My favorite category that always seems to deliver! Let's dive in.
2004 Best Supporting Actor
Morgan Freeman - Million Dollar Baby
And the Best Voiceover Oscar goes to... No, but seriously Freeman is pretty good in this movie. I understand why he got the win and it will go to the thing I talk about over and over and that's career win. But this isn't one of those career wins that leaves you scratching your head as to what the Academy saw in it. This movie is a feel good story (at least for most of it anyway) and Freeman's character is super likeable. He's a retired boxer who helps out at Eastwood's gym and acts as the sage, old professional, the voice of reason. He helps out Swank's character, defends a simple minded trainee, adds some laughs through the great chemistry he has with Eastwood, and narrates the film on top of it all. There's no bad quality to this character but Freeman doesn't play it in a sugary way, instead he plays it as real as he can. I likened it to his character being the stand in for the viewer. Everything Freeman does and feels is what we as the audience do and feel. What I liked about it was that it seemed measured, in that he's not just a plot device but an actual character to the story. It's strong work in a beloved movie and it's clear why it was nominated and won. If the Academy is going to reward a career, there are worse performances to reward.
Alan Alda - The Aviator
It has to be asked if this is a nod to Alda's career. He was great in MASH. But his role as the opportunistic, conniving Senator from Maine isn't exactly a thing of amazing quality. Just as Blanchett overacting as Hepburn, Alda comes off extra villainous here only needing a mustache to twirl to complete the look. But that doesn't mean this is a bad performance. Far from it actually. Alda does a good job as Hughes' tormentor. It's just that there's not a lot more to the character. Most of the scenes he's in with Leo focus more on Leo. That seems an obvious thing to say for a movie like this but Scorsese doesn't linger on Alda's character much so there's not a lot to get out of the performance other than how Leo reacts. Alda makes Leo more sympathetic to us. Basically what I'm trying to say is that Alda is good at being the foil for Leo in the movie's third act. He's the conflict for the end of the movie and does a good job. It's not a winner but it's not terrible, either.
Thomas Haden Church - Sideways
I really enjoyed this character. It's funny because he just wants to get drunk and we feel his pain as we are watching. He's like an ogre in pretentious wine country and I think many of us viewers would feel the same way, especially those of us that know nothing about wine. He's hilarious because he seems to represent the everyman and speaks his mind. He's an actor making the trip with his buddy to wine country before he gets married. He wants one last hurrah and that hurrah includes getting laid. He's successful in that regard but I never grow to dislike him as a person. I know many others watching will have a problem with his wanton cheating and disregard for his friend, future wife, and the woman he's cheating with telling her he loves her. He's just that kind of guy - a charming, suave, funny guy who has always skated by on his looks and personality without having to answer for his discretions. Church is the best choice for the character because he's this big, hulking, deep voiced dude that is the furthest thing from a wine drinker as you could imagine. His friendship with Giamatti's character is almost sweet and very much a guy friendship. You'd never believe the two were best buddies because they are almost total opposites. But it doesn't strike this guy as odd. It's not a performance that hits you over the head with its greatness. But as I said for Virginia Madsen in the Supporting Actress category, this IS a Supporting Actor nomination through and through. You can judge whether that is a good or bad thing but this one works for me. Does it deserve a win? Not at all but I did enjoy what Church brought to the table. If it was never nominated, though, I wouldn't lose any sleep. It's very replaceable but also a good fit.
Jamie Foxx - Collateral
I like the fact that I get to watch a movie that I really, really enjoy. It's almost a guilty pleasure except it's actually a good movie. So seeing it listed in this category is like having a nice cold beer after a long day working. I love this movie because it's so cool and the way Michael Mann shot it is just pure awesomeness. This was the year of the Foxx and it's surprising that he was also nominated here in Supporting. You might argue that he's actually Lead but it's definitely an achievement that a black man was nominated in two different categories in the same year - quite the feat. Foxx plays Max, a cabbie who is forced to drive Tom Cruise's hit man character around LA at night. Things go south quickly and Foxx is forced into a reluctant hero role. What I loved about this performance is that by the end of the film, it becomes such a fully realized, three-dimensional one. The relationship between Foxx and Cruise feels natural and their time on screen together is electric. It's as if Max was waiting for this moment to finally realize he was alive and could be more than just a late night cabbie. It's an inspired performance from Foxx, one that eschews charisma for a regular joe kind of attitude. While the ending might be a bit unbelievable, Foxx's gradual turn into our reluctant hero is really good acting. This is a performance I could watch again and again without getting bored.
Clive Owen - Closer
I'm not gonna lie, I'd probably watch Clive Owen in anything. He's just one of those badass guys you like watching in whatever terrible shoot-em-up movie he's in. This isn't one of those. In this one he's a pervert, plain and simple. And it's implied, though never shown outright, that he's a misogynist. But that makes sense because he tries to meet girls on a sex chatroom, asks super detailed sex questions when breaking up with his wife and later with Natalie Portman's stripper act, and asking for sex in return for signing divorce papers. He's a manipulator, a scoundrel, a fucked up doctor. Owen is just not a good man in this movie. And Owen really plays his character like all his other characters. It's Clive Owen as so-and-so. If this movie had a shootout, I wouldn't have been surprised. That's not exactly a knock on Clive Owen. I love what he does but this was all those characters without a weapon. There really is no redeeming quality to his character, either. He's a disgusting human being. I can't help but think maybe the director/writer were using Owen and Jude Law as the dichotomy of men...possibly in relationships? It's a stretch, sure, but Owen would be the intense, hypersexual, possessive male. And Law would be the sensitive, artistic, emotional guy. The fact that these guys were sort of the opposites of each other was not by accident. Regardless of all that, Owen came off as extremely creepy and weird and he did a great job of displaying that. There's no doubt that I believe Owen could be some weird dude peering between the bushes even though he's a successful doctor. Apparently Owen played this character on stage first before the movie so I can respect that portrayal is the way it is. It's interesting that the Academy decided to nominate him here but I'm kinda glad they did.
Maybe not the best Supporting Actor groups I've watched so far but this category always delivers at least one great performance and gives me the chance to watch some really good/interesting movies. I can agree with the Academy's choice simply because they gave Foxx the Best Actor Oscar anyway. I think my choice for the win in this category would have been Foxx (which is basically a Lead Performance) with Freeman a close second. A more distant third and fourth would be Church and Owen and then Alda bringing up the rear. A strong year for black actors.
Oscar Winner: Morgan Freeman - Million Dollar Baby
My Winner: Jamie Foxx - Collateral
Morgan Freeman
Thomas Haden Church
Clive Owen
Alan Alda
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Friday, January 30, 2015
Supporting Actress 2004
On the surface, this year looks interesting. Some stuff I haven't seen in a long time and some performances I've never seen. I know to never get my hopes up with this group sadly, but I do hope to enjoy it.
2004 Best Supporting Actress
Cate Blanchett - The Aviator
So this is your winner and it's very clear as to why. Not only does it give the Academy the chance to reward Katherine Hepburn for a final time, but it offers something else the Academy loves: the chance to award an actor for playing another actor. That sounds derogatory but in reality is just the honest truth. One that continues into 2015. Where in other instances it might be considered the wrong choice, it's obvious that Blanchett gave the best performance of the 5 actresses nominated here. Does that mean this performance is actually Oscar worthy? Possibly. But it's difficult to actually say because I don't know what else was even possibly up for this category. That's the tough thing about going back in time without having covered the race in real time. Yes, I can offer alternatives to the last few years, but not for anything before that. I look at this group and am underwhelmed. I like Blanchett's sassy, feisty, somewhat overacted but very fun take on Hepburn. It's clear she is having fun and I imagine roles like this are a breath of fresh air because they certainly are for the audience. My issue is that this stands out because the others are so boring and so supportive. This flashes and has an Oscar moment. It's appealing. Does it make it the best, though? I don't think I'll ever actually know. I'm ok with saying it's clearly the best of the bunch. Blanchett does offer some sympathetic moments when dealing with Hughes' OCD and bizarre ways. You can tell she cares but she is destined for bigger and better and more gregarious things. She can't be shut it like Mr. Hughes. It's a good, fun piece of acting and I'm glad the Academy rewarded this instead of the others.
Laura Linney - Kinsey
This is an interesting movie to the say the least. It will depend on your views of sex whether or not you enjoy it which I would imagine tempers one's views on the characters, particularly Linney here. While Neeson's Kinsey is always, always giving lectures - meaning that's just how he talks (bad script writing?) - Linney's character is basically the conduit at times for her husband and the voice of reason at others. The early years of her character are kind of cringe inducing because Linney and Neeson affect these weird, youthful versions of their voices. It's hard to explain but you'll understand if you watch it. It's just strange and frankly, bad acting. The film does settle in eventually and we get more from Linney's character but not enough. She's the supportive wife who stands by her man through thick and thin and yeah, that's about it. There is a momentary jolt of interest when she sleeps with her husband's assistant but nothing comes from that and the movie never more than scratches the surface of that oil field. It had the potential to turn into something compelling or at least more interesting than what the rest of the movie turned out to be. It seems like a weird nomination, one of those that you wonder why and can't come up with anything good. Linney is capable in this role but not particularly astounding or anything.
Virginia Madsen - Sideways
She really is the typical Supporting nomination especially for this category. She plays the love interest for the main character and only barely gets to present herself as anything more than that. She loves wine but is working as a waitress, she's smart and commuting to school but she is underused as a legit character. She's the foil to Giamatti. Her character follows the tropes set forth by her brethren but that's not necessarily a good thing. Yes, it's supporting but we would like a lot more especially when there's a lot more hinted at. Actually smart and interesting but just little used. She's treated like any gas station wine, you grab her because she's cheap and will get you drunk but there's little nuance and substance there. She's cute and we respect her wine knowledge but it rarely feels like the character talking. Most of that jumbled mess of random thoughts was written drunkenly so I kept it in. But it's all on point. It feels like her nomination got swept up with the hype of the movie itself. Is it a performance you can see winning? No. Is it representative of the category, though? Absolutely, which is why I don't mind seeing it here. I do hate that her character disappears towards the end when Giamatti lets it slip that his friend is getting married and doesn't actually love her friend. The character feels too disposable and her "arc" so to speak is left unresolved. So as I said earlier, she really is underused and that's too bad because I was interested in her relationship with Giamatti more so than anything else in the film.
Sophie Okonedo - Hotel Rwanda
These are the kinds of nominations that I just don't understand. Is it the Academy voters' guilt about the subject matter that leads to a nom? Do they feel voting for Okonedo is a noble thing? Did this get swept up in the nominations because of Don Cheadle's tremendous performance? I can't obviously answer those questions but I definitely wonder about them. This performance is exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to the Supporting Actress category. Okonedo is perfectly fine as the supportive wife to Cheadle's character but that's about all it has going for it. There is no singular moment or scene where she rises above and shines. There is no Oscar moment. You can't even say that the sum of the parts equals anything amazing because it doesn't. It's supporting through and through but no different than any of the other supporting performances in the film. It's great that the Academy thought to put this film in the collective conscious of the general public but there's nothing here that I can point to that is truly worthy, which is unfortunate.
Natalie Portman - Closer
Of the two women in this film, Portman does the best job of bringing her character to life. She is given a much bigger role and she does an admirable job in trying to make the character work. But there are definitely times when the subject becomes too sexual. We look at Portman as this young girl and though she is asked to be a stripper and dance for Clive Owen we can't help but think, well, what the fuck! She's young so that tempers our excitement. It makes us uneasy and Owen acts like a fucking pervert the entire time which doesn't help. Portman is sexual and naive. She gets hit by a car in the opening and falls in love with Jude Law's character and they live together for 3 years but Law loves another woman. Then Portman goes back to her stripping ways and that is essentially the character arc for Miss Portman. It's kind of a travesty that that is what she gets. She is the most real in the scene where she strips for Owen. It feels real for her character. She doesn't have much else to do in the film, though, which is sad. This film could have looked at both male and female sexuality in a similar way but instead it fell into the usual tropes. And it seems robotic and like I'm repeating myself on this blog, but we could have got way more development from Portman's character! I do like that her stripper never gives in. For me, this nomination is a link between her younger years and her more mature years when she would win an Oscar.
Well this is a very easy category to pick a winner for. It's also the most typical Best Supporting Actress categories I've encountered. You've got 4 nominees that are just very supporting and not exactly standout performances. You could argue Portman being a bit different but I'll lump her in with the others. Only Blanchett actually wows us which doesn't seem too hard given what her role/character is. I did want to mention that some movies can be so hard to find the effort to watch which slows this blog down considerably. It's always easier with movies I haven't seen and that only have 1 or 2 things to write about. I sat on Hotel Rwanda for a while, though. I enjoyed it the first time I saw it way back around this time but it's something you have to be in the mood for I think. Coming home from a long day this isn't the first thing I want to watch! And so it kinda hangs over me since I don't watch other category films unless it's as part of this one. I like to finish categories and then move on. Basically I'm explaining why I have these long droughts at times, haha.
Oscar Winner: Cate Blanchett - The Aviator
My Winner: Cate Blanchett - The Aviator
Natalie Portman
Virginia Madsen
Laura Linney
Sophie Okonedo
2004 Best Supporting Actress
Cate Blanchett - The Aviator
So this is your winner and it's very clear as to why. Not only does it give the Academy the chance to reward Katherine Hepburn for a final time, but it offers something else the Academy loves: the chance to award an actor for playing another actor. That sounds derogatory but in reality is just the honest truth. One that continues into 2015. Where in other instances it might be considered the wrong choice, it's obvious that Blanchett gave the best performance of the 5 actresses nominated here. Does that mean this performance is actually Oscar worthy? Possibly. But it's difficult to actually say because I don't know what else was even possibly up for this category. That's the tough thing about going back in time without having covered the race in real time. Yes, I can offer alternatives to the last few years, but not for anything before that. I look at this group and am underwhelmed. I like Blanchett's sassy, feisty, somewhat overacted but very fun take on Hepburn. It's clear she is having fun and I imagine roles like this are a breath of fresh air because they certainly are for the audience. My issue is that this stands out because the others are so boring and so supportive. This flashes and has an Oscar moment. It's appealing. Does it make it the best, though? I don't think I'll ever actually know. I'm ok with saying it's clearly the best of the bunch. Blanchett does offer some sympathetic moments when dealing with Hughes' OCD and bizarre ways. You can tell she cares but she is destined for bigger and better and more gregarious things. She can't be shut it like Mr. Hughes. It's a good, fun piece of acting and I'm glad the Academy rewarded this instead of the others.
Laura Linney - Kinsey
This is an interesting movie to the say the least. It will depend on your views of sex whether or not you enjoy it which I would imagine tempers one's views on the characters, particularly Linney here. While Neeson's Kinsey is always, always giving lectures - meaning that's just how he talks (bad script writing?) - Linney's character is basically the conduit at times for her husband and the voice of reason at others. The early years of her character are kind of cringe inducing because Linney and Neeson affect these weird, youthful versions of their voices. It's hard to explain but you'll understand if you watch it. It's just strange and frankly, bad acting. The film does settle in eventually and we get more from Linney's character but not enough. She's the supportive wife who stands by her man through thick and thin and yeah, that's about it. There is a momentary jolt of interest when she sleeps with her husband's assistant but nothing comes from that and the movie never more than scratches the surface of that oil field. It had the potential to turn into something compelling or at least more interesting than what the rest of the movie turned out to be. It seems like a weird nomination, one of those that you wonder why and can't come up with anything good. Linney is capable in this role but not particularly astounding or anything.
Virginia Madsen - Sideways
She really is the typical Supporting nomination especially for this category. She plays the love interest for the main character and only barely gets to present herself as anything more than that. She loves wine but is working as a waitress, she's smart and commuting to school but she is underused as a legit character. She's the foil to Giamatti. Her character follows the tropes set forth by her brethren but that's not necessarily a good thing. Yes, it's supporting but we would like a lot more especially when there's a lot more hinted at. Actually smart and interesting but just little used. She's treated like any gas station wine, you grab her because she's cheap and will get you drunk but there's little nuance and substance there. She's cute and we respect her wine knowledge but it rarely feels like the character talking. Most of that jumbled mess of random thoughts was written drunkenly so I kept it in. But it's all on point. It feels like her nomination got swept up with the hype of the movie itself. Is it a performance you can see winning? No. Is it representative of the category, though? Absolutely, which is why I don't mind seeing it here. I do hate that her character disappears towards the end when Giamatti lets it slip that his friend is getting married and doesn't actually love her friend. The character feels too disposable and her "arc" so to speak is left unresolved. So as I said earlier, she really is underused and that's too bad because I was interested in her relationship with Giamatti more so than anything else in the film.
Sophie Okonedo - Hotel Rwanda
These are the kinds of nominations that I just don't understand. Is it the Academy voters' guilt about the subject matter that leads to a nom? Do they feel voting for Okonedo is a noble thing? Did this get swept up in the nominations because of Don Cheadle's tremendous performance? I can't obviously answer those questions but I definitely wonder about them. This performance is exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to the Supporting Actress category. Okonedo is perfectly fine as the supportive wife to Cheadle's character but that's about all it has going for it. There is no singular moment or scene where she rises above and shines. There is no Oscar moment. You can't even say that the sum of the parts equals anything amazing because it doesn't. It's supporting through and through but no different than any of the other supporting performances in the film. It's great that the Academy thought to put this film in the collective conscious of the general public but there's nothing here that I can point to that is truly worthy, which is unfortunate.
Natalie Portman - Closer
Of the two women in this film, Portman does the best job of bringing her character to life. She is given a much bigger role and she does an admirable job in trying to make the character work. But there are definitely times when the subject becomes too sexual. We look at Portman as this young girl and though she is asked to be a stripper and dance for Clive Owen we can't help but think, well, what the fuck! She's young so that tempers our excitement. It makes us uneasy and Owen acts like a fucking pervert the entire time which doesn't help. Portman is sexual and naive. She gets hit by a car in the opening and falls in love with Jude Law's character and they live together for 3 years but Law loves another woman. Then Portman goes back to her stripping ways and that is essentially the character arc for Miss Portman. It's kind of a travesty that that is what she gets. She is the most real in the scene where she strips for Owen. It feels real for her character. She doesn't have much else to do in the film, though, which is sad. This film could have looked at both male and female sexuality in a similar way but instead it fell into the usual tropes. And it seems robotic and like I'm repeating myself on this blog, but we could have got way more development from Portman's character! I do like that her stripper never gives in. For me, this nomination is a link between her younger years and her more mature years when she would win an Oscar.
Well this is a very easy category to pick a winner for. It's also the most typical Best Supporting Actress categories I've encountered. You've got 4 nominees that are just very supporting and not exactly standout performances. You could argue Portman being a bit different but I'll lump her in with the others. Only Blanchett actually wows us which doesn't seem too hard given what her role/character is. I did want to mention that some movies can be so hard to find the effort to watch which slows this blog down considerably. It's always easier with movies I haven't seen and that only have 1 or 2 things to write about. I sat on Hotel Rwanda for a while, though. I enjoyed it the first time I saw it way back around this time but it's something you have to be in the mood for I think. Coming home from a long day this isn't the first thing I want to watch! And so it kinda hangs over me since I don't watch other category films unless it's as part of this one. I like to finish categories and then move on. Basically I'm explaining why I have these long droughts at times, haha.
Oscar Winner: Cate Blanchett - The Aviator
My Winner: Cate Blanchett - The Aviator
Natalie Portman
Virginia Madsen
Laura Linney
Sophie Okonedo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)