Eddie Redmayne Archives - The Wide Screen

November 11, 2020

Mads Mikkelsen In Talks To Join “Fantastic Beasts 3” As Grindelwald!

Like it or not, Johnny Depp has now been officially ruled a wife-beater by a British court, and there’s likely very little he can do at this point to prove otherwise. The ruling, which came about after a prolonged legal battle between Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard (whom Depps claims physically and emotionally abused him, and who herself claims to be the victim of Depp’s own abusive tendencies), has already led to consequences for Depp, at least from a business perspective: it wasn’t long after the court case ended that Warner Brothers announced they had let him go from the Fantastic Beasts franchise. Depp was actually the first to break the news, in an Instagram post where he admitted that Warner Brothers had asked him to resign from the role of the dark wizard Grindelwald, a pivotal character in the franchise whom he has played since the Fantastic Beasts franchise’s start in 2016.

What both Depp and Warner Brothers neglected to mention at the time was that Depp, who had not yet filmed any scenes for the third film in the Fantastic Beasts series, would nonetheless be receiving his full 8-figure salary for his work. In light of that reveal, I think we can all agree that – no matter how you feel about Depp and the allegations against him – the actor has been left financially well-equipped by Warner Brothers to continue his fight in court (he hopes to challenge Heard again for libel, here in the United States), and probably find work elsewhere before long. In the meantime, filming is still underway for Fantastic Beasts 3, but the movie now needs a new Grindelwald fast – he’s not a side-character who can just be removed from the story. He’s the main antagonist of the series.

Luckily for the franchise and its small but admittedly devoted hardcore fandom, it seems that Fantastic Beasts director David Yates has long had a replacement in mind, and thus, after just a few days, Yates and Warner Brothers have expressed their intent to bring Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen into the Wizarding World. Mikkelsen, who is often cited as the actor most people wish had gotten the role in the first place, is already in early talks to join the series – a bold and potentially very risky move for the actor, who has up until now made mostly solid career choices: his most significant role to date being Hannibal in the popular TV series of the same name. He hasn’t had much luck when it comes to big film franchises, which may be part of the reason why he’s interested in taking the juicy role of Grindelwald – a charismatic fascist dictator whom we last saw mustering armies of dark wizards to conquer the world and enslave the non-magical population, and who cunningly manipulates the emotions of his nemesis and former lover, Albus Dumbledore. A few years ago I think all this would have been quite enough to convince Mikkelsen (or anyone, really) to take the role. But nowadays, I would personally be hesitant to attach Mikkelsen to the Fantastic Beasts franchise and its swiftly growing hurricane of controversy – for Mikkelsen’s sake.

It’s not just because Mikkelsen will receive a barrage of unwarranted abuse from Johnny Depp’s most ardent supporters, who will cry foul and continue to defend Depp’s right to return to the role; it’s not just that Mikkelsen will have to work around and hopefully overcome valid criticisms that the characters of Grindelwald and Albus Dumbledore are written intentionally vaguely so as to queerbait audiences; it’s not even just that J.K. Rowling, the series’ creator and lead writer, is a ticking time bomb who has done her level best to destroy her own reputation and the reputations of those who associate with her by constantly waging war on the trans community in a series of attacks that ranged from depicting transwomen in her adult crime novels as serial killers by nature, to writing up entire essays about how she thinks transwomen are infiltrating spaces reserved for cisgender women or being forced to transition by nefarious forces, to unfollowing fellow author Stephen King on Twitter after he simply proclaimed that transwomen are women. It’s also that Fantastic Beasts is a struggling franchise overall, one which any bystander can see is probably on a collision course with disaster. While the first film was fairly decent and made a good profit, the sequel derailed the story entirely – and unsurprisingly, it drew in overwhelmingly negative reviews before dying a long, slow, death at the box office. Fantastic Beasts 3 is now being moved from the franchise’s consistent, safe, November release date to an alarming spot in mid-July, where it will open just a week after Captain Marvel 2, the sequel to last year’s female-led, billion-dollar-club entry. At one point, this series was supposed to be a five-film epic: now, with everything up in the air, it’s going to be extraordinarily difficult to make a fourth or fifth film happen, and J.K. Rowling would be wise to at least try and wrap up the entire series in this third movie – the only one she’s assured to get. But with the way she’s been acting recently, I’m not holding my breath. What seems more likely is that she’ll end Fantastic Beasts 3 on yet another bizarre cliffhanger just before the entire franchise gets gently terminated, leaving us all unsatisfied, frustrated, and exhausted. Either that or Warner Brothers sticks with J.K. Rowling’s vision and continues to suffer the consequences.

And as for Mads Mikkelsen personally, well, he’ll get a big paycheck for sure, but the laundry list of possible consequences for him for taking this role goes on. Right upfront, he’ll be expected to come up with an excuse for how he can be comfortable working under J.K. Rowling – and, in fact, all the Fantastic Beasts stars will need to do so before long. So far, the series’ lead Eddie Redmayne has wavered between vocally condemning Rowling’s harsh rhetoric and writing supportive letters to her. Mikkelsen should be ready with a statement of his own: if he signs on, he will become the first major actor to join the franchise after Rowling’s transphobic views became widely-known, putting him in an unenviable position. For the moment, he’ll also carry the massive burden of trying to rescue the franchise (assuming that’s even a concern of Warner Brothers’ at this point): he’s the only new name thus far attached to the cast, and none of his costars, not even Jude Law, did much to draw audiences to theaters when the last film came out in 2018. Depp’s parting and Rowling’s statements make it inevitable that we’ll also see calls to boycott in the months and weeks leading up to the film’s release: there’s a widespread feeling among the fandom that supporting Fantastic Beasts financially equals supporting transphobia.

With that being said, Mikkelsen is popular enough that he might actually be able to rescue the franchise, though he’ll never be able to repair all the damage that’s been done. Since the news of his involvement broke last night, I’ve been surprised to see a surge of people expressing renewed interest in the upcoming third film, saying that they’ll watch it just for Mikkelsen, or at least catch it on HBO Max. Granted, this moment of hype could die out by the time the film actually opens, and we’ll have to see how Mikkelsen looks and acts in the Grindelwald costume (or if he gets embroiled in any controversy of his own, something I truly hope doesn’t happen), but he’s almost certain to turn in a great performance: the kind of performance that could even get Fantastic Beasts some good reviews. If Warner Brothers is trying to get this franchise off their hands, they might have chosen too good an actor to make that possible just yet.

So what do you think? Is Mikkelsen a much-needed win for a franchise getting back on its feet after failure, or is this a disastrous career choice the actor will regret for a long time? Share your own thoughts, theories, and opinions, in the comments below!

October 17, 2020

“The Trial Of The Chicago 7” Review!

Aaron Sorkin’s The Trial Of The Chicago 7 is certainly going to be a strong contender, and probably even a frontrunner, in the race for Best Picture at next year’s Academy Awards ceremony, but it’s right now, as 2020 finally nears its end and as the U.S. Presidential election creeps closer, that the whole world should be watching this film and learning or relearning the incredible story of the Chicago 7: not just the men themselves, each one a fascinating character in their own right, but the larger cultural and political significance of their trial – a trial where American governmental and legal institutions not only failed to protect the rights of protestors, but actively sought to suppress them. Although the Chicago 7 were arrested for protesting the Vietnam War, their struggle is both relevant and relatable in the modern day – in 2020 especially, as protests across the nation in the wake of an unarmed Black man’s death in June led to a violent response from our government and law enforcement.

So who were the Chicago 7, and why was their trial such a landmark moment in this nation’s history? The historical context is always important to know, and the history behind this particular case is truly fascinating. The film opens mere days before the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, 1968, as several different activist groups intent on protesting the selection of the party’s nominee, Hubert Humphrey, converged on the city from all around the country: and then, after a montage introducing each of our seven main players, we jump ahead by five months – the trial is already about to begin, and Richard Nixon’s administration personally wants each and every one of them behind bars for the maximum sentence. Whether you know what happened in Chicago or not during the convention, it’s enthralling either way as Aaron Sorkin’s story slowly begins to uncover, through the help of flashbacks, what really went down as the protesters marched through the city and ran into the heavily armed Chicago Police. Anyone who’s been paying attention to the news this year already knows what went down, even if they don’t know the exact details of this particular incident.

Throughout the chaos and violence, Aaron Sorkin’s story keeps us focused on the humanity of the Chicago 7, and contrasts that with the horrific lack of empathy from the police. Again, the discussion of “empathy vs apathy” is significant to our modern climate, and Sorkin’s film closes with a beautiful – and factually inaccurate – display of human empathy at its most inspiring and powerful. It’s never lost on Sorkin that this was the trial of real men, not just lofty ideals and philosophies. And almost every main actor in the ensemble cast plays their part to its fullest, breathing life into these little-known but incredible historical figures.

Sacha Baron Cohen and Eddie Redmayne are very much leading co-stars, in my opinion, but it’s Baron Cohen who makes the strongest impression as the tall, lanky Yippie activist Abbie Hoffman and makes a good case for why he should finally be recognized as an actor equally gifted in both comedy and drama (since apparently his starring role in The Spy wasn’t enough evidence for some of you). A Best Actor nomination had better be incoming for Baron Cohen: even despite the fact that the film cuts out some, arguably most, of Hoffman’s most eccentric real-life antics in court, Baron Cohen makes him the wittiest, most vivid character in the film – and the story’s beating heart and stand-in for most of the counterculture movement of the late 60’s.

Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, meanwhile, excels as the more stoic, solemn Bobby Seale, a member of the Black Panthers who was arrested alongside the other defendants but whose case was later severed from the others’. Seale’s mistreatment in the courtroom – including a horrifying incident in which Judge Julius Hoffman (Frank Langella) orders that he be bound and gagged, to the point where Seale is unable to breathe – is all taken from real life and shines a light on how the law itself is weaponized against the Black community just as much as the militaristic might of law enforcement. By that time in the film, you’ll already be well aware that the trial of the Chicago 7 was not a fair one, but the treatment of Bobby Seale adds violent racism and white supremacy to the mix as well. The Black Panthers, including their leader Fred Hampton (briefly but powerfully portrayed by Kelvin Harrison Jr.), don’t have a very large role in the film overall but their appearances do help to underscore the fact that any conversation about cultural and political revolution needs to include Black voices, no matter what era it occurs in – and of course, it’s an especially important message to get across since the cultural and political revolution happening in this country nowadays is largely being fueled by Black activists and their allies.

In this film, however, Eddie Redmayne’s version of the real-life Tom Hayden comes across as something of an opponent to such progressive messaging throughout most of the film. His character seems largely crafted to provide a foil for Sacha Baron Cohen’s – a stiff, uptight, idealist trying to distance himself and his group, the Students for a Democratic Society, from the counterculture movement of the Yippies. But it appears that Sorkin is also using his character to represent a number of liberal subdivisions in political activism that claim to be “for change” until that actually requires listening to the voices of underrepresented minorities or demanding comprehensive structural change within our government, from the ground up. Hayden is like so many activists who try to make their movements more “appealing” or “attractive” to the mainstream by presenting a mostly white facade to the media, at the cost of the marginalized communities they claim to be fighting for; and then he is like one of those people who seem to believe that winning a single election is all that has to be done to fix problems such as racism, but aren’t prepared to advocate for designing a new system of government that would ensure we actually see some substantial change and progress. It’s all a little bit unfair to the real-life Tom Hayden, who actually fell more in line with counterculture philosophy than the film would have you believe. Anyway, Redmayne’s performance is perfectly decent: it leans toward being a bit wooden, but his attempts to maintain a passable American accent are entertaining at least.

As for the other defendants, they have their moments. Jeremy Strong is maybe trying a bit too hard with his borderline caricature of Yippie leader Jerry Rubin, John Carroll Lynch is doing his best with what little screentime David Dellinger has been given, and Alex Sharp, Noah Robbins and Daniel Flaherty are…well, they’re there. But the other real standout on this side of the courtroom is Mark Rylance as the defense lawyer William Kuntzler, somehow confidently rocking a combover, who rallies the group during their darkest moments, adds some very natural humor to his interactions with his clients, particularly the Yippies, and holds his own against the indomitable, immovable presence of Julius Hoffman.

On the other side, well…I have fewer positive things to say about Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s portrayal of prosecutor Richard Schultz, who has been written as a semi-sympathetic character who’s maybe conflicted, maybe not…who knows? He gets one moment near the end of the film where he’s allowed to look all heroic and redeemed in the audience’s eyes, despite the fact that he is still very clearly fighting on behalf of the Nixon administration to put men in jail for their thoughts. But regardless of whether or not you feel that Schultz is really a good guy or not, I think we can all agree that Judge Julius Hoffman is (and was) just straight-up hateful, ignorant and repulsive.

That being said, Frank Langella works wonders with the role, which allows him to transform into a character almost as wildly eccentric as Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman – and in fact, it’s with the other Hoffman that he shares his most memorable scenes in the film (and yes, the fact that they coincidentally share a last name is the subject of much argument between the two; just as it was in real-life). Julius Hoffman is a grotesque display of why preserving the status quo, even in this day and age, isn’t good enough: because the status quo is one that was made by white men for white men, and will always work to benefit white men. The fact that Julius Hoffman is actually less outlandishly awful in the movie than he was in real life is mind-boggling and sad.

(While we’re on the subject, I feel like I have to touch on the fact that Sorkin’s film actually leaves out a great deal of the trial proceedings, including some celebrity appearances that would have made for some incredibly funny interludes between the more serious parts of the story: for instance, in reality, poet Allen Ginsburg was called in as a witness (he appears in the film, very briefly, as a protester) and proceeded to chant at the judge; singer Judy Collins appeared to discuss the counterculture movement and began to sing, before being shut down; and singer Arlo Guthrie appeared and apparently entranced Julius Hoffman with a lengthy plot synopsis of Alice’s Restaurant – he too was silenced after he began to sing. I’m not sure whether Sorkin felt these events would be too fantastical for audiences to believe, or whether he just didn’t have time to include them, but I can’t say I’m not a little disappointed. At the very least, Judy Collins would have been a remarkable female presence in a film dominated by an almost all-male cast).

In so many ways, despite its occasional flaws, Aaron Sorkin has made not only an excellent courtroom drama but a film which defines the prevailing spirit of 2020, at least in the United States of America – and it couldn’t have been released at a more critical moment, although it would be an instant classic in any era: all year long, we’ve witnessed in real-time as our American government has crumbled under the weight of an administration that has failed its people; as bigoted individuals sheltered by a law enforcement system corrupt to its core have targeted and murdered American citizens because of the color of their skin; as the vote, seemingly the most powerful and politically correct method by which a person can voice their opinion, is being threatened by institutions that would seek to render us voiceless and thus powerless. But The Trial Of The Chicago 7 is a much-needed demonstration of the power of protest: the raw, inspiring power that we have when we raise our voices in harmony, and demand change. The film takes place in 1969, but it’s a story we can all relate to in 2020 because we’re still fighting that same injustice, because we will always fight it as long as it exists.

Let the record show that we made our voices heard.

Rating: 9.5/10

November 4, 2019

“Fantastic Beasts 3” Has Been Greenlit!

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald was not a good movie. In fact, it can be argued that it was a downright bad one – certainly critics and audiences were almost unanimous in their condemnation of the film’s many convoluted subplots, crowded cast of characters, and disrespect toward Wizarding World canon. Nonetheless, many of us hoped and prayed that, despite fan backlash, despite that ugly Rotten score, despite (worst of all) the lower box-office returns, the franchise could reach its full potential in a third installment, a third film that could right Grindelwald‘s wrongs and put the series back on track. We, the faithful few, suffered devastating setback after devastating setback: the film was pushed back to a 2021 release date; star Ezra Miller’s busy schedule seemed to indicate that he might be leaving the Beasts franchise, or worse, that it might be canceled – these were the concerns that kept us awake at night. We heard rumors that Johnny Depp was out as Grindelwald; that Warner Brothers had lost faith in writer J.K. Rowling’s ability to turn out a good film; that nothing was certain.

Today, one year after Crimes Of Grindelwald put the franchise’s future into question – a third film has been confirmed.

"Fantastic Beasts 3" Has Been Greenlit! 1 — cinemablend.com

Beasts is not dead, despite how long it took to get the series off of life-support. In Fantastic Beasts 3, the franchise will need to work harder than ever before to convince fans to stick around – but Rowling can’t rely on the same tactics she thought would make Grindelwald an instant hit: her literary style, the complexity of her stories, her excessive callbacks to Harry Potter – that all needs to stop now, for the third film to work. No more subplots within subplots within subplots, all stuffed into one gigantic red-herring; no more half-baked characters tossed into the story to fill up space and time; no more queer-baiting Grindelwald and Dumbledore’s LGBTQ relationship. It’s time to put the focus back where it belongs, on the core narrative of our four heroes (Newt Scamander, Jacob Kowalski, Tina and Queenie Goldstein), and strip away the layers upon layers of underdeveloped plot that turned Grindelwald into the tangled mess that it was. Bring us back to basics, Jo, and give us a good, stand-alone story that is comprehensible, accessible, and enjoyable.

Thankfully, she’s not alone. As many of us suspected and hoped would be the case, a real screenwriter has been brought onboard to assist Rowling in translating her impressive vision to the big screen: Steve Kloves, the writer for all of the Harry Potter films (except Order Of The Phoenix). Rowling was originally set the write the third film on her own, but reason has prevailed.

I’m not saying that Rowling is not a good writer – on the contrary, I believe she is quite an excellent one: she has an eye for detail, she weaves clues and hints into her writing in an intriguing way that allows fans to play along, and she has a knack for compelling mystery (so much so that, when not writing wizard books/movies, she writes mystery novels under a pseudonym). But her style is best suited to the literary format, where she has all the time she needs to write those mysteries and weave those intricate stories. In a two-hour film, her plot is virtually bursting at the seams, demanding to be given space to breathe, pleading with the viewer for more time – time that Rowling simply doesn’t have. With a professional screenwriter at her side, she will hopefully be able to edit her story down to a decent size, give it a clear focus, and make it just a bit more cinematic: certainly there’s enough in the third film to make a good movie, it just needs a good script.

Fantastic Beasts 3 is confirmed to be another world-hopping adventure like the first two films, with Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, set as one of the main locations – though the Deadline article in which the news broke does make it seem like the story will span several continents: which would fit in with what star Dan Fogler suggested earlier this year, that the third film would be bigger in scale than the first two combined. Oh please, Jo, don’t mess this up. This could be your last chance – don’t mess this up!

The regular cast, including Johnny Depp as Grindelwald and Jude Law as young Albus Dumbledore, are confirmed to be returning for the third film. Jessica Williams, who had a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameo in Grindelwald as Professor Eulalie “Lally” Hicks, will also have a pivotal role, though no further details have been revealed about her character. Production will begin in Spring of 2020.

What do you think of the news? Are you relieved, or disappointed that the franchise is continuing? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

September 24, 2019

Jonah Hill (Maybe) Cast In “The Batman”!

With the focus all on Bruce Wayne’s nemesis Joker for the past few weeks, with critics and early audiences chattering excitedly about controversy and Oscar drama, it’s understandable why plenty of people have probably forgotten about, you know, Bruce Wayne. But yes, indeed, there is a new Batman movie coming out of DC Studios, and the headlines it’s been stirring up today might turn the attention away from Joker for just a little while (not enough to make a dent in that film’s box-office tracking, though).

The Matt Reeves-directed Batman prequel, simply entitled The Batman, already caused quite a rift in the DCEU fandom when it cast Robert Pattinson in the lead role, as the franchise’s newest Dark Knight. But since then, there’s been little to no news about the film, and much of what has been rumored seems “too good to be true”. Daisy Ridley was rumored at one point to be playing Batgirl; then it was Andy Serkis as a possible candidate for The Penguin; Eddie Redmayne lobbying for the role of The Riddler; Vanessa Hudgens wanting to play Catwoman; Josh Gad campaigning for The Penguin; just last night Zendaya made unintentional waves in the Batman fandom by wearing green to the Emmys, which, according to some, was a nod to Poison Ivy; only a few weeks ago it was Rihanna who accidentally got herself labeled as Poison Ivy by over-enthusiastic theorists; so on and so on. The list of A-list actors who want to be in The Batman to accompany Pattinson on his journey back to stardom is incredibly long, but so far none of these are more than rumors or fan-speculation. And as for the actual cast that is being assembled, well, it’s a lot more low-key. Matt Reeves has already made it clear he’s going for a much more grounded approach to the superhero than has been previously attempted, so maybe he just doesn’t want big, flashy superstars distracting from his vision. Whatever his reasoning, he’s just picked out two actors for lead roles – and, well, they might not be Rihanna, but they’re nothing to sneeze at, either.

First, Westworld‘s Jeffrey Wright has apparently been cast to play Commissioner Jim Gordon, Gotham City detective, Batman ally, and, most importantly, the father of Barbara Gordon, a.k.a. Batgirl. Wright’s casting suggests that a woman of color could be up for that coveted role: considering that Batgirl, in the comics, happens to be a white woman with red hair, this will undoubtedly spark more of the usual uproar about how “Hollywood hates redheads”, a statement that is still laughably wrong no matter how many times it gets brought up. However Reeves decides to interpret Barbara, though, the casting of her father is a win for Wright, who’s got a decent, but relatively low-profile resume: he’s definitely looking to change that, scoring roles in the next James Bond film, as well as Marvel’s What If? streaming show.

Then, there’s the big headline: Jonah Hill, a two-time Oscar nominee who has mostly flown under the radar with mainstream audiences, is in early talks to play a villain in The Batman, but neither he nor Warner Brothers can decide which one. Apparently Matt Reeves is intent on nabbing the Moneyball star, and Hill is intent on starring in this movie; it’s just a matter of figuring out which of Gotham’s legendary rogues is best suited for the dramatic actor. According to other trades, the conversation has been narrowed down to a choice between The Penguin and The Riddler, both iconic characters; but “it is unclear if the two sides will be able to find common ground”. I can’t imagine how difficult this choice could possibly be (if you’re going to cast Jonah Hill in your Batman movie, you cast him as The Penguin, there is no room for doubt), but all the reports are unanimous in saying that the delay has nothing to do with dealmaking, but everything to do with pure indecision. Personally, Hill as Penguin and Eddie Redmayne as Riddler sounds like a perfect scenario, and if it were up to me, I wouldn’t be hesitating, but Reeves and Warner Brothers probably know what they’re doing. Emphasis on probably…

The Batman is expected to include a large, possibly unprecedented number of villains, but no names are yet confirmed. So I turn the question to you: who would you like to see Jonah Hill play in the Caped Crusader’s solo movie? Share your thoughts in the comments below!