This was a year that I've wanted to come back to and review for a long time now. This is regarded as one of the worst BP winners and most shocking upsets ever. That irritates the fuck out of me because people champion Brokeback so much that they elevate that movie to a place it doesn't deserve to be. I like Crash and I'm not ashamed of that. But it also denigrates the other nominees here, as well. It'll be interesting to see how everything holds up especially after finally getting watch that gay cowboy movie.
2005 Best Picture
Crash
This is routinely said to be one of the worst Best Picture winners of all time and one of the biggest mistakes by the Academy ever. I HATE people who say this. I just absolutely, categorically disagree with them. I remember this being the first movie that I really, really wanted to win BP. I loved it and I still do. It's not my first Oscar memory but it's when I first starting paying serious attention to the race. I bristle at those that cry that Crash won because of homophobia or even to a lesser extent that it's an LA movie and that actors voted for their own. I mean, how absurd! Why wouldn't the actors vote for a film many considered to be the best and expertly acted in Brokeback? And I definitely don't buy the homophobia cries because it's not as if Brokeback is far and away the better film. If it was a classic and an all-time film, then sure that argument is valid but it's a good movie in a year of great movies. I really don't understand all the hate for Crash. Yes the message is in your face at times and drilled into your head over and over but it doesn't make it any less of a film or weaken the message. We are all definitely racist, bigoted, sexist, hateful in some way. This film shows just how subtle and not so subtle those ways can be. Sure, our lives might not be so neatly interconnected but the point still stands. Maybe we joke with our friends about something or get angry and say something derogatory when someone cuts us off or are scared when entering an area we deem to be full of people who might want to do us harm. I say all this in the broadest terms but we are as a society extremely racist and it's so pervasive in our culture almost to the point where it's just seen as a joke or part of normal society. I think Crash is an important film because it calls everyone out on our behavior. No one is exempt and I'm sure the same film could be made specific to any country in the world. That's why Crash is so good and relevant to me even today. Yes, it's heavy handed and speaks at us at times but I don't feel as that detracts in anyway from the overall message. There are literal and metaphorical car crashes that hammer home the point that in order to feel and commiserate we need to be a society that interacts with one another. We can't just be insulated in our own little cocoons. We need to deal with these issues head on, we need to examine our own selves and understand why we think these things. Crash seems to posit that a lot of it is from trauma and tragedies in our lives but it's way deeper than that. That's why I love Crash because it makes us think about these issues and really evaluate not just ourselves but society as a whole. It's a great launching pad for debate and whenever a movie can do that, it has succeeded. Some of the acting is top notch such as Don Cheadle and Terrence Howard and the music fits the film perfectly and adds a lot to the overall feel. Some of the shots of LA are breathtaking and make you feel as if you're in the middle of the action at times. Of course, some of the acting is not so good (Brendan Fraser, the Asian woman) and the writing struggles at times with the various actors but overall this is a really fantastic film. It doesn't deserve all the scorn and derision it continues to receive even today.
Brokeback Mountain
I have read so much about this film online by people who say it was robbed of the Best Picture Oscar and was a masterpiece and is one of the worst, most egregious Academy failures. Finally having watched it, I can't understand all that talk. I was expecting to agree with them or at least say yes it was indeed a phenomenal film. But it has it's flaws just like everyone complains that Crash does. Two of the words that kept coming up when reading reviews were inert and passion. Some reviewers felt that the directing and cinematography were inert and I'd have to agree. For being a western set film, the cinematography was bland and boring. Some of the shots of the landscape just lacked any feeling and scenes just felt pedestrian. You could argue that Ang Lee was just focused on the story and characters but then the other word - passion - comes up. I noted that there was a lack of passion in the romance between Jack and Ennis. There were blips here and there but I really wanted to root for the two cowboys but I wasn't really given any incentive to. The directing just seemed too reverent, as if a homosexual cowboy movie couldn't handle intimacy. Maybe they feared alienating the audience if they went "too gay" which is a shame because a movie about homosexual cowboys shouldn't keep itself in the closet. The story deserved the kid gloves being taken off to deal with the subject matter. It needed to be something honest but instead we got melodrama with paper thin supporting characters. However, it's not a terrible movie as I make it seem. It's an interesting love story that breaks new ground in mainstream cinema. Heath Ledger is fantastic and Ang Lee is still a great director despite my hang ups here. Brokeback being a Best Picture nominee is certainly a good thing for film. It not winning Best Picture is certainly not the worst mistake by the Academy, not by a long shot.
Capote
Capote is a film that centers on Truman Capote researching and writing his hit non-fiction novel In Cold Blood. It's a vehicle for Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of Capote which is absolutely the star and center of this film. And really that's about it. Capote comes off a bit bland at times which is unfortunate because the subject matter is wholly fascinating. An eccentric, effeminate writer that wants to dive into a brutal murder of a Kansas family and gets develops a relationship with the killers should be inherently compelling stuff. But the only draw here is Hoffman. The supporting cast is underwritten and left to be things that Hoffman acts against save for one of the killers. They don't add much of anything to understanding Capote's character. There is room for them to be more of a moral force in Capote's life, to highlight his obsession with the case and his book instead of paying attention to his relationships with his friends, and to essentially reign Capote in and humanize him. Keener's Harper Lee is there as his friend and confidante but there's more exposition than confiding. His boyfriend is always upset that he's busy but you never see them be affectionate or act like anything other than roommates. And the Kansas townfolk are just minor inconveniences to Capote getting what he wants with little resistance. Time is hard to fully grasp in this movie even though there are graphics that say a year has passed and so on which points to a problem with pacing to me. In the beginning there are scenes that are short and quick that seem very underdeveloped as if the director/writer wants to get on to the juicier parts of the story while skimping on some of the other characters' developments. Maybe that's just a gripe for me but time seemed very arbitrary when it should have been felt more especially since the book took so long to write and publish. The highlight of the film is Capote's interaction with one of the prisoners and is what the film should have focused more on instead of being too broad. This is where we get much of the inner conflict in Capote and is the most compelling part of the film. There are homosexual undertones, childhood trauma, turmoil about taking advantage of the prisoner, regrets, a search for the truth. All of those are things that could have been more fully explored and impacted the audience in a more profound way. Capote may have been more thrilling and made for a better nomination if the fat had just been trimmed.
Good Night, and Good Luck
This
is a Very Important film. It's about Edward R. Murrow and his crusade against Joe McCarthy and his bullshit commie outing witch hunt. Murrow convinces CBS to let him run these stories that show McCarthy to be a nut and liar and awful person which rocks the boat but helps lead to McCarthy's downfall. My main issue with the film is talked about in the Best Actor category where I really wish the film would have dug deeper into Murrow's character instead of giving us this God-like newsman that we knew nothing about personally. He's this perfect, infallible guy who encounters very little resistance on his way to challenging a sitting US Senator, something we know would take more than just conviction and impassioned speeches. The whole film just seems to tidy and easy and there's not much real tension. I'm not worried they'll be pulled off the air, I'm not worried the secretly married couple will be outed, I'm not worried Murrow will be damaged in anyway by this. Of course, it's not a bad film at all. The black and white cinematography works extremely well for this kind of movie. The smoke that fills every room and scene is almost highlighted by this technique and adds to the overall feel of the film. The story itself is pretty fascinating and is not one that's tackled very much in film. You genuinely want to see what happens and where the story goes on a purely historical level. The slicing and dicing of McCarthy, too, is a lot of fun to watch because he was such an evil scumbag. Murrow's story is the main plot and everything else just falls to the wayside. So the scenes with the married couple and the other newscaster who commits suicide just seem really unnecessary. If Clooney (who directed) were to tighten those things up and give us a more engaging, in-depth look at Murrow, a true classic might have been made. Instead, we got a great looking film with an interesting story that just falls short of being truly compelling on the basis of it's characters.
Munich
Spielberg sure knows how to make an opening scene absolutely riveting. It really does set up the entire movie as we see the terrorists capture the Israeli Olympic team and then the subsequent botched rescue attempt. That sets into motion the whole point of the film which is revenge - pure and simple. It's such an evocative look at what revenge is and how it affects people, countries, history. During that first assassination the viewer is on the edge of their seat, palms sweaty, holding their breath as they watch what unfolds. It's gripping film making. You get lost in the moment and root on the assassins before remembering the man did nothing but read from a book and get groceries and then you remember he's involved in the Munich massacre. It's a rollercoaster of emotions and typifies the feelings of the whole operation; is this right and just? Or just murder? Can it be justified because it's backed by a government? And that's the first 30 minutes! The film is slow because it has to be. Is it a little bloated? Absolutely. But it's 3 hours doesn't feel so long and we can understand when telling this story that it needs all the room it can get to tell the story. There's so many tense moments that time is immaterial. And it's all compelling. Munich brings up a lot of questions like is killing as a reprisal worth it? It seems to be never ending. Countries and ethnicities go back and forth without any end in sight. Is violence and bloodshed ever the answer? This movie brings up so many questions that are extremely hard to answer and that bring up so many good debates. I cannot fathom why Munich did not receive any acting nominations. There are a lot of performances I can point to as worthy of a nom: Eric Bana easily, the female Israeli Prime Minister, Geoffrey Rush, and some of the members of the assassination group. The acting is top notch. Spielberg himself knows when to turn on that directorial charm. When he wants to be in the middle of the action we get the shakycam right in the middle of the action. When it's supposed to be more subtle, the lens is hiding behind everyday objects like its peering from the other room or side of the street. He knows how to tell a story and he uses all his tricks to good use here. I find here a fascinating movie that grabs me and never lets me go. It's provocative and still incredibly relevant to today's time. For me, this is the hands down best movie of 2005.
This was around the first time that I actually started paying attention to the Oscars and was able to watch this one on TV (AFN to be exact) while on the night shift in Iraq. I wasn't hardcore into it like I am now, but I knew that I had seen Crash before when my parents sent the DVD in the mail and I knew that I liked it and wanted it to win. I don't even think I had seen any of the other nominees but it didn't matter to me. I loved Crash and was rooting for it. It made watching the ceremony fun and little did I know that Brokeback had pretty much cleaned up the precursor awards and many thought it would and felt it should win. That would set the internet ablaze with cries that Brokeback was robbed, that the Academy was a joke and that Crash winning was the one of the biggest failures of all time. I hated that sentiment then and I hate that sentiment now. I don't see the supposed masterpiece in Brokeback and truly wonder if it had to do with it being a gay movie that made people just fervently root for it and against everything else. To me, there was always that sense of if you don't like Brokeback or think it should have won then you are just a homophobe. I think people wanted to back it for fear of being on the wrong side of history and because people are petulant. I think people wanted it to be this watershed moment, this monumental shift in thinking in Hollywood and America that they lost sight of it being a flawed film. You could argue for the other 4 films just as hard as the polarizing one. This is just something I wanted to call out because it was my first true Oscar following experience, especially because it denigrates a rather great BP field. Maybe if Brokeback was the only worthwhile film nominated would I agree but the other are good to great in my eyes which makes all of this that much more absurd. Munich is easily the better of all of the three films. It's a full movie to me. I know the knock against it is length and individual acting but I think those people are just completely delusional. Munich is my clear winner. And if it wins do we have this stupid Brokeback controversy? I think it's not as loud and that film can fade into the background. Munich is just an absolute amazing film and I don't understand why it doesn't receive more love.
Oscar Winner: Crash
My Winner: Munich
Crash
Brokeback Mountain
Good Night, and Good Luck
Capote
Monday, March 10, 2014
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Leading Actor 2005
Favorite category time! And with 3 performances that I've actually
never seen before which is always nice. A fresh take is great to have.
Which also begs the question: Is a first impression definitive? I'll say
usually yes. But sometimes it's easy to change your opinion. I know
that there's been a few films and performances that just didn't click
until the second or third time I saw them. But I also like to think I'm
not being overly critical or hateful with this blog and have been very
open with my mind. It's something interesting to think about because
critics always write about a film after seeing it once, so how many
would change their reviews after a year or ten? It will be interesting
to revisit all of my reviews after some time and see how they all hold
up. On to the performances, though!
2005 Best Actor
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
It's strange to be reviewing Hoffman's winning performance right now. I always seem to review a few films/performances at a time before getting stuck on a film for a few months, usually due to being busy with life but also because I've seen a film a few times already. But I'm writing this just a few days after Hoffman was found dead of an overdose and this was the film I was stuck on. So it seems poignant to write about Hoffman now, somewhat out of disbelief but mainly out of celebration. This is the role most people seem to remember him by and with good reason. Hoffman was an actor that gave his all for every single performance he did, whether it called for it or not. His acting never hurt a film and almost always helped to elevate it to something greater. He was a genius - a man committed to his craft in the fullest sense and he left us with amazing performance after amazing performance. His turn as Truman Capote is more than just mere impersonation, it's the realization of a character. The affectations are somewhat jarring at first, but Hoffman never falters with them and effortlessly makes the viewer see past the voice and the antics which is not an easy task. For some this would be the role of a lifetime, and it is that good, but Hoffman was able to bring the earnestness found here to every role he had. No doubt he would have had many more. As the film progresses, it's a little hard to tell if Capote is in love with one of the murderers or just sees a lot of himself in the man - or both. This ambiguity is expertly portrayed by Hoffman. There is longing and torment and caution and excitement written all over Hoffman's character. You almost feel for Capote as if he's losing a friend or family member before remembering this man brutally murdered a family. Hoffman is able to get us to feel right along side his character which is invariably a tough task given the subject matter. I'm so glad Hoffman was able to win an Oscar in his lifetime because he really was one of the best working when he was alive. His Truman Capote is one of those times where you can actually say the Academy got it so perfectly right.
Terrence Howard - Hustle & Flow
Howard absolutely elevates this film into something more profound because at times it comes off like a B movie (a bit harsh, admittedly, because it's an entertaining film for sure). It's a role that you wouldn't think the old, white Academy would even think of nominating, so I gotta give some props to them here, mang. There was surprisingly a lot more to this role then I imagined and anticipated. Howard brings complexity and depth to the character. He's not just this hard living pimp that's playing down to the typecast. I don't want to say he's a pimp with a heart of gold, either. He's a struggling black man that has dreams just like any other person and though he keeps his hos in line it never seems unnecessarily cruel. DJay works hard to make a living and the depth Howard brings to the character is from the humanity he infuses into the role. We see DJay as more than just a predatory pimp. We see the man behind the rough exterior who wants to make something of his life and achieve his own American dream. Howard puts his all into this character and it shows for the better. It transcends being just a rapper or a gangsta, it's a fully realized character that interests us even if we don't care for the subject matter. He also kills it with the rapping. It's earnest, raw, captivating. Those songs aren't just rap songs by some anonymous guy. When you hear them you feel the hurt and the anger and Howard does a fantastic job of portraying all of that while performing them. That is a sign of Howard's tremendous talent on display here. This is very much his movie and he rises to the challenge and doesn't bend under it's weight. Howard delivers a surprisingly strong performance.
Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain
It's always great when an actor who you knew had potential early in his career puts it all together and delivers with some fine acting and becomes more than a handsome face or teen heartthrob. Ledger achieves that with his gay cowboy Ennis here. Ennis is the prototypical cowboy: strong, stoic, handsome, and temperamental. Ennis is a man of few words and those are usually deep voiced and mumbled. Ledger does a great job with the accent which gives his cowboy a sense of authenticity. You can really see Ledger as being a cowboy, hunting and fishing on his own in the elements and begrudgingly interacting with others. Ledger adds a lot to the love story and makes it very believable on his end. The actual relationship with Gyllenhaal leaves a lot to be desired, though that's no fault of Ledger who gives it his best shot. He's a man of few words but also few emotions. So when those emotions do come up they seem all the more real. The love never seems too forced. Ennis is a man that is able to adapt to his surroundings and lives out of necessity. His marriage and kids and working in a small Wyoming town are because society won't accept the other part of Ennis' life and I'm not too sure Ennis would be ok with living openly anyway. Ledger portrays these subtleties of his character wonderfully. He knows how to survive on the ranch and that equivocation makes him all the more human. This is Ledger's movie and he gives a good performance in a tough movie.
Joaquin Phoenix - Walk the Line
Joaquin is undoubtedly a fantastic actor. And in Walk the Line, it's almost as if we watch him mature in front of our eyes. When Phoenix fully inhabits Johnny Cash, there's a confidence about him that is striking. He goes all in and gives a mesmerizing performance in those instances. He also does a good job at the singing part, which is difficult because Cash is so well known with his own style and so damn iconic. Walk the Line as a movie, though, isn't exactly top notch. There are plenty of moments where the writing is bad, particularly in the beginning and it's as if the actors are fighting through it. It does the actors no favors and if not for the abilities of Phoenix, a lesser actor would have made those parts unintentionally comical. But as Johnny's career takes off so does the performance of Phoenix. He is especially good in the musical scenes which is where the film shines, thanks in large part to Phoenix. The family life stuff and romance junk just isn't as compelling and usually comes off a bit hokey. And try as he might, Phoenix isn't able to salvage these scenes. It also doesn't help that a lot of these scenes bring to mind Walk Hard which makes them seem so damn funny! It's not fair but I can't unsee it. If the film had a better script and was less by the numbers biopic-y, Phoenix would have been in the discussion for a win
David Strathairn - Good Night, and Good Luck
David Strathairn does a good job of playing up to the role he is given in this film. He is Very Important and stately. He has unblinking eyes and unwavering focus that really tells you all you need to know about the character. He's serious, no nonsense, and just. But if you really wanna get down to it, Strathairn does play Murrow very one note. He's not given much else to do but imitate Murrow and come off as being very important. That's all there is to the performance and to this version of Murrow. We never get to see anything below the depths of his visage and Murrow just comes off as too God-like, a white knight crusading for something so morally right that we can't question anything else. Strathairn's delivery of his lines did come off like watching Robert Stack on Unsolved Mysteries, I was half expecting the theme to start playing at times. It seems it was done to obviously imitate Murrow, but also to hammer home the importance of what was being said. Strathairn plays it straight the whole time through but I wish that the movie allowed for more glimpses into Murrow, where Strathairn's acting could have actually been a lot more useful and evident. Imitation is fine but definitely feels ways too hollow.
Always a great category to watch and write about it. There's not a performance I dislike. Choosing a winner is a bit difficult. I do believe Hoffman delivered an excellent performance, one that was easily beloved by the Academy. But I'm not the Academy, so the margin between Hoffman and the rest of the group is not so wide to me. The rest gave him a serious run for his money. Ledger was the one I was most curious about since I'd never seen his film and had heard good things about his role in particular. He did go on to win a posthumous Oscar and you can see an actor coming into his own here. I'm glad we got to see this performance from him. Howard is nominated partly because of Hustle & Flow and partly because of his acting in Crash, I believe. I think they rewarded him with the nomination and it was a really inspired choice. Phoenix, too, provided us with a pretty good musical role. His performance stumbles a bit due to the writing and film itself but it's still really good when he's on. Finally, Strathairn. The straight man to everyone else nominated. A serious performance that makes Strathairn shine. As I said, really damn tough. They are all kinda equal here. I can nitpick them all or gush about how much I like them all. I like the fact that this turned out to be a win for Hoffman because of his early death, meaning he at least got 1 Oscar. I almost feel bad about picking against him here. So in respect for his acting ability I'll go with Hoffman but I really did enjoy Howard also. I'd give him the win if not for Hoffman's untimely death and still could later. It would have been a hell of a choice by the Academy for sure.
Oscar Winner: Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
My Winner: Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
Terrence Howard
Joaquin Phoenix
Heath Ledger
David Strathairn
2005 Best Actor
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
It's strange to be reviewing Hoffman's winning performance right now. I always seem to review a few films/performances at a time before getting stuck on a film for a few months, usually due to being busy with life but also because I've seen a film a few times already. But I'm writing this just a few days after Hoffman was found dead of an overdose and this was the film I was stuck on. So it seems poignant to write about Hoffman now, somewhat out of disbelief but mainly out of celebration. This is the role most people seem to remember him by and with good reason. Hoffman was an actor that gave his all for every single performance he did, whether it called for it or not. His acting never hurt a film and almost always helped to elevate it to something greater. He was a genius - a man committed to his craft in the fullest sense and he left us with amazing performance after amazing performance. His turn as Truman Capote is more than just mere impersonation, it's the realization of a character. The affectations are somewhat jarring at first, but Hoffman never falters with them and effortlessly makes the viewer see past the voice and the antics which is not an easy task. For some this would be the role of a lifetime, and it is that good, but Hoffman was able to bring the earnestness found here to every role he had. No doubt he would have had many more. As the film progresses, it's a little hard to tell if Capote is in love with one of the murderers or just sees a lot of himself in the man - or both. This ambiguity is expertly portrayed by Hoffman. There is longing and torment and caution and excitement written all over Hoffman's character. You almost feel for Capote as if he's losing a friend or family member before remembering this man brutally murdered a family. Hoffman is able to get us to feel right along side his character which is invariably a tough task given the subject matter. I'm so glad Hoffman was able to win an Oscar in his lifetime because he really was one of the best working when he was alive. His Truman Capote is one of those times where you can actually say the Academy got it so perfectly right.
Terrence Howard - Hustle & Flow
Howard absolutely elevates this film into something more profound because at times it comes off like a B movie (a bit harsh, admittedly, because it's an entertaining film for sure). It's a role that you wouldn't think the old, white Academy would even think of nominating, so I gotta give some props to them here, mang. There was surprisingly a lot more to this role then I imagined and anticipated. Howard brings complexity and depth to the character. He's not just this hard living pimp that's playing down to the typecast. I don't want to say he's a pimp with a heart of gold, either. He's a struggling black man that has dreams just like any other person and though he keeps his hos in line it never seems unnecessarily cruel. DJay works hard to make a living and the depth Howard brings to the character is from the humanity he infuses into the role. We see DJay as more than just a predatory pimp. We see the man behind the rough exterior who wants to make something of his life and achieve his own American dream. Howard puts his all into this character and it shows for the better. It transcends being just a rapper or a gangsta, it's a fully realized character that interests us even if we don't care for the subject matter. He also kills it with the rapping. It's earnest, raw, captivating. Those songs aren't just rap songs by some anonymous guy. When you hear them you feel the hurt and the anger and Howard does a fantastic job of portraying all of that while performing them. That is a sign of Howard's tremendous talent on display here. This is very much his movie and he rises to the challenge and doesn't bend under it's weight. Howard delivers a surprisingly strong performance.
Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain
It's always great when an actor who you knew had potential early in his career puts it all together and delivers with some fine acting and becomes more than a handsome face or teen heartthrob. Ledger achieves that with his gay cowboy Ennis here. Ennis is the prototypical cowboy: strong, stoic, handsome, and temperamental. Ennis is a man of few words and those are usually deep voiced and mumbled. Ledger does a great job with the accent which gives his cowboy a sense of authenticity. You can really see Ledger as being a cowboy, hunting and fishing on his own in the elements and begrudgingly interacting with others. Ledger adds a lot to the love story and makes it very believable on his end. The actual relationship with Gyllenhaal leaves a lot to be desired, though that's no fault of Ledger who gives it his best shot. He's a man of few words but also few emotions. So when those emotions do come up they seem all the more real. The love never seems too forced. Ennis is a man that is able to adapt to his surroundings and lives out of necessity. His marriage and kids and working in a small Wyoming town are because society won't accept the other part of Ennis' life and I'm not too sure Ennis would be ok with living openly anyway. Ledger portrays these subtleties of his character wonderfully. He knows how to survive on the ranch and that equivocation makes him all the more human. This is Ledger's movie and he gives a good performance in a tough movie.
Joaquin Phoenix - Walk the Line
Joaquin is undoubtedly a fantastic actor. And in Walk the Line, it's almost as if we watch him mature in front of our eyes. When Phoenix fully inhabits Johnny Cash, there's a confidence about him that is striking. He goes all in and gives a mesmerizing performance in those instances. He also does a good job at the singing part, which is difficult because Cash is so well known with his own style and so damn iconic. Walk the Line as a movie, though, isn't exactly top notch. There are plenty of moments where the writing is bad, particularly in the beginning and it's as if the actors are fighting through it. It does the actors no favors and if not for the abilities of Phoenix, a lesser actor would have made those parts unintentionally comical. But as Johnny's career takes off so does the performance of Phoenix. He is especially good in the musical scenes which is where the film shines, thanks in large part to Phoenix. The family life stuff and romance junk just isn't as compelling and usually comes off a bit hokey. And try as he might, Phoenix isn't able to salvage these scenes. It also doesn't help that a lot of these scenes bring to mind Walk Hard which makes them seem so damn funny! It's not fair but I can't unsee it. If the film had a better script and was less by the numbers biopic-y, Phoenix would have been in the discussion for a win
David Strathairn - Good Night, and Good Luck
David Strathairn does a good job of playing up to the role he is given in this film. He is Very Important and stately. He has unblinking eyes and unwavering focus that really tells you all you need to know about the character. He's serious, no nonsense, and just. But if you really wanna get down to it, Strathairn does play Murrow very one note. He's not given much else to do but imitate Murrow and come off as being very important. That's all there is to the performance and to this version of Murrow. We never get to see anything below the depths of his visage and Murrow just comes off as too God-like, a white knight crusading for something so morally right that we can't question anything else. Strathairn's delivery of his lines did come off like watching Robert Stack on Unsolved Mysteries, I was half expecting the theme to start playing at times. It seems it was done to obviously imitate Murrow, but also to hammer home the importance of what was being said. Strathairn plays it straight the whole time through but I wish that the movie allowed for more glimpses into Murrow, where Strathairn's acting could have actually been a lot more useful and evident. Imitation is fine but definitely feels ways too hollow.
Always a great category to watch and write about it. There's not a performance I dislike. Choosing a winner is a bit difficult. I do believe Hoffman delivered an excellent performance, one that was easily beloved by the Academy. But I'm not the Academy, so the margin between Hoffman and the rest of the group is not so wide to me. The rest gave him a serious run for his money. Ledger was the one I was most curious about since I'd never seen his film and had heard good things about his role in particular. He did go on to win a posthumous Oscar and you can see an actor coming into his own here. I'm glad we got to see this performance from him. Howard is nominated partly because of Hustle & Flow and partly because of his acting in Crash, I believe. I think they rewarded him with the nomination and it was a really inspired choice. Phoenix, too, provided us with a pretty good musical role. His performance stumbles a bit due to the writing and film itself but it's still really good when he's on. Finally, Strathairn. The straight man to everyone else nominated. A serious performance that makes Strathairn shine. As I said, really damn tough. They are all kinda equal here. I can nitpick them all or gush about how much I like them all. I like the fact that this turned out to be a win for Hoffman because of his early death, meaning he at least got 1 Oscar. I almost feel bad about picking against him here. So in respect for his acting ability I'll go with Hoffman but I really did enjoy Howard also. I'd give him the win if not for Hoffman's untimely death and still could later. It would have been a hell of a choice by the Academy for sure.
Oscar Winner: Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
My Winner: Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
Terrence Howard
Joaquin Phoenix
Heath Ledger
David Strathairn
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Leading Actress 2005
On the surface, this year is seems pretty interesting. There are three first time nominees and two previous Oscar winners. Initially I'd only seen the winner but have since seen Theron's movie as well. I look forward to the other because I'm hoping to finally be amazed by the Academy's picks in this category.
2005 Best Actress
Reese Witherspoon - Walk the Line
So this is a strange win. I don't know if I'd really categorize this as a Leading performance. To me, it's more supporting with Phoenix's Cash being the sole lead. And Witherspoon doesn't add a whole lot to the film besides being the love interest for Cash. So it's really hard to understand why this particular performance won. All I can assume is that people just loved Witherspoon's golly gee charm which is in abundance in this film. She's got that down-home, country girl quality that appeals to a lot of people. And that's what June Carter is portrayed as in Walk the Line. But really Witherspoon doesn't do much. She looks pretty, is funny, and sings a bit. I'm honestly at a loss to figure out why this won. I feel like we got a lot of Reese Witherspoon in this performance. It's certainly not a well-rounded character. A lot of times it's Reese acting opposite Phoenix while in costume. For being an Oscar winning Best Actress performance, it is severely lacking in originality, soul, conviction. A winner like this shouldn't leave me wanting way more. Her June Carter never seems to transform into the potential/future June Carter Cash, always staying Witherspoon as June Carter. She's great when we first meet her and see her interactions with Johnny, but she never continues to grow as a character and never really becomes anything more interesting. And Witherspoon doesn't try to do anything more interesting which is why her performance comes off as supporting to me.
Judi Dench - Mrs Henderson Presents
Judi Dench. Again! With her 5th nomination in 9 years (of course, only my 3rd for this blog) she would add two more as of 2014. But does she deserve it? She's definitely an actress on top of her game here but you can't help but think the Academy keeps going to the only well it knows. While watching this movie, I couldn't help but think that I've seen this same exact performance in another movie. Dench is a wonderful actress and she has such a sly, understated sense of humor that comes across perfectly in this role. She plays a widow that grows bored and purchases a run down theater and suggests nude reviews to get audiences to come in. She's the kind of movie persona that movie goers think is charming and assuredly British and funny but if we were to encounter her in real life she would annoy us to no end and piss us off even more. She's selfish, rude, eccentric. But because she's an older British woman we are to accept that as being okay. The parts where Dench is to shine she only comes across as chewing the scenery. The scenes where she is supposed to be carefree and having fun just seem like a serious actor wanting to show a softer, more fun side. It rings as hollow and false unfortunately. If she played the character as a curmudgeon the whole time maybe it would be different, I don't know. It's an ostentatious delivery that I just don't buy into, "simple frippery" as another blogger put it. I have enjoyed some of Dench's roles but only really felt meh about this one. It's light fair at best, one that probably doesn't deserve an Academy Award nomination behind it.
Felicity Huffman - Transamerica
You never know what to expect when it comes to performances you might only know the smallest bit of information about. I like that not knowing part because I'm always hoping I'm going to fall in love with a character or be stunned by a performance. It's what makes this blog and experience so great for me. Now Huffman's role as a woman playing a man who wants to be a woman came with some buzz and controversy if I remember correctly back in 2005. Not that I was expecting anything crazy out of this role but I was slightly impressed with how non-outlandish it is. Huffman plays the character as honestly as she can. It's not garishly over the top as you might expect and it's not too insular or brooding. It hits just right, in between the extremes. In the movie, Huffman's Bree Daniels learns s/he has a son in New York and goes to see him and eventually they road trip to LA where Bree wants to get her sex reassignment surgery done. Bree is almost stuffy, she has a very proper way of speaking and her delivery is slow and deliberate, almost professorial. Huffman is very capable in her performance. She plays the character straight and natural but I just feel like it lacks much soul throughout the film. That might be a manifestation of the character who seems to avoid conflict and confrontation but it doesn't have to feel so robotic like it does at times. But Huffman is sincere and at the end she displays some much needed warmth but the whole thing feels like an exercise in acting. Just not enough oomph to bring the character alive for my tastes. Definitely not a bad performance by any means.
Keira Knightley - Pride & Prejudice
Keira Knightley is perfectly agreeable as Elizabeth Bennet. She really is a perfect choice to play Lizzie as she is an actress that just seems to fit these period roles a lot better than her modern ones. She has the look down, sure, but also the feel of the character down as well. She's more progressive and direct than the other women of the time and this comes across as very natural in the film due in large part to Knightley's acting ability. It's a character and role that many people are already familiar with and as I've said earlier in this blog, it can be hard to impress an audience when that is the case. Knightley is able to do that here without any grandiose displays or typical British acting (which I'm using as a kind of put down) and just simply performs the role with her own version of Lizzie. I really enjoyed it despite not being sure if I'd like a 2 hour movie remake of Pride and Prejudice since the book isn't my cup of tea but Knightley and Director Joe Wright make it worth the watch for sure. There's not much else to say about Knightley here. It's a thoroughly enjoyable performance that has neither the wow moment nor any real strong criticisms to make. She's good and rightly deserves a nomination here.
Charlize Theron - North Country
Ok, so while watching this film, the whole time I was left wanting a lot more from Charlize in this role. Theron gives a very professional acting performance in this film. As another blogger said, she passes a test we all knew she could pass. Meaning she does a good enough job in a film that was lacking in greatness to begin with. But I still felt Theron could offer a lot more to the character than we got, especially considering her Oscar winning turn only 2 years ago. She passes with flying colors on the technical level but this movie and her character as a whole fail to connect with the audience. I was never particularly rooting for Theron during the trial or as she was being discriminated against, which sounds horrible but that's due entirely to the script and direction. I just didn't care. Yes it's a heady subject but I feel like it should have carried more weight. She leads a rough life but the film does nothing to convince us she's actually a good mother. Her familial interactions are always stunted and make us wonder if she's fit to be a mother. Not a good thing for this type of movie. I just wasn't really made to care enough about the character and that's purely the director's fault. I wasn't given enough to like in this film for what should have been an easy message to get across. It felt more like an actress wanting more Oscar nominations and possibly wins going with the tried and true method of an unglamorous, real life character fighting against the odds. It just didn't work here and I'd hope Theron would challenge herself more.
Sigh. This is a pretty weak year for the category. I know it must seem as if I really hate women or something but those two categories just seem to deliver some of the most lackluster, uninspired performances I've seen for this blog. Hopefully it's just a sign of the times because the Academy has had some decent choices in 2012-2014. This year is a tough one to choose a winner for. I think people voted for Reese because they liked her as a person and because there was no one else to vote for. Theron had just won 2 years prior, Dench already had one and was in a little seen British film, Huffman was in an indie kind of film with a controversial topic, and Knightley was young. It's a toss up for me between Huffman and Knightley but I think I lean more towards Knightley. The other 3 are just kinda there. Not a good category!
Oscar Winner: Reese Witherspoon - Walk the Line
My Winner: Keira Knightley - Pride & Prejudice
Felicity Huffman
Reese Witherspoon
Judi Dench
Charlize Theron
2005 Best Actress
Reese Witherspoon - Walk the Line
So this is a strange win. I don't know if I'd really categorize this as a Leading performance. To me, it's more supporting with Phoenix's Cash being the sole lead. And Witherspoon doesn't add a whole lot to the film besides being the love interest for Cash. So it's really hard to understand why this particular performance won. All I can assume is that people just loved Witherspoon's golly gee charm which is in abundance in this film. She's got that down-home, country girl quality that appeals to a lot of people. And that's what June Carter is portrayed as in Walk the Line. But really Witherspoon doesn't do much. She looks pretty, is funny, and sings a bit. I'm honestly at a loss to figure out why this won. I feel like we got a lot of Reese Witherspoon in this performance. It's certainly not a well-rounded character. A lot of times it's Reese acting opposite Phoenix while in costume. For being an Oscar winning Best Actress performance, it is severely lacking in originality, soul, conviction. A winner like this shouldn't leave me wanting way more. Her June Carter never seems to transform into the potential/future June Carter Cash, always staying Witherspoon as June Carter. She's great when we first meet her and see her interactions with Johnny, but she never continues to grow as a character and never really becomes anything more interesting. And Witherspoon doesn't try to do anything more interesting which is why her performance comes off as supporting to me.
Judi Dench - Mrs Henderson Presents
Judi Dench. Again! With her 5th nomination in 9 years (of course, only my 3rd for this blog) she would add two more as of 2014. But does she deserve it? She's definitely an actress on top of her game here but you can't help but think the Academy keeps going to the only well it knows. While watching this movie, I couldn't help but think that I've seen this same exact performance in another movie. Dench is a wonderful actress and she has such a sly, understated sense of humor that comes across perfectly in this role. She plays a widow that grows bored and purchases a run down theater and suggests nude reviews to get audiences to come in. She's the kind of movie persona that movie goers think is charming and assuredly British and funny but if we were to encounter her in real life she would annoy us to no end and piss us off even more. She's selfish, rude, eccentric. But because she's an older British woman we are to accept that as being okay. The parts where Dench is to shine she only comes across as chewing the scenery. The scenes where she is supposed to be carefree and having fun just seem like a serious actor wanting to show a softer, more fun side. It rings as hollow and false unfortunately. If she played the character as a curmudgeon the whole time maybe it would be different, I don't know. It's an ostentatious delivery that I just don't buy into, "simple frippery" as another blogger put it. I have enjoyed some of Dench's roles but only really felt meh about this one. It's light fair at best, one that probably doesn't deserve an Academy Award nomination behind it.
Felicity Huffman - Transamerica
You never know what to expect when it comes to performances you might only know the smallest bit of information about. I like that not knowing part because I'm always hoping I'm going to fall in love with a character or be stunned by a performance. It's what makes this blog and experience so great for me. Now Huffman's role as a woman playing a man who wants to be a woman came with some buzz and controversy if I remember correctly back in 2005. Not that I was expecting anything crazy out of this role but I was slightly impressed with how non-outlandish it is. Huffman plays the character as honestly as she can. It's not garishly over the top as you might expect and it's not too insular or brooding. It hits just right, in between the extremes. In the movie, Huffman's Bree Daniels learns s/he has a son in New York and goes to see him and eventually they road trip to LA where Bree wants to get her sex reassignment surgery done. Bree is almost stuffy, she has a very proper way of speaking and her delivery is slow and deliberate, almost professorial. Huffman is very capable in her performance. She plays the character straight and natural but I just feel like it lacks much soul throughout the film. That might be a manifestation of the character who seems to avoid conflict and confrontation but it doesn't have to feel so robotic like it does at times. But Huffman is sincere and at the end she displays some much needed warmth but the whole thing feels like an exercise in acting. Just not enough oomph to bring the character alive for my tastes. Definitely not a bad performance by any means.
Keira Knightley - Pride & Prejudice
Keira Knightley is perfectly agreeable as Elizabeth Bennet. She really is a perfect choice to play Lizzie as she is an actress that just seems to fit these period roles a lot better than her modern ones. She has the look down, sure, but also the feel of the character down as well. She's more progressive and direct than the other women of the time and this comes across as very natural in the film due in large part to Knightley's acting ability. It's a character and role that many people are already familiar with and as I've said earlier in this blog, it can be hard to impress an audience when that is the case. Knightley is able to do that here without any grandiose displays or typical British acting (which I'm using as a kind of put down) and just simply performs the role with her own version of Lizzie. I really enjoyed it despite not being sure if I'd like a 2 hour movie remake of Pride and Prejudice since the book isn't my cup of tea but Knightley and Director Joe Wright make it worth the watch for sure. There's not much else to say about Knightley here. It's a thoroughly enjoyable performance that has neither the wow moment nor any real strong criticisms to make. She's good and rightly deserves a nomination here.
Charlize Theron - North Country
Ok, so while watching this film, the whole time I was left wanting a lot more from Charlize in this role. Theron gives a very professional acting performance in this film. As another blogger said, she passes a test we all knew she could pass. Meaning she does a good enough job in a film that was lacking in greatness to begin with. But I still felt Theron could offer a lot more to the character than we got, especially considering her Oscar winning turn only 2 years ago. She passes with flying colors on the technical level but this movie and her character as a whole fail to connect with the audience. I was never particularly rooting for Theron during the trial or as she was being discriminated against, which sounds horrible but that's due entirely to the script and direction. I just didn't care. Yes it's a heady subject but I feel like it should have carried more weight. She leads a rough life but the film does nothing to convince us she's actually a good mother. Her familial interactions are always stunted and make us wonder if she's fit to be a mother. Not a good thing for this type of movie. I just wasn't really made to care enough about the character and that's purely the director's fault. I wasn't given enough to like in this film for what should have been an easy message to get across. It felt more like an actress wanting more Oscar nominations and possibly wins going with the tried and true method of an unglamorous, real life character fighting against the odds. It just didn't work here and I'd hope Theron would challenge herself more.
Sigh. This is a pretty weak year for the category. I know it must seem as if I really hate women or something but those two categories just seem to deliver some of the most lackluster, uninspired performances I've seen for this blog. Hopefully it's just a sign of the times because the Academy has had some decent choices in 2012-2014. This year is a tough one to choose a winner for. I think people voted for Reese because they liked her as a person and because there was no one else to vote for. Theron had just won 2 years prior, Dench already had one and was in a little seen British film, Huffman was in an indie kind of film with a controversial topic, and Knightley was young. It's a toss up for me between Huffman and Knightley but I think I lean more towards Knightley. The other 3 are just kinda there. Not a good category!
Oscar Winner: Reese Witherspoon - Walk the Line
My Winner: Keira Knightley - Pride & Prejudice
Felicity Huffman
Reese Witherspoon
Judi Dench
Charlize Theron
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Supporting Actor 2005
Ahhhh, the palate cleanser for the previous category. I always know I'm going to get either great performances or great movies or both from this one. Surprisingly, I've only seen 2 but I'm anticipating this being a very solid group as usual. Let's see!
2005 Best Supporting Actor
George Clooney - Syriana
Well...I'll say I was definitely expecting a lot more from this win. Clooney ugly-fies himself with a beard and some extra weight which we all know the Academy loves. But what to make of Clooney's CIA operative in this film? Is he the fall guy taking the blame as a rouge agent with an agenda of his own? Or is he actually a rogue agent going against the wishes of his superiors? This movie is pretty muddled in its actually story and can be hard to follow so I'll say that Clooney is a bit of both in this film. He's an older agent that did some notable things in Beirut in the 80s but it feels as if time and the world has passed him by. A mission of his selling explosives to I think Iranians goes wrong when they in turn give one to someone else. As I said following the story is hard but it seems that the CIA didn't like this and want to reign in Clooney. Another opportunity comes up to go back overseas and they send him to assassinate someone but he's captured and tortured and yeah I think you can start to see my point. It feels he's set up and Clooney realizes this and begins to act on his own but it ultimately backfires in the end. As for Clooney himself it's a whole lot of looking morose and weathered. Sure, he's seen some shit as a CIA operative but that's kind of the whole schtick from Clooney in this. I'm actually glad we don't get the super suave guy we are used to but I would have loved seeing a bit more range from him here. I do feel his character gets lost at times in the middle of all of these story lines and the directing does him no favors at all. Is Clooney memorable? Not really but he does give an earnest attempt at something more than just being a ladies man and it works at certain times in this movie. Clooney is good but he's also been better.
Matt Dillon - Crash
Matt Dillon's nomination is a representation for the entire ensemble cast in Crash and that's ok because I feel his role personifies exactly what the movie is all about. Dillon plays a racist cop that has a redemption at the end but it's much more involved than that. I'm buying what Crash is selling - that we are all a little racist, bigoted or just plain hurtful in our everyday lives whether we realize it or not. Dillon targets a black couple during a traffic stop and makes fun of another black woman who deals with HMOs. His behavior in the first instance is reprehensible but what we would think of as typical for an LAPD cop against a black person. The idea is that life on the beat has made him this way because he tells his partner who requests to be separated from him to wait until he's been on the force for awhile before judging. But I'd guess this isn't some acquired behavior from life as a cop but just who he is. Later on he finds a kind of redemption while saving the very woman he stopped and sexually assaulted. It's a tense moment and it's implied that she forgives him or at least is grateful that he saved her life. It's not much of a redemption but I think it underscores that anyone can be a racist but those might not be our true feelings or at least we can put them aside when we need to. I say it personifies the movie because almost everyone in this interconnected story has some really terrible racist thoughts that only just bubbles below the surface but it doesn't accurately represent them as people. They can learn from their prejudices and be smacked in the face with why those are completely wrong. It's not the greatest performance but it is absolutely representative of this movie. I'd have loved to see Michael Pena or Terrence Howard here but Dillon makes sense.
Paul Giamatti - Cinderella Man
I'll admit that I'm not the biggest Paul Giamatti fan and I can't really pinpoint why other than he just annoys the heck outta me in most of his roles. I think it's his weird face and voice...but anyway. That annoyance is put to good use here as Joe Gould, manager to Russell Crowe's boxer. The film itself isn't too interesting. Ron Howard is able to make a boxing film seem rather dull until the final fight but Giamatti does well as the frenetic, turbulent manager. Giamatti works best as a character actor and supporting actor. That's evident here as much of the film is done in a slightly over-the-top, melodramatic way (the Ron Howard way). I always think that Giamatti tends to overact but it works here as his character provides some laughs for the audience and support for Crowe's character. He fits the tone here and he has some good chemistry with Crowe that is fun to watch. There's no outstanding scene where he shines but Giamatti does well enough for me not to be annoyed by him in this movie.
Jake Gyllenhaal - Brokeback Mountain
I'll say right off the bat that Ledger is a better cowboy than Gyllenhaal. After thinking about it, I'm not so sure he was the right pick for this role. His accent is only adequate and his appearance just seems foppish and not at all rugged, cowboy-like. It comes off as some city boy traveling to the country to play cowboy for a little bit. It just doesn't work for me. Maybe the point was to have there be one super manly, introverted guy in Ennis and an outgoing, pretty boy in Jack, which works better. Gyllenhaal as a cowboy and rodeo guy just doesn't. As for the romance itself, it lacks passion. Which I think is more a fault of the director not allowing for the two actors to create much chemistry. They both try their best, so I'll give them that. It's just that to convey romance and love, even if it's taboo and needed to be hidden, the two should do more than just stand around fishing and talking. I like Gyllenhaal more as the frustrated husband who is being dismissed by his father-in-law as we get to see a little more passion and payoff from that. Jack's other dalliances in Mexico and Texas don't really hit as hard as they should in his relationship with Ennis. Yes they argue a little about it but it never gets explored and never really matters. I do like that Gyllenhaal tries his best to make his character work but unfortunately he's let down by the story itself.
William Hurt - A History of Violence
Blogger strikes again! You'd think I'd have learned by now but no. I had this great write up about short Oscar nominations and what I wish from them but of course it wasn't saved so now I have to re-write it from memory. Ugh! Anyway, my whole point was that I'm not the biggest fan of these short nominations where the actor is only on screen for a brief amount of time. Hurt is in only one scene that totals about 10 minutes. My biggest worry is that these are nominations based off of careers or their movie snagging a lot of awards thus the nomination gets swept up right along with the others. Are these based off merit and being actual amazing, award worthy performances? So far it's been mostly the case of the former. William Hurt, however, shows what exactly a short nomination should look like. His portrayal of a Philly mobster is absolutely vital to the overall story and to Viggo Mortensen's character arc. It's also what you'd expect from a Cronenberg film. Hurt is menacing and brotherly at the same time and displays some great, well placed darkly comedic chops. We laugh not because it's laugh out loud funny but because the action is so absurd. And all of that is because of William Hurt. His role is so pivotal that I don't think the movie would fully work without him in it. It's a lot of fun to watch and I feel that this is what the brief screen time nominations should look like (along with Viola Davis in Doubt). I'm always looking for the wow factor in these types of nominations, which is almost unfair to the actor but I think it's totally justifiable. If it's short, it absolutely needs to wow or grab or enthrall. Hurt has now singular wow moment, but does deliver a very solid performance that grabs and enthralls.
I love when I can watch a film and only have to focus on one aspect that I'll have to write about. Sometimes it can feel like I need to watch a movie twice or more when it has a couple actors plus a Best Picture nom. So it's nice to almost relax and enjoy a film instead of thinking too hard about it. It's just one of those things I've noticed as I've been writing this blog. That brings to mind the current issue of the 2014 Oscars which is that it's the least amount of variance in the acting categories and Best Picture in a long time if not ever (the caveat being the increasing of the number of BP nominations). I'm all for more movies getting recognized in the categories because it means more movies I get to watch. Now I think the winner is from a two horse race of Clooney and Hurt. And honestly, I'm leaning towards Hurt just because his role was so vital to his film. The rumor is Clooney won because everyone likes him and they felt he was due and because it's only the Supporting Actor category. I can actually understand that and am absolutely not against his win. I'm glad he's an Oscar winning actor. I just like Hurt here a little bit more. From there, well it's Gyllenhaal just because of the scope of his character even if I don't think he was the best choice but he did do a good enough job. I like Dillon as the representative of Crash and Giamatti is just not my favorite. He didn't wow so he'll occupy my last spot, though it's definitely not saying he's terrible. Still my favorite category.
Oscar Winner: George Clooney - Syriana
My Winner: William Hurt - A History of Violence
George Clooney
Jake Gyllenhaal
Matt Dillon
Paul Giamatti
2005 Best Supporting Actor
George Clooney - Syriana
Well...I'll say I was definitely expecting a lot more from this win. Clooney ugly-fies himself with a beard and some extra weight which we all know the Academy loves. But what to make of Clooney's CIA operative in this film? Is he the fall guy taking the blame as a rouge agent with an agenda of his own? Or is he actually a rogue agent going against the wishes of his superiors? This movie is pretty muddled in its actually story and can be hard to follow so I'll say that Clooney is a bit of both in this film. He's an older agent that did some notable things in Beirut in the 80s but it feels as if time and the world has passed him by. A mission of his selling explosives to I think Iranians goes wrong when they in turn give one to someone else. As I said following the story is hard but it seems that the CIA didn't like this and want to reign in Clooney. Another opportunity comes up to go back overseas and they send him to assassinate someone but he's captured and tortured and yeah I think you can start to see my point. It feels he's set up and Clooney realizes this and begins to act on his own but it ultimately backfires in the end. As for Clooney himself it's a whole lot of looking morose and weathered. Sure, he's seen some shit as a CIA operative but that's kind of the whole schtick from Clooney in this. I'm actually glad we don't get the super suave guy we are used to but I would have loved seeing a bit more range from him here. I do feel his character gets lost at times in the middle of all of these story lines and the directing does him no favors at all. Is Clooney memorable? Not really but he does give an earnest attempt at something more than just being a ladies man and it works at certain times in this movie. Clooney is good but he's also been better.
Matt Dillon - Crash
Matt Dillon's nomination is a representation for the entire ensemble cast in Crash and that's ok because I feel his role personifies exactly what the movie is all about. Dillon plays a racist cop that has a redemption at the end but it's much more involved than that. I'm buying what Crash is selling - that we are all a little racist, bigoted or just plain hurtful in our everyday lives whether we realize it or not. Dillon targets a black couple during a traffic stop and makes fun of another black woman who deals with HMOs. His behavior in the first instance is reprehensible but what we would think of as typical for an LAPD cop against a black person. The idea is that life on the beat has made him this way because he tells his partner who requests to be separated from him to wait until he's been on the force for awhile before judging. But I'd guess this isn't some acquired behavior from life as a cop but just who he is. Later on he finds a kind of redemption while saving the very woman he stopped and sexually assaulted. It's a tense moment and it's implied that she forgives him or at least is grateful that he saved her life. It's not much of a redemption but I think it underscores that anyone can be a racist but those might not be our true feelings or at least we can put them aside when we need to. I say it personifies the movie because almost everyone in this interconnected story has some really terrible racist thoughts that only just bubbles below the surface but it doesn't accurately represent them as people. They can learn from their prejudices and be smacked in the face with why those are completely wrong. It's not the greatest performance but it is absolutely representative of this movie. I'd have loved to see Michael Pena or Terrence Howard here but Dillon makes sense.
Paul Giamatti - Cinderella Man
I'll admit that I'm not the biggest Paul Giamatti fan and I can't really pinpoint why other than he just annoys the heck outta me in most of his roles. I think it's his weird face and voice...but anyway. That annoyance is put to good use here as Joe Gould, manager to Russell Crowe's boxer. The film itself isn't too interesting. Ron Howard is able to make a boxing film seem rather dull until the final fight but Giamatti does well as the frenetic, turbulent manager. Giamatti works best as a character actor and supporting actor. That's evident here as much of the film is done in a slightly over-the-top, melodramatic way (the Ron Howard way). I always think that Giamatti tends to overact but it works here as his character provides some laughs for the audience and support for Crowe's character. He fits the tone here and he has some good chemistry with Crowe that is fun to watch. There's no outstanding scene where he shines but Giamatti does well enough for me not to be annoyed by him in this movie.
Jake Gyllenhaal - Brokeback Mountain
I'll say right off the bat that Ledger is a better cowboy than Gyllenhaal. After thinking about it, I'm not so sure he was the right pick for this role. His accent is only adequate and his appearance just seems foppish and not at all rugged, cowboy-like. It comes off as some city boy traveling to the country to play cowboy for a little bit. It just doesn't work for me. Maybe the point was to have there be one super manly, introverted guy in Ennis and an outgoing, pretty boy in Jack, which works better. Gyllenhaal as a cowboy and rodeo guy just doesn't. As for the romance itself, it lacks passion. Which I think is more a fault of the director not allowing for the two actors to create much chemistry. They both try their best, so I'll give them that. It's just that to convey romance and love, even if it's taboo and needed to be hidden, the two should do more than just stand around fishing and talking. I like Gyllenhaal more as the frustrated husband who is being dismissed by his father-in-law as we get to see a little more passion and payoff from that. Jack's other dalliances in Mexico and Texas don't really hit as hard as they should in his relationship with Ennis. Yes they argue a little about it but it never gets explored and never really matters. I do like that Gyllenhaal tries his best to make his character work but unfortunately he's let down by the story itself.
William Hurt - A History of Violence
Blogger strikes again! You'd think I'd have learned by now but no. I had this great write up about short Oscar nominations and what I wish from them but of course it wasn't saved so now I have to re-write it from memory. Ugh! Anyway, my whole point was that I'm not the biggest fan of these short nominations where the actor is only on screen for a brief amount of time. Hurt is in only one scene that totals about 10 minutes. My biggest worry is that these are nominations based off of careers or their movie snagging a lot of awards thus the nomination gets swept up right along with the others. Are these based off merit and being actual amazing, award worthy performances? So far it's been mostly the case of the former. William Hurt, however, shows what exactly a short nomination should look like. His portrayal of a Philly mobster is absolutely vital to the overall story and to Viggo Mortensen's character arc. It's also what you'd expect from a Cronenberg film. Hurt is menacing and brotherly at the same time and displays some great, well placed darkly comedic chops. We laugh not because it's laugh out loud funny but because the action is so absurd. And all of that is because of William Hurt. His role is so pivotal that I don't think the movie would fully work without him in it. It's a lot of fun to watch and I feel that this is what the brief screen time nominations should look like (along with Viola Davis in Doubt). I'm always looking for the wow factor in these types of nominations, which is almost unfair to the actor but I think it's totally justifiable. If it's short, it absolutely needs to wow or grab or enthrall. Hurt has now singular wow moment, but does deliver a very solid performance that grabs and enthralls.
I love when I can watch a film and only have to focus on one aspect that I'll have to write about. Sometimes it can feel like I need to watch a movie twice or more when it has a couple actors plus a Best Picture nom. So it's nice to almost relax and enjoy a film instead of thinking too hard about it. It's just one of those things I've noticed as I've been writing this blog. That brings to mind the current issue of the 2014 Oscars which is that it's the least amount of variance in the acting categories and Best Picture in a long time if not ever (the caveat being the increasing of the number of BP nominations). I'm all for more movies getting recognized in the categories because it means more movies I get to watch. Now I think the winner is from a two horse race of Clooney and Hurt. And honestly, I'm leaning towards Hurt just because his role was so vital to his film. The rumor is Clooney won because everyone likes him and they felt he was due and because it's only the Supporting Actor category. I can actually understand that and am absolutely not against his win. I'm glad he's an Oscar winning actor. I just like Hurt here a little bit more. From there, well it's Gyllenhaal just because of the scope of his character even if I don't think he was the best choice but he did do a good enough job. I like Dillon as the representative of Crash and Giamatti is just not my favorite. He didn't wow so he'll occupy my last spot, though it's definitely not saying he's terrible. Still my favorite category.
Oscar Winner: George Clooney - Syriana
My Winner: William Hurt - A History of Violence
George Clooney
Jake Gyllenhaal
Matt Dillon
Paul Giamatti
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Supporting Actress 2005
Finally getting into some categories where I haven't seen most of the nominees. I've only seen Catherine Keener from this group and I'm really excited to finally see some of these that I've heard so many good things about. It's not a very diverse group at all so it kind of makes the years to come (meaning the ones I've already reviewed) a little more interesting and surprising.
2005 Best Supporting Actress
Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
Throughout my time watching this movie, I was expecting Weisz to just blow me away with some superb acting or at least have a truly Oscar moment where I could point and say yeah she totally deserved the win for that. But alas, that moment never actually came which isn't to say this is a bad performance or anything. It's just that I was expecting a lot more from an Oscar winner. What we got was a good enough effort, one that felt natural, realistic and effortless but ultimately underwhelming. Reading some of the reviews that actually do mention her role and you'd think it was some magnificent piece of work. Weisz's African activist wife does portray a strong, determined, intelligent character. But these moments are fleeting and don't leave a lasting impact for me. It's the start to something great but it never is allowed to plant itself and take hold of the viewer. Yes she's beautiful and admirably noble in her cause, but I can't help feel that some get caught up in her British charm. The role itself seems like it could be done in much the same way by the myriad of actresses who tried out for it and lost, which is hardly a knock against Weisz. The talent is there but I don't think the character was fully realized in this film. And that may very well be because of the editing or director. There is something good there - not quite great - that is fully capable of being nominated, I'm just not sure about actually winning. I'd love to be persuaded otherwise.
Amy Adams - Junebug
This is the film that first launched Amy Adams onto Oscar's radar and helped introduce her to the general public (along with Enchanted the next year). Just as in that movie, Adams comes off as incredibly sweet and likeable as the pregnant Southern girl in Junebug. She has such a frenetic energy about her, best described as a chatterbox. She zips from subject to subject sometimes in the same breath and it's instantly obvious the amount of talent that Adams possesses. She reminds us all of someone we know just like her that's so innocent and full of whimsy. She allows the viewer to connect with the movie which is admittedly really slow to progress and she is honestly the driving force of the movie. I wasn't all that interested in the art gallery owning woman from Chicago as she seemed to be merely a side plot to Adams' pregnant, eternal optimist wife. This is a great introduction to Adams and watching this performance makes it quite clear that she would be nominated again. Indeed, she was nominated 3 more times after this one for a total of 4 and it's quite possible she'll be nominated again for 2013. She's way overdue and I hope the Academy rewards her sooner than later. Not much else to say except that I'm glad the Academy was able to recognize this jaunty little performance.
Catherine Keener - Capote
Keener is a solid actress, but here, it's as if she exists solely for Hoffman's Capote to talk at. Sure, he dominates scenes with his powerful performance but Keener's Harper Lee should have had a lot more weight to the overall picture other than as something for which Hoffman to bounce lines off. I wanted more, more, more! She's a strong, serious, Southern woman that never gets to display those qualities in full. It would have been great if she was more of a moral voice and a friend that had more of a say. Instead, we get a supporting role that seems to typify a lot of the nominees in this category. I assume that Keener's nomination was ushered in with the movie as whole since it was up for Best Picture and won an Oscar for Hoffman. I really wish this didn't seem like just a throw in because I'm sure there were other deserving women out there.
Frances McDormand - North Country
When you think of Frances McDormand no doubt you think of her Oscar winning turn as the cop from Fargo. So that brings an aw shucks, folksy kind of connotation with it. A woman who can charm and be like one of the guys to hide the fact that she's a woman in a typically man's world, helping her avoid confrontation. That sums up her role as the union rep of a Minnesotan iron mine in this film perfectly. But unfortunately her character is incredibly thin. Yes she paved the way for Charlize Theron's character but she does nothing to improve the conditions for the women. She's content to placate the men so that they don't harass her and honestly she does absolutely nothing in this role/film to make her stand out. That's kind of sad for a film that is based on a landmark sexual harassment case. Her character get's Lou Gehrig's Disease but it feels like a random addition to the screenplay and not much is made of it. In fact, not much is made of McDormand's character after about 20-30 minutes. So her end state has no emotional reverberation for the viewer and really no point to the story. She is underutilized and just plain underused throughout the entire film. I'm unsure as to how she was nominated. It's not terrible but certainly not awards worthy, either!
Michelle Williams - Brokeback Mountain
Michelle Williams does a capable job playing Ennis' wife in this movie. But as is true to the theme of the nominees in this category this year, she's just not giving much to do. She plays wife and mother just fine, putting up with a meager existence in small town Wyoming content to love Ennis. After she witnesses Ennis' secret, however, we are treated to an understated yet complete devastation. Her world is turned upside down and she realizes he doesn't really love her. Those few scenes where Williams witnesses the event and keeps everything to herself are great but small. We see the fear and devastation and realization on her face. We see the light bulb click on over her head all because of Williams' acting. It's good and definitely a sign of things to come in the future as she has had some fantastic performances since this one. But besides a later scene where her contempt is made clear there's not much else for her character to do. She drives home the wounded wife and makes you feel for her greatly, I just wish we had a little bit more.
You can call this the year of the underwhelming Best Supporting Actress class. Every one except Amy Adams completely underwhelmed me. I admit I had some high expectations for this group because I had heard and read so many good things about a few of these women and their performances that I was just expecting to be blown away or at least enjoy them. Amy Adams wins by default as she had the only performance I truly enjoyed. Not to say that Rachel Weisz was bad but I was expecting amazing stuff and only got good. Williams was also good but I've heard so much from the Brokeback people on the interwebs that I thought she had a bigger part. The final two just really added nothing much at all to their respective movies and that's a shame. A shame because they deserved bigger and better parts but also a shame because there was probably other deserving women that could have been showcased instead. All in all a very disappointing year due to high expectations, something for which I won't apologize having.
Oscar Winner: Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
My Winner: Amy Adams - Junebug
Rachel Weisz
Michelle Williams
Catherine Keener
Frances McDormand
2005 Best Supporting Actress
Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
Throughout my time watching this movie, I was expecting Weisz to just blow me away with some superb acting or at least have a truly Oscar moment where I could point and say yeah she totally deserved the win for that. But alas, that moment never actually came which isn't to say this is a bad performance or anything. It's just that I was expecting a lot more from an Oscar winner. What we got was a good enough effort, one that felt natural, realistic and effortless but ultimately underwhelming. Reading some of the reviews that actually do mention her role and you'd think it was some magnificent piece of work. Weisz's African activist wife does portray a strong, determined, intelligent character. But these moments are fleeting and don't leave a lasting impact for me. It's the start to something great but it never is allowed to plant itself and take hold of the viewer. Yes she's beautiful and admirably noble in her cause, but I can't help feel that some get caught up in her British charm. The role itself seems like it could be done in much the same way by the myriad of actresses who tried out for it and lost, which is hardly a knock against Weisz. The talent is there but I don't think the character was fully realized in this film. And that may very well be because of the editing or director. There is something good there - not quite great - that is fully capable of being nominated, I'm just not sure about actually winning. I'd love to be persuaded otherwise.
Amy Adams - Junebug
This is the film that first launched Amy Adams onto Oscar's radar and helped introduce her to the general public (along with Enchanted the next year). Just as in that movie, Adams comes off as incredibly sweet and likeable as the pregnant Southern girl in Junebug. She has such a frenetic energy about her, best described as a chatterbox. She zips from subject to subject sometimes in the same breath and it's instantly obvious the amount of talent that Adams possesses. She reminds us all of someone we know just like her that's so innocent and full of whimsy. She allows the viewer to connect with the movie which is admittedly really slow to progress and she is honestly the driving force of the movie. I wasn't all that interested in the art gallery owning woman from Chicago as she seemed to be merely a side plot to Adams' pregnant, eternal optimist wife. This is a great introduction to Adams and watching this performance makes it quite clear that she would be nominated again. Indeed, she was nominated 3 more times after this one for a total of 4 and it's quite possible she'll be nominated again for 2013. She's way overdue and I hope the Academy rewards her sooner than later. Not much else to say except that I'm glad the Academy was able to recognize this jaunty little performance.
Catherine Keener - Capote
Keener is a solid actress, but here, it's as if she exists solely for Hoffman's Capote to talk at. Sure, he dominates scenes with his powerful performance but Keener's Harper Lee should have had a lot more weight to the overall picture other than as something for which Hoffman to bounce lines off. I wanted more, more, more! She's a strong, serious, Southern woman that never gets to display those qualities in full. It would have been great if she was more of a moral voice and a friend that had more of a say. Instead, we get a supporting role that seems to typify a lot of the nominees in this category. I assume that Keener's nomination was ushered in with the movie as whole since it was up for Best Picture and won an Oscar for Hoffman. I really wish this didn't seem like just a throw in because I'm sure there were other deserving women out there.
Frances McDormand - North Country
When you think of Frances McDormand no doubt you think of her Oscar winning turn as the cop from Fargo. So that brings an aw shucks, folksy kind of connotation with it. A woman who can charm and be like one of the guys to hide the fact that she's a woman in a typically man's world, helping her avoid confrontation. That sums up her role as the union rep of a Minnesotan iron mine in this film perfectly. But unfortunately her character is incredibly thin. Yes she paved the way for Charlize Theron's character but she does nothing to improve the conditions for the women. She's content to placate the men so that they don't harass her and honestly she does absolutely nothing in this role/film to make her stand out. That's kind of sad for a film that is based on a landmark sexual harassment case. Her character get's Lou Gehrig's Disease but it feels like a random addition to the screenplay and not much is made of it. In fact, not much is made of McDormand's character after about 20-30 minutes. So her end state has no emotional reverberation for the viewer and really no point to the story. She is underutilized and just plain underused throughout the entire film. I'm unsure as to how she was nominated. It's not terrible but certainly not awards worthy, either!
Michelle Williams - Brokeback Mountain
Michelle Williams does a capable job playing Ennis' wife in this movie. But as is true to the theme of the nominees in this category this year, she's just not giving much to do. She plays wife and mother just fine, putting up with a meager existence in small town Wyoming content to love Ennis. After she witnesses Ennis' secret, however, we are treated to an understated yet complete devastation. Her world is turned upside down and she realizes he doesn't really love her. Those few scenes where Williams witnesses the event and keeps everything to herself are great but small. We see the fear and devastation and realization on her face. We see the light bulb click on over her head all because of Williams' acting. It's good and definitely a sign of things to come in the future as she has had some fantastic performances since this one. But besides a later scene where her contempt is made clear there's not much else for her character to do. She drives home the wounded wife and makes you feel for her greatly, I just wish we had a little bit more.
You can call this the year of the underwhelming Best Supporting Actress class. Every one except Amy Adams completely underwhelmed me. I admit I had some high expectations for this group because I had heard and read so many good things about a few of these women and their performances that I was just expecting to be blown away or at least enjoy them. Amy Adams wins by default as she had the only performance I truly enjoyed. Not to say that Rachel Weisz was bad but I was expecting amazing stuff and only got good. Williams was also good but I've heard so much from the Brokeback people on the interwebs that I thought she had a bigger part. The final two just really added nothing much at all to their respective movies and that's a shame. A shame because they deserved bigger and better parts but also a shame because there was probably other deserving women that could have been showcased instead. All in all a very disappointing year due to high expectations, something for which I won't apologize having.
Oscar Winner: Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
My Winner: Amy Adams - Junebug
Rachel Weisz
Michelle Williams
Catherine Keener
Frances McDormand
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)