It was hard for many to believe because there was no date, there was no poster, no trailer, but it\u2019s true all the same: Martin Scorsese\u2019s \u201cSilence\u201d is officially set for a 2016 release.<\/p>\n
An adaptation of the 1966 Shusaku Endo novel of the same name, \u201cSilence\u201d \u2014 which stars Andrew Garfield, Liam Neeson, Adam Driver and Ciaran Hinds \u2014 has been a passion project for Scorsese for the better part of three decades. On paper, it has all the hallmarks of a prestige awards contender, but \u201con paper\u201d can steer you wrong. Look at any number of would-be Oscar dramas that went nowhere over the years.<\/p>\n
A source told me last month that the film was clocking in at 195 minutes at the time. Word is the studio was hoping Scorsese could cut it down, which is only natural: A 17th Century drama about Jesuit missionaries in Japan is a tough commercial sell as it is.<\/p>\n
But there could be other concerns as it pertains to the awards calendar, namely, getting screeners out to certain voting bodies in time and hitting arbitrarily early voting windows.<\/p>\n
Like with \u201cThe Wolf of Wall Street,\u201d which was also delivered late in the game, it\u2019s possible Paramount won\u2019t have time to produce \u201cSilence\u201d screeners for the Screen Actors Guild\u2019s nominating committee. Usually you need the film by mid-to-late October to pull that off. Otherwise, all the studio can do is hold screenings, probably the week of Nov. 21, and hope it can penetrate. (Funny, that used to be easy enough.)<\/p>\n
If SAG does end up a loss, though \u2014 like we saw with \u201cWolf,\u201d like we saw with \u201cDjango Unchained\u201d \u2014 it won\u2019t matter. Even with a voting deadline that leaves plenty of time (Dec. 11), SAG nominations are hard to come by without screeners. I would chalk it up to members of the nominating committee being spread all over the country, but there are plenty in New York and Los Angeles, so that just remains a fundamental quirk of SAG-AFTRA. Maybe they don\u2019t like leaving the house. I don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n
Also spread all over are members of the Broadcast Film Critics Assn., and with that group recently revealing plans to announce nominations on the obscenely early date of Dec. 1 this year (full disclosure: I\u2019m a member), it\u2019s fair to assume many won\u2019t see \u201cSilence\u201d in time to consider it.<\/p>\n
There will no doubt be a National Board of Review screening of the film in New York, however, in order for members to consider it for their Nov. 29 announcement. (The NBR screening deadline is Nov. 27 this year.) But if we\u2019re being honest, the only relevance that group has been able to maintain over the years has been achieved by consistently leap-frogging other organizations in order to be first out of the gate with a rendered judgment on the year in film.<\/p>\n
And then there\u2019s the intrigue of Paramount\u2019s slate. Coming into the season the studio already has a strong contender in Stephen Frears\u2019 \u201cFlorence Foster Jenkins.\u201d Denis Villeneuve\u2019s \u201cArrival\u201d has turned into a critical darling on the festival circuit. Anyone who caught \u201cThe Magnificent Seven\u201d in theaters this weekend saw the trailer for Denzel Washington\u2019s \u201cFences,\u201d based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning August Wilson play and a film that could become Paramount\u2019s big Oscar player. And amid the tabloid noise, Robert Zemeckis\u2019 \u201cAllied\u201d could stand out as a satisfying movie-movie that registers as well.<\/p>\n
All of that serves only to make the prospect of yet another contender that much more difficult to navigate.<\/p>\n