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
No comments:
Post a Comment