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
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
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)