I'm not exactly thrilled by any of these choices by name alone. I actually would have loved to see Albert Brooks nominated and win for his role in Drive, which was fantastic. I have only seen 2 of these prior to my reviewing and both were kinda average. Plummer's nomination is intriguing because he is the clear cut favorite and will most likely win the Oscar, so it'll be interesting to see if it is actually worthy. 2011 is shaping up to be the year of the mediocre nominees in every category.
2011 Best Supporting Actor
Christopher Plummer - Beginners
We don't get to see enough of Hal (Plummer's character) in my opinion, as we are force fed these endearing moments in his later life as he embraces his homosexuality with a zeal and vigor of a much younger man. You can't help but like Hal as he is far from flamboyant, taking a more earnest approach as if coming to terms with his new found out-ness is like finding he really enjoys making pottery or playing the tuba. We are immediately aware that Hal has passed away since the story is told in flashbacks and we are told he is gay in the very beginning, which unfortunately doesn't allow the audience to organically form their own opinion of Hal. Plummer is a man in complete control of his craft and embodies the role perfectly. His portrayal of Hal is honest and believable, if lacking in true originality, and he plays the character with a sweet sincerity. Unfortunately, we never get past the face value of Hal, never dive into his soul to see who he really he is and why he is that way. This keeps the performance from being truly well-rounded and makes it feel a little one-note at times.
Kenneth Branagh - My Week with Marilyn
I can't say that I know all that much about Laurence Olivier and what he looked like but I do know Kenneth Branagh from all his Shakespeare productions and I can't envision him as one of the most beloved British actors of all time. He plays the character like another Shakespeare creation and really goes full earnest. What it really reminded me of is Kenneth Branagh playing whoever and being perturbed that Monroe dares to screw up her lines and get the scene wrong. This grew to a hot indignation at her diva-like behavior that he ultimately wasn't able to do anything about. He would let Monroe take as much time as she wanted before she galloped out to do her thing while the rest of the cast and crew scrambled to get in place. Branagh is an amazing talent to be sure and does a requisite job for getting his character of Laurence Olivier across but it never delved into depth or nuance and never asked anymore of Branagh, especially when his character demanded it of Monroe. It's painfully obvious, too, that Branagh wants so very much to be the acting royalty Olivier is and while he may be inspired, his performance is not inspiring to us the viewer.
Jonah Hill - Moneyball
Hill's role as Peter Brand is used essentially as a character for which Pitt to act against and bounce his snappy dialogue back and forth with. That's not to say that Hill's superbly understated role as the geeky, nervousy, computer whiz is underutilized. The character does a great job of balancing Pitt's hyper and somewhat manic-y Beane and acts as the comic foil to what could be some of the more serious, yet boring, moments. Hill understands when to hold back and let Pitt do his thing and when to turn up the acting volume and hold his own. There's times when Hill (and his character) come off timid when going up against Pitt, but Hill is able to nicely settle into his role, and eventually by the end of the film -- own it. Hill allows the character to dictate how things go and his decision to not ham it up when the opportunities present themselves (which must be hard for a comedic actor) speaks to his acting ability. The subtlety of his character and his actions helps buoy this performance into another level.
Nick Nolte - Warrior
I've read in various places that this is the quintessential Nolte role and while I haven't seen enough of his stuff to say so otherwise, I know of his issues and reputation. It would seem Nolte is playing a version of his actual self with this role and that it's not exactly much of a stretch. Where does one draw the line for acting and reality? And should the fact that we can't tell the difference mean it is good or bad? I tend to side with it's good because I assume most actors act from experience or at least by studying someone like their character. To say Nolte is believable in Warrior would be an understatement, as he is effective as the recovering alcoholic father who once physically abused his two sons before they left him. While it's clearly a good performance, it's not exactly as powerful as it should be - especially given the subject it's dealing with. It should have been a chance to really wow the audience and steal scenes but that doesn't really happen. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh because I actually did like Nolte in this film (which is a lot better than I thought it would be), I just would have liked a little bit more from him.
Max von Sydow - Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
An interesting year for silent performances. Max (because it's shorter than typing out von Sydow) does an admirable job in this 9-11 weepy about a boy coming to grips with the loss of his father. He plays an old mute who travels with Oskar as he tries to find where a key he found in his father's closet belongs. Max has a very tired and weathered face that is extremely expressive and it helps add to his charm throughout the film. Max becomes a pseudo father figure for Oskar during their time together and plays his character with a genuine aloofness that can be somewhat endearing. But his emoting begins to lose its luster after a while and the scenes begin to feel a little repetitive. And even though this is Oskar's story, we never get a chance to delve into Max's character and why exactly he turned mute besides an all too brief scene in a bar that only scratches the surface. There's way more to this character than is presented here and for that reason this performance only satisfies a tiny bit of my hunger for a role that could be more fulfilling.
Overall, these nominations are pretty underwhelming. Nothing stands head and shoulders above the others and it really seems to be the theme for this year. I'm not sure what that says about film in 2011 or the Academy, but I think they may have made more than a few mistakes in their nominations. Which just gives more fuel to the fire that the Academy is out of touch with what the current public and critics love. If and when Plummer wins, he will be the oldest Oscar winner ever at 82. Neither Nolte nor Branagh did all that much for me and both von Sydow and Plummer gave performances that were about equal in my estimation. They didn't exactly wow me, especially Plummer who will probably win, which I was really hoping one them would. Hill is my favorite just due to me liking the character and the subtle performance he gave. I don't really understand the derision Hill has received for being nominated and how badly he has been put down in some blogs and prognostications sites. I can only think that his comedy background is the reason anyone would hate on him because his role really speaks for itself. Maybe it has to do with others wanting von Sydow or Plummer to get their first Oscars as nods to their careers. If I had my way, Albert Brooks from Drive would have been nominated and would have been my winner. Sadly, I have no Academy vote.
Oscar Winner: Christopher Plummer - Beginners
My Winner: Jonah Hill - Moneyball
Christopher Plummer
Max von Sydow
Nick Nolte
Kenneth Branagh
No comments:
Post a Comment