As usual, the Actress categories offer up films I'd otherwise probably never see. This year's group brings 3 films I've never seen, one I've seen but can't remember and then Chicago. The names, however, are all strong so I look forward to diving in!
2002 Best Actress
Nicole Kidman - The Hours
There's a lot of things that spring to mind when you think about Kidman's Best Actress win. I think the first thing everyone remembers is that she wore a fake nose for her role as the depressed author Virginia Woolf. There were a lot of jokes made about it at the time and some people felt it was one of the contributing reasons for her win. One of those Oscar stereotypes where a beautiful actress uglifies herself. I don't honestly think it's as easy as that, though. What also comes to mind is that Kidman lost the year prior to Halle Berry, which was a historic win but many thought that Kidman should have won instead and that she won this year to make up for that. And seeing as how one could possibly classify her role as Supporting instead of Lead, well, it looks all set up in her favor to win. If not for those factors, would Zellweger have pulled out the win? And then maybe someone else wins the Best Supporting Actress the next year instead of Renee? Oscar is full of these type of what if moments and it's fun to speculate. But Kidman did win for this role and it's not exactly an undeserved win, either. Kidman is almost unrecognizable as Woolf because of the fake nose (which I actually like) and the frumpy, demure look she sports. Her characterization of Woolf is intense. Her whole being is hardened and she seems to exist deliberately. You could almost say that she comes off as a sociopath because she's so cold and removed and unfeeling in the normal ways. Kidman does a great job and I'm glad to admit that, as I'm definitely not the biggest Kidman fan. Stripped of all the beauty and movie star trappings, she gives an honest performance that's worth of an Oscar win.
Salma Hayek - Frida
Frida was something of a passion project for Salma Hayek and it shows. It took a long time to get the story of surrealist painter Frida Kahlo to the big screen and Hayek was a major part of that process. However, not all passion projects end up being as enjoyable for the audience to watch as it is for the project to be completed by whoever is involved. That's certainly the case here with Frida. While there are parts of the film that are inspired, like the paintings melting into real life, there's overall something lacking, something missing. The same can be said of Hayek's performance. There are times when certain roles just seem tailor made for certain actors, when you can't see anyone else playing the character and it just feels like they were born to do it. Hayek portraying Frida is one of those. With that in mind, however, you'd think the performance would be a little less uneven. Sometimes the passion of bringing the story to life doesn't translate all that well to the actual acting. You can tell she's having fun and enjoying it but it comes off at times as a little too self serving. Like I said, there's just something that's lacking from the film overall. I'm not sure if what would be needed is a stronger performance from Hayek or if they needed to make it seem so less by the numbers or play up the surreal aspect more or not gloss over all the turmoil in Frida's life, I don't know. But that sentence should point to exactly what's wrong with Hayek's performance. I'm glad she was able to be nominated but I just wish we got a lot more out of it.
Diane Lane - Unfaithful
The Academy doesn't often go for these sorts of sexual thrillers much anymore and I can't say I blame them. Movies like these can easily devolve into schlock if those involved aren't careful enough. Ultimately for me, they have to be really, really, exceptionally, amazingly great to get me to like them. I'm not sure I even know of any like that to be honest. Usually there's some pointless and/or gratuitous sex and nudity that does nothing at all for the story and serves only to titillate and tease. Unfaithful does have a little bit of that even though I do think Diane Lane is super hot in this. The thing is, I expect way more from an Oscar nomination and I just don't see what Lane's performance brings that warrants any kind of awards attention. She plays a woman who has a great life but I guess feels bored and decides to cheat on her husband and feels more shame at the idea of getting caught or falling in love with the guy instead of the actual cheating part. Her husband (Richard Gere) finds out and, well, yeah I won't ruin it. But suffice it to say that this is neither an Oscar movie nor an Oscar caliber performance. It doesn't stand out and feels like any other actress could have played the part and hit all the same notes. It has no depth, pushes no boundaries, confronts no taboos or real emotions. It's a paper thin performance and one that reeks of either the Academy wanting to boost the career or Lane and make her into a star or some successful lobbying for votes. I'm sure there was another performance out there somewhere that could have made the list instead. And I don't think the lack of anything that really wows is the fault of Lane, I think this is her in her comfort zone and possibly as good as she can do. I just think it's a shame that the Academy thought this was good enough to be a Best Actress nominee. If you haven't seen it, don't waste your time.
Julianne Moore - Far From Heaven
This is one of those performances that I've marked down in my mind so I can really pay attention to it. Before Julianne Moore won her Oscar this year for Still Alice, most of the talk online was about how she was probably the most deserving actress going who hadn't won an Oscar and everyone usually pointed to this performance as her best and the one she should have won for. So obviously that's some high praise and is going to make me pay extra attention to this performance. It's interesting that both of her nominations in 2002 were essentially for the same type of role: the 50's housewife who battles some demons, whether self made or society made. In this film, Moore plays a housewife whose husband is gay and deals with that by connecting and confiding with a black man. Scandalous stuff for the 1950's. Unfortunately the initial impression of Far From Heaven for me isn't Moore's acting but rather the distractingly terrible old time movie vibe that sucks me right out of the film. It's excruciatingly bad at times and just really doesn't fit the story. The director was trying to go for an actual 50's movie with a modern story but those two ideas clash violently. I don't get the choice, especially because it obscures Moore's acting. Yes, she absolutely looks and acts like she good fit in 50 years ago along with today. The performance itself is full of cringey dialogue and nods to the acting of yesteryear and thankfully Moore is able to rise above that potential disaster. Moore is a gifted actress and has incredible range and it's a testament to that ability that she makes her housewife character still look strong and able despite the ridiculousness of the whole film. Up to that point, it might have been her best work but I think she has grown as an actress since and I'm kinda glad the film wasn't rewarded. The thing about Moore's performance here is that upon first glance it meets the superficiality of the whole film style aping the 50s aesthetic. But if you really start to look at the performance, you'll notice Moore does a lot more with the character than maybe she should or maybe that others would and not in a wrong way. I think it's a better performance than the film actually deserves and I can see why everyone loved it so much. (I kept reading about this film getting compared to Douglas Sirk films and I have no idea who he is. Reviews seemed to like the old school vibe that I hated because it reminded them of his movies. I guess that's the perils of going backwards instead of starting from the beginning since I can't draw these parallels myself. I do know that I'm not one for melodrama, even if it's reverential.)
Renee Zellweger - Chicago
Right in the middle of the Zellweger Renaissance. Or just Zellweger Happening. Or the Zellweger Nightmare, whatever you prefer. She'd get an Oscar the next year but this actually felt like it might be her strongest case. Chicago captured the zeitgeist for whatever reason and as evidenced by the tons of nominations was just a pure Oscar juggernaut. I think with Catherine Zeta-Jones winning in the Best Supporting Actress category, Zellweger was going to get overlooked regardless. Couple that with the Kidman storyline of her being due and, well, it wasn't going to happen. Which is why she won the following year for Cold Mountain. But getting swept up in the love for Chicago was a great shot at winning for her. Unfortunately, I don't think she's all that great as Roxie Hart, the wanna-be star who kills her lover in a fit of rage and goes to jail. While in jail, she makes a name for herself and she finally becomes the celebrity she so desired to be. Not a bad story! Except this is a musical and Zellweger can't sing or dance (or act) for shit, so you're left with a character that's not as interesting or even remotely compelling as she should be. The race that year was between Kidman and Zellweger and I can't for the life of me understand why people were hoodwinked by Zellweger except that they just really seemed to love her for some inexplicable reason. Chicago as a movie falters on Zellweger's performance. She is needed to give the movie the sex appeal and zest it desperately needs but instead we get the sour faced, tone deaf nightmare of a performance. Okay, it's not exactly that awful but it's absolutely not that good. Certainly not good enough to win a Best Actress Oscar!
After the 2003 group, I was hoping that 2002 would be a bit more balanced. Well it was, just not with great performances throughout which is what I'd like. It's kind of a rather mundane group, honestly. Kidman's win certainly isn't one that you hold up and exclaim is quintessential Oscar. It felt more like the Academy wanted to finally reward her and were unable to do it the year prior so here we are. I'd say it's a toss up between Kidman and Moore for me. Moore would eventually win one, so knowing that I might give Kidman the win here so we are spared from make up nominations/win down the road. Tough to say because I don't feel strongly either way. Maybe Moore by a nose. Then you can follow that up with Hayek and Zellweger who are a bit uninspiring and Lane who probably shouldn't be here. Blah. On to 2001 and hopefully a better group.
Oscar Winner: Nicole Kidman - The Hours
My Winner: Julianne Moore - Far From Heaven
Nicole Kidman
Salma Hayek
Renee Zellweger
Diane Lane
No comments:
Post a Comment