoes (52% from top critics) with the verdict: "Margaret bristles with ideas and emotion, but that doesn't justify its misguided sense of self-importance and brutal run time."
At metacritic, it got "mixed or average reviews", 58 out of 100.
Sure, there are several critics who are kind of ecstatic about it, but there are others that are absolutely not...
cinephile 25 top critics saw it and 52 are counted alltogether at RT, I might add...
November 30, 2011 at 9:40PM ESTGuy Lodge I'm interested to know why a single critic's quote can now broadly be declared "the verdict."
November 30, 2011 at 10:36PM ESTAnd let's not fall into the trap of throwing around review site scores like they mean anything. The conversation about divisive films can be so much more interesting than that.
JJ1 Guy, serious question; and my tone is not instigatory. You and others have said many times, paraphrasing, 'review score sites don't mean anything'. I'm talking Metacritic and/or RT. So how do you measure if a film is well reviewed? What critics do you read? Surely you must look for some sort of consensus or raves or pans from somewhere.
November 30, 2011 at 10:49PM ESTGuy Lodge Well, for starters, I don't "measure" in the mathematical sense, nor do I particularly seek consensus. But I have a rough group of critics who I think are valuable and/or influential, I keep track of what they're saying, and I draw impressions from that. I just think words mean more than numbers, that's all.
November 30, 2011 at 11:08PM ESTJLPatt Guy, RottenTomatoes literally posts a "verdict" at the top of a movie's page after enough reviews have come in. That's what Cinephile is referring to.
November 30, 2011 at 11:48PM ESTJJ1 Gotcha, Guy. I'm intrigued by numbers (in general) and the sites which post critical scores for films. But personally, I so often disagree with them that I just focus on my own fave critics and my own opinion, as well.
December 1, 2011 at 12:27AM ESTDean It's a little idealistic to say Metacritic for example is meaningless. If the group of critics you like all happened to pan a certain film saying there's no value in it, yet they are in the minority of opinion and the film gets an 85 score, are you saying you wouldn't want to see it?
December 1, 2011 at 3:00AM ESTOf course it shouldn't be taken too seriously, but for people who don't want to go see every theatrical release, aka 75% shit, Metacrtic is a VERY helpful too. Granted, a lot of "dfficult" films that many consider great get mixed reviews. But I do agree it would be misleading to call Margaret well-reviewed.
cinephile As JLPlatt pointed out, I meant the "verdict" at the top of Margaret's rotten tomatoes page.
December 1, 2011 at 9:16AM ESTAlso, it's great that you support this film, it's just that your statement that FoxSearchlight is neglecting an awards campaign "despite ecstatic reviews from the comparatively few critics who have been privileged enough to see it" is a bit mistakable, because obviously there were a lot of critics who saw it (as I said, 25 top critics) and who were clearly NOT ecstatic about it. New York Times, New York Magazine, New York Observer, Variety, Salon, Los Angeles Times, New York Post... and yes, there are others who absolutely loved it.
But hell, the rottentomatoes or metacritic score is obviously something that can be referred to, there HAVE to be some guidelines when you talk about how a movie would fare awards-wise.
In one of there last Oscar talks, Kris and Anne talked about J.Edgar, wondering about its awards chances, looked at its RT score, saw that it got 41% (I know, a lot worse than Margaret, BUT the top critics average is even 55%, better than Margaret's...), and were like: Wow. It's probably out of the race except for acting, and no, Leo can't win any more.
cinephile My comment above is @ Guy Lodge...
December 1, 2011 at 9:17AM ESTGuy Lodge Thank you. I revised my phrasing slightly. I guess I don't think these "guidelines" of which you speak are as crucial as you do. It's quite possible to gauge the year's critical success stories without ever clicking on a review aggregate site. But horses for courses, etc.
December 1, 2011 at 9:24AM ESTGuy Lodge Dean: Please note I didn't say "a group of critics I like," I said ones that are valuable and/or influential. Happily, there's a lot of overlap there, but there are plenty of critics whose opinions I find it useful to track, even if I don't much like their writing.
December 1, 2011 at 10:05AM ESTI know this hardly needs pointing out, but in the grand scheme of things, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are relatively new institutions. The internet has made it easier to gather critical opinion, but that doesn't mean it wasn't possible before.
Guy Lodge Finally, I'm not against the use of such sites to access reviews -- they're obviously helpful in that respect. It's when some readers ignore the individual reviews and just throw around numerical averages that things get sticky. Rotten Tomatoes percentages start getting referred to as value grades for the film itself, as opposed to a proportion of positive critical response -- a subtle but crucial difference, particularly in the case of polarising films where critical opinion leans heavily one way or the other, but rarely in line with the mezzo-mezzo numbers many RT readers then associate with such films.
December 1, 2011 at 10:12AM ESTRufus
November 30, 2011 at 9:44PM EST Reply to CommentYou are one of the only critics I read who hasn't dismissed the film. I saw it, and thought it was bad. Were you drunk? (I'm not trying to be rude so I apology in advance if my response comes across as such.. I'm sincerely stunned that you enjoyed this film.)
Guy Lodge If you're not trying to be rude, try asking questions more constructive than "Were you drunk?" Shouldn't we be grateful that critics can disagree strongly on a film without casting aspersions on the critical faculties of one faction?
November 30, 2011 at 10:33PM ESTLev Lewis
November 30, 2011 at 11:06PM EST Reply to CommentHow this isn't winning every screenplay award out there is something I may never understand.
Andrew Rech
December 1, 2011 at 12:08AM EST Reply to CommentIt's so frustrating that even in limited release it was hardly anywhere. I moved to Seattle from a small town at the beginning of September and I was excited because I thought maybe Margaret would come here since I knew it's release was going to be a total blunder. But no, not even here. And now several of my favorite critics - including you Guy, and Nick Davis among others - have had such great things to say about it, it's making me more impatient to see it. You Can Count On Me was one of my top films of the last decade. It's going to be irritating having to wait until early 2012 to be able to see it on home video release, when I'd much rather see something this ambitious on the big screen :\
Lola
December 1, 2011 at 12:10AM EST Reply to CommentThey probably are a confused about what to do with it. But what about Jessica Lange in 'Blue Sky'...that was filmed in like 91' and she won Best Actress for it a few years later after the film sat in a vault because of legal disputes! I don't know how you feel about Oscar Nominee Jeannie Berlin's performance, but on Awards Dailey there is a FYC ad for her!
JJ1 Funny you mention Lange as I'm curretly watching her on my tv in American Horror Story. LOVE that show, and her in it.
December 1, 2011 at 12:28AM ESTPeter Labuza
December 1, 2011 at 2:05AM EST Reply to CommentJust because people seem confused, a list of critics who consider themselves #TeamMargaret: Richard Brody (New Yorker), Jamie Christy (Slant), Scott Tobias (AV Club), Mary Pols (Time), Bilge Ebiri (NYMag), Vadim Rizov (Sight & Sound), Allison Wilmore (Movieline), Matt Singer (IFC News), Glen Kenny (MSN Movies), and Ben Keningsberg (Time Out Chicago)
red_wine
December 1, 2011 at 2:12AM EST Reply to Comment"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new."
:D I am intrigued by your reaction and would like to see it. A recommendation this ardent from you Guy certainly has its weight.
BJT
December 1, 2011 at 2:13AM EST Reply to CommentGuy,
Where is this showing in London? I've searched the usual web listings and can't find it anywhere?
Also do you know if it's likely to show in Manchester at any point?
Cheers
Guy Lodge It'll be showing at the Odeon Panton Street from tomorrow. Unfortunately, given how minute the London release is, I doubt it'll travel.
December 1, 2011 at 8:15AM ESTBill A Would love a Manchester showing too, like so many others I've been anticipating Margaret for the last several years. To add to the critical momentum, there are 5-star reviews in the Guardian and Telegraph today and I can't even see the film unless I travel to one cinema in London. Crazy.
December 2, 2011 at 7:25AM ESTwisconsinkel
December 1, 2011 at 2:43AM EST Reply to CommentJessica Lange won her Best Actress for a film made almost 4-5 years before it was initially released. There is still hope...
Alberto But she hadn't changed so dramatically as Paquin has. The girl in the film doesn't correspond to the household name she is today. I hope I'm wrong, though.
December 1, 2011 at 10:40AM ESTJanice You're exaggerating a bit. "Blue Sky" was filmed in 1991 and released in 1994.
December 4, 2011 at 4:04AM EST
December 1, 2011 at 3:56AM EST Reply to CommentI AM SO HAPPY YOU WROTE ABOUT THIS FILM. THANK YOU.
I generally love to see people fight in film. Anger, to me, is something kind of beautiful and hilarious in its absurdity, because it's generally the last step in rationalization when people don't know what else to do anymore. With 'Margaret', though, that anger masks a deep, piercing sadness and grief and honestly, the film is as incisive and painful a movie as one I've ever seen. I had a lump in my throat and my chest the rest of the day after. When I think of brutal filmmaking, I think of Bergman or 'Blue Valentine' or 'United 93' - something relentless and uncompromising. Which 'Margaret' totally is.
Thank you for writing this. <3
Alberto
December 1, 2011 at 7:54AM EST Reply to CommentHonestly, I'm ecstatic abut your ecstatic reaction to the film. You're one of the few critics I personally can trust (and one of the few who write deep, engaging reviews without spoiling the plot), so my hopes for this film have suddenly got a fresh impetus. It's been my most anticipated film for years, not only because I loved YCCOM, but because I have an odd thing for Anna Paquin. Regardless of her dreadful Sookie in True Blood, she had shown great potential in some small parts after her Oscar win, and I always thought a film like Margaret is what she needed to prove them true. So I'm more than pleased to see the mention to her turn in your comment. However, even with a 'normal' release in 2011, I think people would have some problems recognizing a performance by an actor who is, actually, a completely different person now. Let's see, but this is already great news for me.
k3m
December 1, 2011 at 5:28PM EST Reply to CommentI love your review and I certainly hope the online campaign gets someone's attention. What a great cast in a movie I can't even see.
rosengje
December 1, 2011 at 8:01PM EST Reply to CommentI loved parts of this film (though found it messy overall), so I am thrilled that it's getting additional critical attention.
I think aspects of this petition, however, are a tad disingenuous. As Nick Davies pointed out, screeners and screenings do make films more convenient, but I think it was incumbent upon the many critics that had access to "Margaret" theatrically to seek it out. Critics in major markets chose not to see the movie, with many (Kris included) expressing indifference in the film's release. Fox Searchlight has no doubt treated the film terribly, but the critics didn't exactly rally behind it either.
bentclouds The film wasn't released in a lot of major markets.
December 1, 2011 at 10:19PM ESTgg
December 2, 2011 at 12:24AM EST Reply to Comment"Had this had a respectable, drama-free arthouse release a few years ago, there's little doubt in my mind that Anna Paquin would be a two-time Oscar nominee (at least) by now". Wow, fanboy comment much? Embarrassing.
Guy Lodge I'd have to be an Anna Paquin fanboy for that to be the case. I just think it's next-level work from her, of the scale and heft that, under normal circumstances, would easily catch awards voters' attention. If that's "embarrassing," so be it.
December 2, 2011 at 5:37AM ESTKristopher Tapley Guy's right.
December 7, 2011 at 1:33PM EST