The dreaded Best Supporting Actress category. Gulp!
2003 Best Supporting Actress
Renee Zellweger - Cold Mountain
So
I have no idea if this was the Academy's way of saying "Here, you've
been nominated 3 years in a row so here's an Oscar" or if they would
have voted for it even if it was her first nom. That's the peril of
going backwards in time on this Oscar journey and also being unable to
read Academy members' minds from the past. As soon as Zellwegger's
character is first introduced to us, we know this is a showy, Oscar-y
role. She takes over the scene, and every scene she's in really, and
becomes the most interesting thing about the film. Before she comes
along, it's a basic and boring Nicole Kidman yearning for some love in
Jude Law kinda film. Zellwegger is gruff, loud, manly, and also
matter-of-fact. I'm pretty sure most actresses would have loved to have
had this role. It's a juicy character for a woman, they don't have to be
locked into a romantic lead. Zellwegger plays Ruby, a ranch hand so to
speak, helping out Kidman's character on her farm, doing all the manly
things. She has her delicate moments in the film and I think that's what
makes this role so appealing. This nomination seems like it would have
been a winner even back in the 40s-50s, it just has that sort of loud
acting (for lack of a better description), rapid fire delivery feel, but
that's not to denigrate Zellweger or say it's a bad performance. It's
snappy and perfectly right up the alley of the Academy. The fact that it
kinda harkens back to the olden days of Hollywood seems to just fit.
Plus, it's the best of the bunch and the clear favorite. I think it's
especially impressive to the Academy and others that this followed Bridget Jones's Diary and Chicago, which were two very different roles from this one. Zellweger showed her range and got rewarded for it. I'm totally okay with the win, especially given the competition. It's a performance you can't really hate.
Shohreh Aghdashloo - House of Sand and Fog
This
is a quintessential Supporting Actress nomination. There seems to be a
few different recurring types of nominations for this category that I've
encountered so far. You have nominations that get swept along with a
film that gets a bunch of nominations and captures the zeitgeist of that
year, maybe not entirely deserving but enough people saw the film and
remembered so and so was also in it. Then there's the good to
outstanding performances for little seen films, where sometimes the
nomination itself is a reward for the actress/film. And then you have
nominations like this one. Perfectly supporting. What seems to be
primarily for minority roles where the Academy respects the actress's
work and can hail themselves as being progressive for bucking the
typical middle aged white women trend. Not to say these nominations are
purely so the Academy can say the nominate minorities or anything. I
think these noms are great and much needed and I'd rather have these
instead of Meryl Streep's 80th nomination any day. Aghdashloo is a
strong actress and does what's needed of her character in this film. She
is the supportive wife to Kingsley's character. And, well, that's about
it. So it comes down to minority and yes, I agree to that. Should this
have won? No. But the fact that it is nominated is spectacular. Good for
the Academy. I'm sure they wanted to be progressive, but they could
have done way worse.
Patricia Clarkson - Pieces of April
This is a movie that I had never heard of until I started this project. I
know as I keep going back in time, that I'm going to run into a ton
more of movies just like this one. And that's part of the fun of this
undertaking, being exposed to all kinds of movies I would have never
heard of or actually watching some I would have not watched. This is a
very small indie film with a bunch of noteworthy stars like Katie
Holmes, Oliver Platt, and of course Patricia Clarkson. Holmes is a woman
living in NYC that is cooking Thanksgiving dinner for her estranged
family who are coming from the suburbs. The movie follows those journeys
of cooking and traveling and it's a lighthearted dramedy that's
supposed to make you feel good about family and all that stuff. It's not
a movie I would have watched on purpose and after watching it, it's not
one that I particularly care for though I can see the appeal of it.
It's just not something that's really in tune with my tastes. Plays the
estranged mother who has breast cancer and is quite frankly a bitch.
It's obvious that she uses the cancer as a means to getting away with
acting however she wants. Each scene we see her in changes how she is,
whether it's her just being mean or puking in a bathroom or getting high
to ease the pain or impulsively trying to hitch a ride back home
because she realizes she hates her daughter. The character arc is
obvious and not surprising that at the end the mother decides to go to
her daughter's run down apartment and enjoy the dinner and try to heal
those old wounds. It's some pretty cliche stuff that falls flat for me
because of those previous scenes. She's not keen on going on this trip
but then suddenly loves her daughter very much. It's an unrealistic arc
that's not really helped along by Clarkson. I never felt the change
should happen only that it was going to happen because I've seen a bunch
of movies just like this one. There was no want to see her change, we
weren't given that emotional investment. That mostly falls on the script
but somewhat on Clarkson. Just another average or worse performance for
this category.
Marcia Gay Harden - Mystic River
Talk about a one note performance. Harden plays a woman who starts to believe her Husband (Tim Robbins) has killed Sean Penn's daughter who is sort of related to her through marriage. She does a lot of sitting and worried staring which accurately sums up the extent of her performance in this film. There might be something about not being able to trust your loved one or at least giving them the benefit of the doubt kinda thing that's supposed to be layered into the character but none of that really comes through. Her character is just simply a worrisome woman who is unsure if her husband committed a terrible murder. Harden is fine in this one note performance and I'm not sure what else she could have done with the character but it still is just that one track. I would have wanted more from the character so that we could have gotten more from Harden but it is what it is. She's a previous Oscar winner and I believe this one probably got swept in along with the other Mystic River nominations. That speaks to a lack of quality roles for women, sure, but also the Academy's lack of ability to look elsewhere to find stand out performances. We see a little bit of that with nominating Hunter and Clarkson in small movies this year but it's been a problem for awhile for the Academy. This was definitely not something I enjoyed focusing on. Instead, it left me a bit bored for an Oscar nominated performance.
Holly Hunter - Thirteen
This
is an awful, awful, awful (x13) movie. I guess it's supposed to be one
of those coming of age movies but it just feels so damn fake. I was in
high school in 2003 and this movie shows some supposed high school
freshman girls and the vibe is totally a Hollywood one. Everyone seems
to be doing drugs, stealing, drinking, fucking, etc. and the people at
the high school seem straight out of some 40 year old screenwriter's
version of what high school in 2003 is like. It's quite ridiculous. So
you can obviously tell what I think of Holly Hunter's performance. She's
a recovering alcoholic mother that let's her kids' actions slide and it
continues into worse things. Hunter wants to remain the cool mom but it
comes at a price. She's an enabler with her own problems. The
performance isn't as terrible as the movie but it definitely doesn't
rise above that mess, either. There's nothing about it that makes me
want to champion it as something career defining or as a bit of good or
great acting. It's a serviceable performance that gets drowned out in
the overwhelming shock value of Thirteen.
Again this is a kind of underwhelming group for this category. I love being exposed to films I wouldn't have ever thought to watch but I just wish doing so would reap some nice Oscar watching rewards. Zellweger definitely stands head and shoulders above the rest of the group and is the obvious choice for a winner, even given her status as being due for an award. From there, it just becomes typical supporting stuff. Aghdashloo is decent enough but doesn't particularly stand out. It's good to see minority women getting some love, though. And then after that you could almost make it a toss up between the remaining 3. I definitely didn't like Hunter the most and was dissatisfied with Harden. Clarkson left me meh so in 3rd it goes. One of these times, I'm going to get a great group in this category. It has to happen sometime!
Oscar Winner: Renee Zellweger - Cold Mountain
My Winner: Renee Zellweger - Cold Mountain
Shohreh Aghdashloo
Patricia Clarkson
Marcia Gay Harden
Holly Hunter
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Best Picture 2004
This year's choices feel like a very typical Academy group. Big
budget movies, biopics, an indie/little seen movie. It hits all the
notes of what the Academy seems to like as I go back in time. I'm so
glad they expanded to anywhere from 5-10 nominees. There were some good
films left out of the final 5 here. It would be interesting to figure
out what other films could have made it in. Perhaps for another blog!
2004 Best Picture
Million Dollar Baby
So let's be real for a minute. This was the toughest movie for me to initially watch in a while because I'm not a big Clint Eastwood fan and boxing has never interested me. So it took me forever to watch this movie and when I finally did I actually liked it! For the first hour and a half, that is. It started off as a crowd pleasing sports movie about a woman following her dream and having success at it. It had me going and I was thinking ok, this isn't bad at all. Then the movie does a complete bait and switch and takes a left turn out of nowhere. If you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about. That's when I officially decided to hate this movie because it already had a lot going for it and the heel turn just felt completely unnecessary and done purely to manipulate the audience into thinking the movie was way more important than it actually was. What really frustrated me was that the last 45-30 minutes just crammed all kinds of extra shit into the story as if Paul Haggis, the writer, wasn't sure which of the points would stick. Now all of the sudden there is family issues for Maggie, a right to die/assisted suicide plot, and some unsettling (brief) sexual tension between Maggie and Frankie that all feels tacked on and rushed. It's bizarre to me and just reeks of an urge to make the movie have some kind of moralistic quality, that it had to be about something Very Important and controversial. I just don't get why it was added to what was becoming a pretty nice feel good sports movie. Eastwood does a fine enough job with the directing but I felt he put too much trust into Haggis' screenplay. Obviously that paid off with a Best Picture win but the whole thing feels extremely cheap to me. The performances were good and the story was interesting up until the turn. I just wish the movie would have continued down that path because I was intrigued about where it was heading.
The Aviator
The main thing that The Aviator suffers from is a story that doesn't do Howard Hughes much justice. Mr. Hughes is a very interesting person and that's evident in this film but unfortunately his life's story is not fully fleshed out. Instead, what we get is a sort of greatest hits of Hughes' life: making Hell's Angels, dating starlets, building and flying great aircraft and a battle with a Senator. Just writing all that out makes it plainly obvious that there is a lot going on in this film. It's fun to see Hepburn and Gardner and the like on the big screen again but the lack of real character development, or at least exploration, is too noticeable. We know Hughes was an eccentric man but we don't really get to see how he becomes that way. The script seems too in love with showing the spectacle of Hughes' life and of the early Hollywood time that it really loses focus on Hughes the man. We are shown some OCD moments here and there and they get increasingly absurd but the motivation behind it is mostly lost. In the beginning we see his mother bathing him and talking about pestilence or being unclean or whatever but that is about as in depth as it gets. The story moves from one event in Hughes' life to the next without really stopping to examine how these moments affect Hughes. Things that seem like they would be huge moments in anyone's life like surviving a plane crash or suffering heartbreak are given short shrift. We as the audience are left to wonder about these moments and long for the film to slow down and dive in instead of plowing ahead to the next event. I did enjoy the scenes where Hughes is holed up in his theater room in his mansion, however. It has a very surreal feeling that perfectly captures the deterioration of Hughes' mental state. You could call it heavy handed but I felt it really fit well within the scope of the film. It's the best part of the film for me and hints that there was something more interesting in the story. In the end, there is just too much going on without really saying all that much about Mr. Hughes. The Aviator is more a Hollywood spectacle than a true biopic. There's a difference between being the work of a genius and being a genius work, this is the former.
Finding Neverland
This obviously got in because of the Weinstein's; those fat, ugly fucks. That hate aside, this is a delightful little movie. It's just not really a Best Picture Oscar movie. It just is really light. I can't stress that enough. Honestly, I'm not too terribly interested in Barrie's relationship with the mother of the 4 boys. I'm really engrossed in how Peter Pan came into being. We get a bunch of looks into the imaginative world of Barrie that sets the stage for Peter Pan. That's what we want to see as the audience but instead the relationship always seems to get in the way. I do really enjoy the film as a whole. It's one of those feel good movies. I do love Depp's accent. It seems real enough. It's just that the whole movie is a very light affair. It moves with Depp, who really gives the movie life. So as I said before, we get some imaginative looks into the mind of Barrie and how he dreams up his plays. Those scenes are quite good because they are so unique and break up what could be a pedestrian biopic. This is a lightly dramatic film that speaks to the child in all of us without talking down to us. In a 5-10 film field, I'd be happy for this to get in but there's just a couple other films that are better and more deserving. Not a bad film, just not an Oscar film.
Ray
When it comes to musical biopics like this, Walk Hard has forever made them a lot harder to take serious since it lampooned many of the tropes found in films like Ray. It's kind of unfair but the film hits all the familiar notes of films like this so we know what's coming before it comes. That familiarity is a burden. Some films can handle it, some can't. Ray is able to handle it on the strength of Jamie Foxx's Oscar winning performance and the fact that the film focuses on Ray and his story instead of being a glorified concert like some other biopics. That's the misstep of a lot of these types of films, moving from famous song to famous song and only briefly diving into what makes those songs and the person performing them. Ray at least get it mostly right, zeroing in on the personal ups and downs and allowing us to feel alongside Foxx. That's what I look for in these biopics. I don't much care for the music (I do enjoy Ray's songs, though), that's just a backdrop or a theme running through the story. I'm more interested in the relationships and drug use and all that stuff. That's why I like Ray for the most part. It runs a bit too long and needs to be trimmed but the story is what is compelling. There's some stylistic choices that are slightly annoying or feel needless. The flashbacks overstay their welcome but I do like the album flyby things, not sure how else to describe them. Ray is a good musical biopic. But the main draw is watching Jamie Foxx just absolutely kill it as Ray Charles. It's a hell of a performance and definitely one of the best I've seen since I've started my little Oscar project.
Sideways
I've dreaded this movie for a number of reasons first of which is the middle aged men go on a wine road trip thing. That's all I ever knew about this one before I watched it and honestly the conceit did nothing to interest me. However, since this movie came out, Director Alexander Payne was nominated for BP for The Descendants and Nebraska. He's definitely grown as a director so that piqued my interest a bit even if I find both of those movies as only slightly above average. Payne certainly has a style that's best described as comedy for grown ups. That style is at its most pretentious here, unfortunately. He found a less grating style as he matured for his next two films but this one can easily annoy. Second reason I dreaded this movie is because I hate Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church to a lesser extent. I don't know what it is about Giamatti but he plays characters I detest and his face and voice certainly don't do him any favors. But in Sideways he is actually one of the best things about the entire movie. I don't know why he wasn't nominated for Best Actor because he actually got me to not hate him in this which means he did a great job in his role. The movie itself was funny at points and engaging to the point that my dread was unfounded. The wine for life metaphors were heavy handed, though, and laid on a bit too thick as if the viewer wasn't smart enough to make the connections without being expressly told them. Yes the movie was about a trip to wine country but not everything needed to be equated to some kind of wine or way of drinking it to get the message across. The movie is about two male friends who decided to spend a week in wine country before the one gets married with the goal of Giamatti teaching Church about wine and Church banging and drinking as much as he can before he gets married. There are times when the story is sensitive and poignant but it never capitalizes on those moments. The women disappear two thirds of the way through even though Giamatti and Madsen were the most interesting parts. It blows my mind that this was the best reviewed film of 2004 and that it had so much love from everyone. It's an interesting movie but it seems like maybe the critics were starved for an adult comedy and jumped all over this. I hated that the movie itself looked washed out or that they used too much soft focus. It really dated the look of the movie and if I watched it without knowing the year, I would have said mid to late 90s. Sideways delivered an interesting take on friendship and relationships but got caught up in the hype of Hollywood - it's a decent movie that's just not good enough to be great.
So this was the year before I started really paying attention to the Oscars. For me, I'd had heard of some of the movies, had actually seen a couple of the movies, but never really cared about the process or really anything detailing the nominees. At that time, I was big into hardcore music, some emo stuff, indie stuff, just music in general. That transitioned over to film and I'm glad it did because I get so much more enjoyment out of it. This is actually a tough year to call for me. Nothing really wows me. I guess my vote would be for Ray but it's a tepid vote. I like The Aviator second probably followed by Finding Neverland, then Sideways, then Million Dollar Baby because of that stupid ending. I know that's in direct opposite regard for most people but I feel those that disagree are crazy. I'd have voted for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind easily if it were in the running.
Oscar Winner: Million Dollar Baby
My Winner: Ray
The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Sideways
Million Dollar Baby
2004 Best Picture
Million Dollar Baby
So let's be real for a minute. This was the toughest movie for me to initially watch in a while because I'm not a big Clint Eastwood fan and boxing has never interested me. So it took me forever to watch this movie and when I finally did I actually liked it! For the first hour and a half, that is. It started off as a crowd pleasing sports movie about a woman following her dream and having success at it. It had me going and I was thinking ok, this isn't bad at all. Then the movie does a complete bait and switch and takes a left turn out of nowhere. If you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about. That's when I officially decided to hate this movie because it already had a lot going for it and the heel turn just felt completely unnecessary and done purely to manipulate the audience into thinking the movie was way more important than it actually was. What really frustrated me was that the last 45-30 minutes just crammed all kinds of extra shit into the story as if Paul Haggis, the writer, wasn't sure which of the points would stick. Now all of the sudden there is family issues for Maggie, a right to die/assisted suicide plot, and some unsettling (brief) sexual tension between Maggie and Frankie that all feels tacked on and rushed. It's bizarre to me and just reeks of an urge to make the movie have some kind of moralistic quality, that it had to be about something Very Important and controversial. I just don't get why it was added to what was becoming a pretty nice feel good sports movie. Eastwood does a fine enough job with the directing but I felt he put too much trust into Haggis' screenplay. Obviously that paid off with a Best Picture win but the whole thing feels extremely cheap to me. The performances were good and the story was interesting up until the turn. I just wish the movie would have continued down that path because I was intrigued about where it was heading.
The Aviator
The main thing that The Aviator suffers from is a story that doesn't do Howard Hughes much justice. Mr. Hughes is a very interesting person and that's evident in this film but unfortunately his life's story is not fully fleshed out. Instead, what we get is a sort of greatest hits of Hughes' life: making Hell's Angels, dating starlets, building and flying great aircraft and a battle with a Senator. Just writing all that out makes it plainly obvious that there is a lot going on in this film. It's fun to see Hepburn and Gardner and the like on the big screen again but the lack of real character development, or at least exploration, is too noticeable. We know Hughes was an eccentric man but we don't really get to see how he becomes that way. The script seems too in love with showing the spectacle of Hughes' life and of the early Hollywood time that it really loses focus on Hughes the man. We are shown some OCD moments here and there and they get increasingly absurd but the motivation behind it is mostly lost. In the beginning we see his mother bathing him and talking about pestilence or being unclean or whatever but that is about as in depth as it gets. The story moves from one event in Hughes' life to the next without really stopping to examine how these moments affect Hughes. Things that seem like they would be huge moments in anyone's life like surviving a plane crash or suffering heartbreak are given short shrift. We as the audience are left to wonder about these moments and long for the film to slow down and dive in instead of plowing ahead to the next event. I did enjoy the scenes where Hughes is holed up in his theater room in his mansion, however. It has a very surreal feeling that perfectly captures the deterioration of Hughes' mental state. You could call it heavy handed but I felt it really fit well within the scope of the film. It's the best part of the film for me and hints that there was something more interesting in the story. In the end, there is just too much going on without really saying all that much about Mr. Hughes. The Aviator is more a Hollywood spectacle than a true biopic. There's a difference between being the work of a genius and being a genius work, this is the former.
Finding Neverland
This obviously got in because of the Weinstein's; those fat, ugly fucks. That hate aside, this is a delightful little movie. It's just not really a Best Picture Oscar movie. It just is really light. I can't stress that enough. Honestly, I'm not too terribly interested in Barrie's relationship with the mother of the 4 boys. I'm really engrossed in how Peter Pan came into being. We get a bunch of looks into the imaginative world of Barrie that sets the stage for Peter Pan. That's what we want to see as the audience but instead the relationship always seems to get in the way. I do really enjoy the film as a whole. It's one of those feel good movies. I do love Depp's accent. It seems real enough. It's just that the whole movie is a very light affair. It moves with Depp, who really gives the movie life. So as I said before, we get some imaginative looks into the mind of Barrie and how he dreams up his plays. Those scenes are quite good because they are so unique and break up what could be a pedestrian biopic. This is a lightly dramatic film that speaks to the child in all of us without talking down to us. In a 5-10 film field, I'd be happy for this to get in but there's just a couple other films that are better and more deserving. Not a bad film, just not an Oscar film.
Ray
When it comes to musical biopics like this, Walk Hard has forever made them a lot harder to take serious since it lampooned many of the tropes found in films like Ray. It's kind of unfair but the film hits all the familiar notes of films like this so we know what's coming before it comes. That familiarity is a burden. Some films can handle it, some can't. Ray is able to handle it on the strength of Jamie Foxx's Oscar winning performance and the fact that the film focuses on Ray and his story instead of being a glorified concert like some other biopics. That's the misstep of a lot of these types of films, moving from famous song to famous song and only briefly diving into what makes those songs and the person performing them. Ray at least get it mostly right, zeroing in on the personal ups and downs and allowing us to feel alongside Foxx. That's what I look for in these biopics. I don't much care for the music (I do enjoy Ray's songs, though), that's just a backdrop or a theme running through the story. I'm more interested in the relationships and drug use and all that stuff. That's why I like Ray for the most part. It runs a bit too long and needs to be trimmed but the story is what is compelling. There's some stylistic choices that are slightly annoying or feel needless. The flashbacks overstay their welcome but I do like the album flyby things, not sure how else to describe them. Ray is a good musical biopic. But the main draw is watching Jamie Foxx just absolutely kill it as Ray Charles. It's a hell of a performance and definitely one of the best I've seen since I've started my little Oscar project.
Sideways
I've dreaded this movie for a number of reasons first of which is the middle aged men go on a wine road trip thing. That's all I ever knew about this one before I watched it and honestly the conceit did nothing to interest me. However, since this movie came out, Director Alexander Payne was nominated for BP for The Descendants and Nebraska. He's definitely grown as a director so that piqued my interest a bit even if I find both of those movies as only slightly above average. Payne certainly has a style that's best described as comedy for grown ups. That style is at its most pretentious here, unfortunately. He found a less grating style as he matured for his next two films but this one can easily annoy. Second reason I dreaded this movie is because I hate Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church to a lesser extent. I don't know what it is about Giamatti but he plays characters I detest and his face and voice certainly don't do him any favors. But in Sideways he is actually one of the best things about the entire movie. I don't know why he wasn't nominated for Best Actor because he actually got me to not hate him in this which means he did a great job in his role. The movie itself was funny at points and engaging to the point that my dread was unfounded. The wine for life metaphors were heavy handed, though, and laid on a bit too thick as if the viewer wasn't smart enough to make the connections without being expressly told them. Yes the movie was about a trip to wine country but not everything needed to be equated to some kind of wine or way of drinking it to get the message across. The movie is about two male friends who decided to spend a week in wine country before the one gets married with the goal of Giamatti teaching Church about wine and Church banging and drinking as much as he can before he gets married. There are times when the story is sensitive and poignant but it never capitalizes on those moments. The women disappear two thirds of the way through even though Giamatti and Madsen were the most interesting parts. It blows my mind that this was the best reviewed film of 2004 and that it had so much love from everyone. It's an interesting movie but it seems like maybe the critics were starved for an adult comedy and jumped all over this. I hated that the movie itself looked washed out or that they used too much soft focus. It really dated the look of the movie and if I watched it without knowing the year, I would have said mid to late 90s. Sideways delivered an interesting take on friendship and relationships but got caught up in the hype of Hollywood - it's a decent movie that's just not good enough to be great.
So this was the year before I started really paying attention to the Oscars. For me, I'd had heard of some of the movies, had actually seen a couple of the movies, but never really cared about the process or really anything detailing the nominees. At that time, I was big into hardcore music, some emo stuff, indie stuff, just music in general. That transitioned over to film and I'm glad it did because I get so much more enjoyment out of it. This is actually a tough year to call for me. Nothing really wows me. I guess my vote would be for Ray but it's a tepid vote. I like The Aviator second probably followed by Finding Neverland, then Sideways, then Million Dollar Baby because of that stupid ending. I know that's in direct opposite regard for most people but I feel those that disagree are crazy. I'd have voted for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind easily if it were in the running.
Oscar Winner: Million Dollar Baby
My Winner: Ray
The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Sideways
Million Dollar Baby
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Leading Actor 2004
Now I am getting close to years where I haven't seen all or a majority of the nominees. This will be the last year (at least after a quick scan) where I've already seen all 5 nominees. I think that is partly why it's taken me so damn long to re-watch and write about these movies. That and life getting in the way doesn't help much! This group doesn't make me too excited as I've been in the past but maybe one of them will stick out this time around.
2004 Best Actor
Jamie Foxx - Ray
This is a hell of a performance and absolutely deserving of an Oscar. Hell, Jamie Foxx was deserving based on this and his role in Collateral. Foxx kills it and none of the other candidates even come close. This is probably one of those few undisputed wins that the Academy got right with the critics. Foxx embodies Ray Charles. If you catch this on TV and look up briefly, you could easily swear you're seeing a documentary. It's that good. The mannerisms are perfect but it's the fact that Foxx brings a very human quality to the performance that makes it so good. It's as if Foxx was born to play this role and it definitely shows. It's iconic. When you think of Ray Charles, Jamie Foxx's performance might spring to mind even before the real Ray. There's not much else I can say about this one other than it's one of my favorites of the decade and maybe all time, which I've only realized on subsequent watches.
Don Cheadle - Hotel Rwanda
You know it's a great performance when Cheadle is able to carry the entire film about genocide and make it look effortless. His Paul Rusesabagina is the epitome of an accidental hero or maybe a better description would be unintended hero. He is a hotel manager for a hotel in Rwanda that caters to rich foreigners and Rwandan government bigwigs. This job is not for everyone because it is quite obvious that one must possess the skills necessary to please a myriad of different people and keep them happy for the sake of business. Paul's skills in that regard are perfect for when his life is turned upside down and rebels attack the country and wreak havoc. All of those connections are now invaluable and are used to keep not only himself and his loved ones alive but also the almost 1000 refugees his hotel took in. I describe this to highlight just how good Cheadle needs to be to be convincing. He is an everyman who needs to essentially stay rigid in his hotel manager role to be able to finagle is way out of precarious moment after precarious moment. Cheadle brings such a humanistic quality to his character that makes the film have a documentary like quality. He's not a super human and Cheadle definitely doesn't portray him as such which is a wonderful move. He plays Paul in a calm, collected, cool manner that shows a man used to defusing tough situations with his charm and know-how. He's a manager that uses his skills to save a ton of people. Cheadle brilliantly portrays this hero as just a normal guy doing what is right the best way he knows how. This is probably my favorite Don Cheadle performance.
Johnny Depp - Finding Neverland
Depp is perfectly charming. He's so likeable and natural and so not Johnny Depp in this role, which is a good thing! It's probably the last non-character role of his that I really enjoyed. There's no Tim Burton to fuck things up and Depp hadn't quite gone off the deep end yet. Instead, he was in the middle of being nominated 3 times in a few short years. Here he plays J.M. Barrie, author of Peter Pan. We see just how that story came to be when he spends a lot of time with a woman and her 4 children and letting his imagination run wild with them after a particularly bad play review. From this, he develops Peter Pan. But Depp's portrayal of Barrie is warm and caring. A man concerned about his plays but seemingly not concerned with his wife/family. There is the undertone of maybe Barrie likes the boys a little too much, which is clearly hinted at but not focused on. This film just makes it seem as if Barrie's imagination grabs hold of him and it doesn't matter if it's young boys or whatever, inspiration can strike anywhere. For Depp, this is a very understated role in respect to his other more grand characters. Which is what makes it interesting. THIS is what we want to see from Depp. Yes, we like those Sweeney Todd's and Jack Sparrow's, but I think many long for a good, normal character that we can relate to. He's a fantastic actor, both grand and insular. So yes, it's good. But it's lightly good. Among this field, it's more of a feel good nomination. I'm happy with the nom and feel it deserves to be here. It just couldn't stand up to the juggernaut of Jamie Foxx.
Leonardo DiCaprio - The Aviator
What can you say about Leo? He always goes all in with his performances, sometimes to great success and sometimes to the detriment of the film or character. I always like natural performances, one's that just feel real and lived in. When you can pick out the little affectations that the actor probably worked on for a while to get right, it's distracting. For me, Leo's take on Howard Hughes has a little of both. There's moments where you can get lost in the character forgetting that it's Leo like in the surreal-esque hermit Hughes scenes towards the end of the film or when Leo turns on the charm to woo some ladies. There's also times where it just feels like acting like when Leo clears his throat after saying something when he's starting to lose his perception on reality. I noticed it every time and every time it took me out of the illusion of Leo as Hughes. When an actor is universally thought of as being a really great actor like Leo, I think we tend to nitpick subsequent performances a bit more. We don't give him the benefit of the doubt as we would a new actor or even one making a comeback. It's unfair to some degree but holding those actors to a higher standard seems only natural. Leo gives a great effort as Howard Hughes and it's obvious that he relished the role. He's really good in the younger years at the beginning of the film where his frenetic energy plays so well. And I already mentioned that I enjoyed the scenes where his mental health has obviously deteriorated. Leo can be a great many thing and is a true actor's actor, not just a movie star. This film and role would be a lot for any actor to take on, spanning over two decades and being almost 3 hours long. Leo is up to the challenge, though, even if he falters a few times.
Clint Eastwood - Million Dollar Baby
I'm definitely not the biggest Eastwood fan, actor or director. But Eastwood works as the boxing trainer in this movie. Eastwood still seems to be sharp and able to actually act unlike subsequent movies of his where he grunts out lines and has a perpetual scowl no matter the role, which tends to be old man hates something. Though he might still be able to act, his character arc is one that is so obvious and predictable that you don't need to really pay attention to it. He's a gruff boxing trainer that is too cautious, possibly due to prior events in his life. He's estranged from his daughter for some reason that is never explained or resolved for us. He picks on his priest with questions and talks designed to trip up the clergyman and piss him off. He doesn't want to work with female boxers, ostensibly because it helps the plot. He's this curmudgeonly old man on the outside but a big softy on the inside. Swank's character is able to bring out the good in Eastwood's and the cliche sports trope is off to a good start. I actually enjoyed Eastwood at first because he's not such an asshole like in his future roles and I was hoping for some good ol sports movie redemption. But then the movie takes a weird left turn for the worse and we are forced into a moralistic mine field when we were only looking for a happy ending. This abrupt change finds Eastwood overly concerned for his prized fighter and the whole thing just rings hollow. The movie becomes something else entirely and Eastwood's guilt points to a larger, unresolved issue possibly with his daughter but it remains that way. You think you might be getting a moment where he goes to his daughter's but it never happens. He just disappears at the end and that's that. The arc is unsatisfying and the portrayal of it is just as unsatisfying.
This is one of the most obvious choices I've yet encountered in this category. Foxx is just absolutely incredible in his role and steals the show. From there it is actually pretty tough. I do love Cheadle's performance. And I like Depp's sincerity in his role here. DiCaprio gives a fantastic performance. I just put it a notch below Depp due to the movie itself. Both carry their films but Depp does a better job. So DiCaprio followed by Eastwood who is basically the odd man out. It's probably a bad nomination but there it is. Nothing clever for this blurb.
Oscar Winner: Jamie Foxx - Ray
My Winner: Jamie Foxx - Ray
Don Cheadle
Johnny Depp
Leonardo DiCaprio
Clint Eastwood
2004 Best Actor
Jamie Foxx - Ray
This is a hell of a performance and absolutely deserving of an Oscar. Hell, Jamie Foxx was deserving based on this and his role in Collateral. Foxx kills it and none of the other candidates even come close. This is probably one of those few undisputed wins that the Academy got right with the critics. Foxx embodies Ray Charles. If you catch this on TV and look up briefly, you could easily swear you're seeing a documentary. It's that good. The mannerisms are perfect but it's the fact that Foxx brings a very human quality to the performance that makes it so good. It's as if Foxx was born to play this role and it definitely shows. It's iconic. When you think of Ray Charles, Jamie Foxx's performance might spring to mind even before the real Ray. There's not much else I can say about this one other than it's one of my favorites of the decade and maybe all time, which I've only realized on subsequent watches.
Don Cheadle - Hotel Rwanda
You know it's a great performance when Cheadle is able to carry the entire film about genocide and make it look effortless. His Paul Rusesabagina is the epitome of an accidental hero or maybe a better description would be unintended hero. He is a hotel manager for a hotel in Rwanda that caters to rich foreigners and Rwandan government bigwigs. This job is not for everyone because it is quite obvious that one must possess the skills necessary to please a myriad of different people and keep them happy for the sake of business. Paul's skills in that regard are perfect for when his life is turned upside down and rebels attack the country and wreak havoc. All of those connections are now invaluable and are used to keep not only himself and his loved ones alive but also the almost 1000 refugees his hotel took in. I describe this to highlight just how good Cheadle needs to be to be convincing. He is an everyman who needs to essentially stay rigid in his hotel manager role to be able to finagle is way out of precarious moment after precarious moment. Cheadle brings such a humanistic quality to his character that makes the film have a documentary like quality. He's not a super human and Cheadle definitely doesn't portray him as such which is a wonderful move. He plays Paul in a calm, collected, cool manner that shows a man used to defusing tough situations with his charm and know-how. He's a manager that uses his skills to save a ton of people. Cheadle brilliantly portrays this hero as just a normal guy doing what is right the best way he knows how. This is probably my favorite Don Cheadle performance.
Johnny Depp - Finding Neverland
Depp is perfectly charming. He's so likeable and natural and so not Johnny Depp in this role, which is a good thing! It's probably the last non-character role of his that I really enjoyed. There's no Tim Burton to fuck things up and Depp hadn't quite gone off the deep end yet. Instead, he was in the middle of being nominated 3 times in a few short years. Here he plays J.M. Barrie, author of Peter Pan. We see just how that story came to be when he spends a lot of time with a woman and her 4 children and letting his imagination run wild with them after a particularly bad play review. From this, he develops Peter Pan. But Depp's portrayal of Barrie is warm and caring. A man concerned about his plays but seemingly not concerned with his wife/family. There is the undertone of maybe Barrie likes the boys a little too much, which is clearly hinted at but not focused on. This film just makes it seem as if Barrie's imagination grabs hold of him and it doesn't matter if it's young boys or whatever, inspiration can strike anywhere. For Depp, this is a very understated role in respect to his other more grand characters. Which is what makes it interesting. THIS is what we want to see from Depp. Yes, we like those Sweeney Todd's and Jack Sparrow's, but I think many long for a good, normal character that we can relate to. He's a fantastic actor, both grand and insular. So yes, it's good. But it's lightly good. Among this field, it's more of a feel good nomination. I'm happy with the nom and feel it deserves to be here. It just couldn't stand up to the juggernaut of Jamie Foxx.
Leonardo DiCaprio - The Aviator
What can you say about Leo? He always goes all in with his performances, sometimes to great success and sometimes to the detriment of the film or character. I always like natural performances, one's that just feel real and lived in. When you can pick out the little affectations that the actor probably worked on for a while to get right, it's distracting. For me, Leo's take on Howard Hughes has a little of both. There's moments where you can get lost in the character forgetting that it's Leo like in the surreal-esque hermit Hughes scenes towards the end of the film or when Leo turns on the charm to woo some ladies. There's also times where it just feels like acting like when Leo clears his throat after saying something when he's starting to lose his perception on reality. I noticed it every time and every time it took me out of the illusion of Leo as Hughes. When an actor is universally thought of as being a really great actor like Leo, I think we tend to nitpick subsequent performances a bit more. We don't give him the benefit of the doubt as we would a new actor or even one making a comeback. It's unfair to some degree but holding those actors to a higher standard seems only natural. Leo gives a great effort as Howard Hughes and it's obvious that he relished the role. He's really good in the younger years at the beginning of the film where his frenetic energy plays so well. And I already mentioned that I enjoyed the scenes where his mental health has obviously deteriorated. Leo can be a great many thing and is a true actor's actor, not just a movie star. This film and role would be a lot for any actor to take on, spanning over two decades and being almost 3 hours long. Leo is up to the challenge, though, even if he falters a few times.
Clint Eastwood - Million Dollar Baby
I'm definitely not the biggest Eastwood fan, actor or director. But Eastwood works as the boxing trainer in this movie. Eastwood still seems to be sharp and able to actually act unlike subsequent movies of his where he grunts out lines and has a perpetual scowl no matter the role, which tends to be old man hates something. Though he might still be able to act, his character arc is one that is so obvious and predictable that you don't need to really pay attention to it. He's a gruff boxing trainer that is too cautious, possibly due to prior events in his life. He's estranged from his daughter for some reason that is never explained or resolved for us. He picks on his priest with questions and talks designed to trip up the clergyman and piss him off. He doesn't want to work with female boxers, ostensibly because it helps the plot. He's this curmudgeonly old man on the outside but a big softy on the inside. Swank's character is able to bring out the good in Eastwood's and the cliche sports trope is off to a good start. I actually enjoyed Eastwood at first because he's not such an asshole like in his future roles and I was hoping for some good ol sports movie redemption. But then the movie takes a weird left turn for the worse and we are forced into a moralistic mine field when we were only looking for a happy ending. This abrupt change finds Eastwood overly concerned for his prized fighter and the whole thing just rings hollow. The movie becomes something else entirely and Eastwood's guilt points to a larger, unresolved issue possibly with his daughter but it remains that way. You think you might be getting a moment where he goes to his daughter's but it never happens. He just disappears at the end and that's that. The arc is unsatisfying and the portrayal of it is just as unsatisfying.
This is one of the most obvious choices I've yet encountered in this category. Foxx is just absolutely incredible in his role and steals the show. From there it is actually pretty tough. I do love Cheadle's performance. And I like Depp's sincerity in his role here. DiCaprio gives a fantastic performance. I just put it a notch below Depp due to the movie itself. Both carry their films but Depp does a better job. So DiCaprio followed by Eastwood who is basically the odd man out. It's probably a bad nomination but there it is. Nothing clever for this blurb.
Oscar Winner: Jamie Foxx - Ray
My Winner: Jamie Foxx - Ray
Don Cheadle
Johnny Depp
Leonardo DiCaprio
Clint Eastwood
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Leading Actress 2004
I tend to look forward to the Actress categories because they
inevitably offer up movies I'd otherwise never see, for better or for
worse. That will be even more true as I go back in time but I look
forward to branching out. I'm always looking for that diamond in the
rough and hopefully these lesser seen movies can offer something up.
2004 Best Actress
Hilary Swank - Million Dollar Baby
This is Swank's second Oscar win for playing a boyish character no less. It's hard to write this review because it's the first one I'm writing for the category. I can't really say if it was deserved or not until I watch the others but I think I can see why it did win. Swank's backwoods, aw shucks female boxer is a sure fire crowd pleaser. She's got that down home charm that's easy to relate to and is an easy to root for character. She's poor trying to make a living while also pursuing her American Dream. Million Dollar Baby didn't create any tough characters. It instantly gave you likeable characters to root for whether deserved or not. It's kind of a cop out when you are told from the very beginning that not liking a character essentially makes you heartless but that's what we have here with Maggie. Swank hits all the right notes, turning on the charm and looking like a bad ass in the ring. It's just that I find that it's not much of a stretch to play Maggie for the first hour and a half. It's straightforward sports cliche stuff that we've seen a bunch of times. Then comes the twist and that somehow makes the character have more depth or harder to portray? No, she's just an invalid in a bed not able to show any range really. It's unfortunate because I believe that Swank could show it if the script wasn't so basic and the character so one dimensional. That's my big issue with this win. It's a feel good win. Maybe even swept up in the late surge of love for the movie. If it had stayed a sports movie maybe something could have happened from a different ending to convince me it's worth winning. I just feel that the ending is so cheap that we don't get an authentic representation of Swank's talents. We get a character that is built for maximum awards play and that makes me want to puke.
Annette Bening - Being Julia
She's an actress playing an actress. These types of performances can be hard to judge because they inherently come with an allowance of overacting. That style is certainly on display here as the melodrama is quite thick from Bening's character. This overacting is needed for the character but can mask good acting because it's over the top or bad acting because it's comical. I feel that Bening falls somewhere in the middle, closer to the good acting. For most of the film, the character is mostly uninteresting to me. She has an affair with a younger man who is only using her. That gets to Bening's character and we see a shift towards something a lot more interesting. Julia uses her great acting ability to set up the young ingenue who is with her former, younger lover and now a part of her play. It's a bitchy cap to the end of the performance and one that keeps Julia on top for a little while longer. And that is essentially what the film is about, not wanting to give up the spotlight even at the expense of someone else. I haven't seen much of Bening but I thought this was a decent role for her. It didn't wow me or anything but I can see why it was nominated.
Catalina Sandino Moreno - Maria Full of Grace
It's always difficult to accurately judge a foreign language performance, at least for me. A lot of the nuance can get lost in translation and some of the focus is towards reading the subtitles. With that said, I still know that this was a really strong performance from Moreno. The role never feels exploitative of Moreno or her character and that's due in large part to the ability of Moreno to make it seem so natural. She's a stubborn, prideful teenager faced with familial responsibilities as well as an unplanned pregnancy as she tries to get by in Colombia. She is convinced to try drug running to make money and provide a future for her growing family. This sets in motion some expectedly tense scenes going through customs and the aftermath. Moreno is unwavering in her determination to make it through, relying on her smarts and her grace (cough). She is steadfastly an anti-super heroine. Maria could have easily been written or portrayed in a larger than life way but thankfully Moreno is more subdued in her performance. The entire time we are watching we wonder when it might all go wrong again. Even to the end we don't know what's going to happen to her or if she'll be able to make it in America, since her prospects aren't that much improved over the ones in Colombia. This is a performance I really liked and I wish we could see her in more films. Kudos to the Academy for an inspired pick even if it was to pat themselves on the back.
Imelda Staunton - Vera Drake
Funny story about watching this one: I try to find these films anywhere I can to actually watch them, whether it's Netflix, TV, my own copy, or somewhere on the internet. I watched this online and it ended after a little over an hour which is obviously wrong but I had no idea until the credits started rolling. I had watched the last hour and just thought that Mike Leigh decided to throw us right into it without much extra crap going on, just a tense hour of the cops catching wind of the abortions and then questioning Vera and her being sentenced. It was like damn, this is a tight movie story-wise! Then I realized there was a whole hour before where I started watching, which gave me an interesting perspective on the performance. I was thinking it was kind of one note since Vera is practically scared and crying the entire time. But it's a very convincing portrayal of someone who has just been busted for a major crime. From the proper beginning, Staunton plays her character with a warm, caring, likeable, everywoman demeanor. She could easily be your mom. That makes the business of her back alley abortion work curious. She is obviously doing what she thinks is right, helping women regain control of their lives. Her heart is in the right place so the viewer's own moral stance is used to decide what we the audience think about her work. It's a delicate balance to strike for Staunton. She's a woman with a purpose doing something explicitly forbidden that clearly helps the women. The first half of the film makes the second half hit that much harder. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this performance and movie but I think I'm finding that I really like Mike Leigh films.
Kate Winslet - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
The movie buoys the performance and the performance(s) buoy the movie. And that is saying both are tremendously good. This is such a unique and creative look at love and relationships and loss of the two. Winslet plays a high strung, irreverent, pixie-ish woman (as much of a pixie that Kaufman can conjure) that is instantly charming and likeable. The viewer quickly falls for Clementine and root for Jim Carrey's character to win her even though we know there's more to what we are seeing. It has it's issues and eventually we learn Clementine has decided to erase Carrey's character from her memory. It's an interesting concept that I'm sure that most people have thought about after a particularly bad breakup. It ask the question of if you would do something like that. You might want to get rid of all traces of the person from your being but is that true a week or two later? Or months later? Our memories make us who we are and shape our relationships to come for better or for worse. If we erase those, are we doomed to keep repeating the mistakes? The film raises so many interesting discussions that I could go on and on about it. It should have nominated for Best Picture. But Winslet does a terrific job with Clementine. She creates an unlikely heroine for romantic comedies which is obviously selling this film short, but speaks to Winslet creating something utterly different. It hurts watching the breakup and you can kinda see both sides which makes both main characters so natural. Kaufman's movies just have this absurd realism about them that make them work so well and that is on full display for this one. We see the breakup from all sides but don't take sides. There's not much else to say besides Winslet delivers what I consider her best performance, even if she wasn't rewarded for it.
When looking back on this year for this category, it's billed mostly as a Swank vs. Bening Round 2 type thing, both having competed in 1999 for Best Actress as well. It's funny, then, that those two are at the bottom of my rankings here. I'd give Swank the edge again, though neither really inspired much love in me. Staunton would be my 3rd choice, surprising me how much I actually enjoyed it. Next would be Moreno, again a pleasant surprise given that in most years the Academy wouldn't have even nominated her. My clear winner then would be Winslet for a performance (and film) that I adore. If that would have happened, maybe Winslet doesn't win later for The Reader, instead giving Streep her 3rd or Hathaway her first, which would in turn maybe give Viola Davis a Best Actress in The Help and maybe Amy Adams or Sally Field (again) a Supporting Actress win. As you can see, the Academy's choices have faaaar reaching effects. And instead of always playing catch up and rewarding actresses make-up Oscars for previous work, we could have a legit group of winners and nominees. Something to think about because Swank definitely didn't deserve a second Oscar.
Oscar Winner: Hilary Swank - Million Dollar Baby
My Winner: Kate Winslet - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Catalina Sandino Moreno
Imelda Staunton
Hilary Swank
Annette Bening
2004 Best Actress
Hilary Swank - Million Dollar Baby
This is Swank's second Oscar win for playing a boyish character no less. It's hard to write this review because it's the first one I'm writing for the category. I can't really say if it was deserved or not until I watch the others but I think I can see why it did win. Swank's backwoods, aw shucks female boxer is a sure fire crowd pleaser. She's got that down home charm that's easy to relate to and is an easy to root for character. She's poor trying to make a living while also pursuing her American Dream. Million Dollar Baby didn't create any tough characters. It instantly gave you likeable characters to root for whether deserved or not. It's kind of a cop out when you are told from the very beginning that not liking a character essentially makes you heartless but that's what we have here with Maggie. Swank hits all the right notes, turning on the charm and looking like a bad ass in the ring. It's just that I find that it's not much of a stretch to play Maggie for the first hour and a half. It's straightforward sports cliche stuff that we've seen a bunch of times. Then comes the twist and that somehow makes the character have more depth or harder to portray? No, she's just an invalid in a bed not able to show any range really. It's unfortunate because I believe that Swank could show it if the script wasn't so basic and the character so one dimensional. That's my big issue with this win. It's a feel good win. Maybe even swept up in the late surge of love for the movie. If it had stayed a sports movie maybe something could have happened from a different ending to convince me it's worth winning. I just feel that the ending is so cheap that we don't get an authentic representation of Swank's talents. We get a character that is built for maximum awards play and that makes me want to puke.
Annette Bening - Being Julia
She's an actress playing an actress. These types of performances can be hard to judge because they inherently come with an allowance of overacting. That style is certainly on display here as the melodrama is quite thick from Bening's character. This overacting is needed for the character but can mask good acting because it's over the top or bad acting because it's comical. I feel that Bening falls somewhere in the middle, closer to the good acting. For most of the film, the character is mostly uninteresting to me. She has an affair with a younger man who is only using her. That gets to Bening's character and we see a shift towards something a lot more interesting. Julia uses her great acting ability to set up the young ingenue who is with her former, younger lover and now a part of her play. It's a bitchy cap to the end of the performance and one that keeps Julia on top for a little while longer. And that is essentially what the film is about, not wanting to give up the spotlight even at the expense of someone else. I haven't seen much of Bening but I thought this was a decent role for her. It didn't wow me or anything but I can see why it was nominated.
Catalina Sandino Moreno - Maria Full of Grace
It's always difficult to accurately judge a foreign language performance, at least for me. A lot of the nuance can get lost in translation and some of the focus is towards reading the subtitles. With that said, I still know that this was a really strong performance from Moreno. The role never feels exploitative of Moreno or her character and that's due in large part to the ability of Moreno to make it seem so natural. She's a stubborn, prideful teenager faced with familial responsibilities as well as an unplanned pregnancy as she tries to get by in Colombia. She is convinced to try drug running to make money and provide a future for her growing family. This sets in motion some expectedly tense scenes going through customs and the aftermath. Moreno is unwavering in her determination to make it through, relying on her smarts and her grace (cough). She is steadfastly an anti-super heroine. Maria could have easily been written or portrayed in a larger than life way but thankfully Moreno is more subdued in her performance. The entire time we are watching we wonder when it might all go wrong again. Even to the end we don't know what's going to happen to her or if she'll be able to make it in America, since her prospects aren't that much improved over the ones in Colombia. This is a performance I really liked and I wish we could see her in more films. Kudos to the Academy for an inspired pick even if it was to pat themselves on the back.
Imelda Staunton - Vera Drake
Funny story about watching this one: I try to find these films anywhere I can to actually watch them, whether it's Netflix, TV, my own copy, or somewhere on the internet. I watched this online and it ended after a little over an hour which is obviously wrong but I had no idea until the credits started rolling. I had watched the last hour and just thought that Mike Leigh decided to throw us right into it without much extra crap going on, just a tense hour of the cops catching wind of the abortions and then questioning Vera and her being sentenced. It was like damn, this is a tight movie story-wise! Then I realized there was a whole hour before where I started watching, which gave me an interesting perspective on the performance. I was thinking it was kind of one note since Vera is practically scared and crying the entire time. But it's a very convincing portrayal of someone who has just been busted for a major crime. From the proper beginning, Staunton plays her character with a warm, caring, likeable, everywoman demeanor. She could easily be your mom. That makes the business of her back alley abortion work curious. She is obviously doing what she thinks is right, helping women regain control of their lives. Her heart is in the right place so the viewer's own moral stance is used to decide what we the audience think about her work. It's a delicate balance to strike for Staunton. She's a woman with a purpose doing something explicitly forbidden that clearly helps the women. The first half of the film makes the second half hit that much harder. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this performance and movie but I think I'm finding that I really like Mike Leigh films.
Kate Winslet - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
The movie buoys the performance and the performance(s) buoy the movie. And that is saying both are tremendously good. This is such a unique and creative look at love and relationships and loss of the two. Winslet plays a high strung, irreverent, pixie-ish woman (as much of a pixie that Kaufman can conjure) that is instantly charming and likeable. The viewer quickly falls for Clementine and root for Jim Carrey's character to win her even though we know there's more to what we are seeing. It has it's issues and eventually we learn Clementine has decided to erase Carrey's character from her memory. It's an interesting concept that I'm sure that most people have thought about after a particularly bad breakup. It ask the question of if you would do something like that. You might want to get rid of all traces of the person from your being but is that true a week or two later? Or months later? Our memories make us who we are and shape our relationships to come for better or for worse. If we erase those, are we doomed to keep repeating the mistakes? The film raises so many interesting discussions that I could go on and on about it. It should have nominated for Best Picture. But Winslet does a terrific job with Clementine. She creates an unlikely heroine for romantic comedies which is obviously selling this film short, but speaks to Winslet creating something utterly different. It hurts watching the breakup and you can kinda see both sides which makes both main characters so natural. Kaufman's movies just have this absurd realism about them that make them work so well and that is on full display for this one. We see the breakup from all sides but don't take sides. There's not much else to say besides Winslet delivers what I consider her best performance, even if she wasn't rewarded for it.
When looking back on this year for this category, it's billed mostly as a Swank vs. Bening Round 2 type thing, both having competed in 1999 for Best Actress as well. It's funny, then, that those two are at the bottom of my rankings here. I'd give Swank the edge again, though neither really inspired much love in me. Staunton would be my 3rd choice, surprising me how much I actually enjoyed it. Next would be Moreno, again a pleasant surprise given that in most years the Academy wouldn't have even nominated her. My clear winner then would be Winslet for a performance (and film) that I adore. If that would have happened, maybe Winslet doesn't win later for The Reader, instead giving Streep her 3rd or Hathaway her first, which would in turn maybe give Viola Davis a Best Actress in The Help and maybe Amy Adams or Sally Field (again) a Supporting Actress win. As you can see, the Academy's choices have faaaar reaching effects. And instead of always playing catch up and rewarding actresses make-up Oscars for previous work, we could have a legit group of winners and nominees. Something to think about because Swank definitely didn't deserve a second Oscar.
Oscar Winner: Hilary Swank - Million Dollar Baby
My Winner: Kate Winslet - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Catalina Sandino Moreno
Imelda Staunton
Hilary Swank
Annette Bening
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)