So after finally starting to get caught up with the current awards, I've noticed that there seems to be a lack of diversity for the films among the different acting/picture groups. Watching Supporting Actress and Actor almost finishes up all the different films I need to see. It's like the Academy is not looking at anything else besides the 9 or so films that get nominated for Best Picture. Of course, there are more films nominated instead of the 5 we had for so long, but it just seems all those smaller performances aren't getting seen. I dunno but 2013 gets even worse from what I can tell. I'd have to look at 2014 again but that trend needs to stop. I want more diversity in the number of films that get nominated. Anyway, on to this year's group.
2012 Best Picture
Argo
Argo
is a crowdpleaser. Depending on who you ask, that can be a good or bad
thing. Usually when it comes to Oscar it's a bad thing, especially if
the crowdpleaser is a winner. I'm surprised they haven't actually made
or tried to make the actual Argo movie because I'm sure there
would be lots of interest, no matter how bad it might be! One of the
main reasons I personally think Argo won here, is because it's one of
the biggest representations of Hollywood helping out the world. So it
winning is basically Hollywood or Oscar patting itself on the back.
Let's be for real, Oscar loves rewarding itself, especially lately! So
no doubt a movie about Hollywood saving some Americans from Iran in the
80s would get enough votes for Best Picture. Throw in the whole Ben
Affleck not being nominated for Best Director controversy and there are
plenty of reasons why people wanted Argo to win. Argo is
decent at raising the tension for some of it's crucial scenes. The thing
is we all know that things came out alright and those little bits of
tension aren't enough to sustain the film for me. It's an easily likable
crowdpleaser, like I said, but it's a little too safe. There's a couple
brief scenes with the Canadian residence housemaid (who is Iranian) or
whatever where she lies to the Iranian authorities about there being any
other people in the home and you're not sure if she's gonna tell or
not. More of those moments that involve the sacrifice of the Iranians to
help this escape go down would have been great. Instead we do get a bit
of rah rah Americans are great showcase. And while Argo is a
satisfying film to watch and isn't a bad choice for a nominee, it just
lacks that certain something that makes it a winner. There's a couple
other films in this group that are frankly way better than this one.
Even just a couple years later, I still don't think it holds up all that
well as a winner. To me, it's just an uninspiring pat on the back for
Oscar.
Amour
I was
dreading having to watch this one again. A 2 plus hour French movie
about old people dying - exciting! I know that's simplifying it way too
much but honestly that's what sticks out when thinking about having to
watch it again. This was the last film I watched prior to the Oscar
ceremony that year. I finished it during the second commercial break so
that I could say that I'd seen all the nominees prior to the awards
being given out. So part of me was wondering if I gave this Palme d'Or
winner a legit chance. It was widely praised and will most likely be one
of those films on best of all time lists that have a ton of foreign
films (which I do like!) you've never seen or heard of, so I should at
least give it a real chance. I guess I didn't appreciate it before, but I
really quite like the static shots that watch the lives of the
characters play out from across the room for a few minutes or so without
cutting or moving the camera. It makes the film feel really intimate
and like you're a part of these peoples' lives. Plus, it's just nice to
watch something that doesn't have a million jump cuts and angles trying
to make up for a lack of plot. Amour is very real and awkward at
times and I think that's part of the great love many people have for it -
it shows life as it is, warts and all. But at times it does feel
insincere. The couple seem selfish in their own ways, Georges for not
wanting to have his daughter around to see her mother and Anne for
giving up on life. It does feel a little on the extremes at times but
overall it works. The acting is natural and the leads are definitely
compelling. While this style could be cold and clinical it's nice that
it manages to include the humane touch, as well. Is it something I want
to watch again? No, especially not after a long day at work and this is
what is awaiting me. It's a film to see and say you saw and appreciate
it.
Beasts of the Southern Wild
This
film can be a little tough to follow. I had to read the wikipedia entry
to make sense of it and that was while watching it for the second time.
This film exploded onto the scene after winning Sundance and just
stayed in the collective conscious of the voters for the rest of year -
something most Sundance films don't do. Normally they lose steam and
fade by the time summer rolls around all the big Hollywood movies start
coming out and then we start getting the Oscar films after that. Kudos
to Beasts, I guess, but I still don't find what everyone thought
was so compelling about it. I know Wallis was well liked but I thought
the acting showed just how amateur it actually was. The metaphors and
deeper meaning stuff was something that was uninteresting to me. I
didn't care about any of that and critics seemed to latch onto it in
treating it as something more important than it really was. Overall, I
simply found the film to be boring. The first time I was interested
because of all the hype and I wanted to see exactly what everyone saw in
it to keep it alive through awards season and get it nominated. The
second time was even worse because I knew what I was getting myself
into. I guess some films just really speak to some people and some films
don't. This one certainly doesn't speak to me on any level. The
positive is that southern Louisiana does look pretty great and I kinda
dig the direction style. It gives an otherwise boring film some energy
and does it's best to keep me into it. The nomination is its own reward
and this film got plenty of rewards I'm not sure it should have.
Django Unchained
There's
an awful lot to like about this Tarantino film, which ticks off all the
usual great things about Tarantino films. It has fantastic musical
choices. From the theme song which is from another movie but fits well
here to all the other music used, it's one of the the typical highlights
of Tarantino films. There's always one song that is instantly
recognizable as being from his films. His dedication to the old
techniques with using film instead of digital and his use of certain
aspect ratios really do pay off in the end product. They may not be as
noticeable to everyone but they sure do make for a very, very pretty
film. Tarantino also is able to capture so many great looking locations,
scenes, and compositions that watching his films is a visual treat.
Even if you don't like the violence or blood or whatever, you can't say
his films don't look good. And as usual, Tarantino gets great
performances out of everyone, including all the random cameos in this.
You can tell people want to come be a part of his films so they bring
their A game and have fun while doing so which translates to the scenes.
The writing and dialogue are of course top notch and very fun. He makes
some scene crackle with his words and watching them unfold is just a
lot of pure cinematic entertainment. He is absolutely an auteur. Where
he stumbles, and ultimately where this film fails, is that Django
is just way too damn long. It's about 30 minutes too long and
unfortunately it seems that auteurs seem to make more and more bloated
films as they get more respect and age in years and there is no one to
reign them in or to at least say no to them. This film is almost 3 hours
long and there's no reason it should be. The ending is so convoluted
and tacked on that if you end it much earlier, you might be talking
about Tarantino's first Best Picture win. Sadly, we get a film that
enjoys the excess which includes a lot of needless shit at the end.
There is no doubt if this was better edited and trimmed down, this would
possibly be considered his best which would be high praise.
Unfortunately we are only left with what could have been for what is a
really good film.
Les Miserables
Now this is a pretty good musical, although it does have it's faults. It must be pretty hard to make a movie version of Les Mis because it's so beloved and well known by most people. You have to live up to everyone's expectation of what Les Mis is and ought to be. As much as I didn't like his Best Picture win for The King's Speech,
Tom Hooper delivers a pretty good movie here. Hugh Jackman was a great
choice as was Samantha Barks. The rest of the cast was alright and did
their parts nobly but those two stood out head and shoulders above
everyone else. Much was made about how the actors sang live on film
instead of recording it later and it getting dubbed in, which is frankly
an amazing an admirable thing. That could have been absolutely
disastrous. Instead it really works for the movie and we get those raw
songs and performances like Jackman's in the beginning of the movie.
Much is to be said about capturing the realness of the emotions
especially in a musical because it gives it such a genuine quality.
There was a lot said also about how Hooper used a lot of extreme close
up when the actors were singing. To me, that concept was hit and miss.
There are times when it really works and adds to the intensity of the
performances and makes the songs hit that much harder. Yet there are
other times where it just gets annoying and awkward. I'm just impressed
that such an epic musical was done in such a reverential but also
original way. That's pretty key to a successful movie and musical. Add
something new to Les Mis because we sure have seen a whole bunch
of iterations of it through the years. It keeps it fresh and really made
for an entertaining watch right to the end, well, mostly to the end. I
think that it starts to putter out after the big battle scenes and gets
stretched a little thin there. But as a whole, Les Mis is really
well done and I can't find much to hate on. I've grown to love musicals
more and more as I've grown up thanks to ex-girlfriends and this one
ranks right up there for me just based on effort and execution alone.
Life of Pi
Every time I watch Life of Pi, I get so happy and hopeful. It's a very uplifting film and is how a feel good movie should be done. It never talks down to it's viewer and has a nice earnestness to it. The story it tells is quite something. It's fantastical but doesn't ever feel too unbelievable. I think that's due a bit to the acting and the storyteller and Ang Lee's dedication to the whole concept. It's also a very spiritual film. It absolutely talks about a higher power and believing in something. It's message is easy to digest but also not over the top which makes it not annoying. Basically when I watch it I feel better as a person, like I can do anything and help out others. There are other mediums that do the same thing for me like the book Siddhartha, I read it and want to change the world. I think that's why I like the film so much is that it makes me feel so good inside. It also has some absolutely incredible special effects. The tiger is mostly CGI and you cannot tell the difference between a real tiger and the CGI one, it's that good. All the animals and probably most of the ocean scenes are effects but it doesn't detract from the story instead adding to it and making it so much better. The film itself is also buoyed by the one man show of Suraj Sharma. He is amazing and does what many actors can't do - and that's carry a film by themselves. It's sad that he's an Indian kid because he should have been among the leading actor nominees. He was the perfect choice for Pi and really helped elevate the film. Also, I wanted to give a shout out to Irrfan Khan who is the grown up Pi who tells the tale because he is a really talented actor. I just really like him. Anyway, Life of Pi is a great, well done feel good movie that expertly uses CGI to tell a really interesting story.
Lincoln
Lincoln
started out making me almost puke in my mouth. It starts off with two
black soldiers who are joined by two white soldiers who start reciting
the Gettysburg Address to Lincoln himself and I thought for sure we
would get some sanctimonious Spielberg bullshit but thankfully that
didn't happen. What we get is legitimately one of Spielberg's best works
and he's made some great films. It tells of Lincoln's attempt to get
the 13th Amendment passed. It's easy for your film to look good when
your actor gives one of the best performances I've ever seen. When that
man is Lincoln everything else is just relative. This film has so many
good cameos and supporting turns. Yeah, Tommy Lee Jones is good but the
triplet line of John Hawkes, Tim Blake Nelson, and especially James
Spader are fantastic. Spader should be a national treasure but that's a
different discussion. Lincoln offers up an intimate look at the
President and excels at showing those moments when he's most human:
telling a joke, interacting with a citizen, talking to his wife, or
getting angry at his Cabinet. Spielberg's success is staying unobtrusive
in those moments and not making everything so neatly wrapped up or
manipulatively saccharine. He just lets things unfold and allows DDL to
carry the scene and film. I also like that Lincoln didn't cover his
whole life or whole presidency because that's just too much. Focusing on
this one thing with everything else as a backdrop was incredibly smart.
It allows for so much more focus and intensity without compromising
huge swaths of time. It's a great looking film, with great acting,
covering a great man. What more could you ask for?
Silver Linings Playbook
Just
like some of the other films this year, I'm kinda burnt out when it
comes to writing about the film itself. Having 3 or 4 acting nominees
and writing about all of them can really drain you! I feel like I've got
nothing left to say by the time I get to Best Picture. I'm thinking I
might keep some of these short for that reason or I'll never finish this
year. I never understood the hype this film got and definitely didn't
understand all the Oscar love it got with all the nominations. To me,
it's just an alright film. I wasn't a big fan of Lawrence or the
supporting players, but I did like Cooper. I thought it bringing mental
illness into the public eye was a good thing. Though, many criticized it
as being too flippant with the subject. I disagree because mental
illness films can get bogged down in showing just how crazy people can
be and this focused on Cooper trying to overcome his illness in a
measured way and dealing with it in an adult way. There were some silly
moments that didn't seem to vibe with the rest of the story and the big
dance at the end was very anti-climactic and rushed to me. I like to see
more mature dramedies like this because that's a very under served
genre but I don't think SLP holds up very well under scrutiny.
That's why I think it's just alright and not the amazing film people
seemed to think it was. Not a film I'll come back to very much or at
all.
Zero Dark Thirty
I love watching this film. I mean absolutely love it. Once I start, I can't stop and that's a sign of a great film to me. This is my clear cut winner for this group and with The Master would offer up an awesome 1-2 punch, in either order (my two favorites). It really is hard to believe even just a couple years later that this amazing work of art was beaten by Argo. This film does everything Argo wants and tries to do a million times better. The tension is palpable. The characters, especially Chastain's Maya, are phenomenal. The story is more interesting, though the conceit of Argo is pretty fantastic. The visuals and action and tone and importance are all far beyond anything Argo can muster. Argo won because it's about Hollywood and because everyone wanted Affleck to win after his Directing snub. Part of it too might be that Kathryn Bigelow already had a war movie win Best Picture very recently and the Academy didn't want to go back to that well. ZDT, however, is a way better film overall than The Hurt Locker which unfortunately devolved into a bullshit fantasy of what the writer thought being a soldier was like. This film is a complete film unlike her winner and that was all due to a stroke of luck. Bin Laden was killed during the making of the film or at least right before filming began. So I think that's why the film almost works as two different movies. The first is the hunt for information and the grueling, slow pace at which our top intel people try to find UBL. It's this really jarring and sobering look behind the curtain at just how much work and pain and work and frustration and work and effort goes in to finding UBL and what actually goes on in the intel world. It's not all Jason Bourne type stuff with super satellites and immediate info and pictures and all that. I worked as an intel analyst just like Maya when I was in Afghanistan (obviously nowhere near the same level though) and it's a very unsexy job. Lot's of miscommunication and dead ends and too much information to sift through and no one listening to your ideas and superiors wanting results even though that means a ton of work to be done by a few people. That's part of the reason I love this film so much, is that to me it's an accurate representation of what intel gathering and analyzing is actually like. It's a lot of hard work done by some very dedicated people. That film right there is already compelling enough, even if it ended with Maya not finding UBL and still looking. That dedication and frustration is something easily relatable to, almost universal. The second part is the assault on UBL's compound and makes for some of the best war film action scenes ever. Even if the beginning doesn't much interest you, that last hour is some of the most engrossing cinema I've ever seen. It grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go for an hour and it's completely exhilarating. It introduces a couple even more intriguing characters in the SEAL guys and doesn't skip a beat going from the first part to the second. The two could come off as being very disparate but they work in tandem and tell a story that deserves to be told in that way. The hunt and then the kill. Bigelow makes a very primal film at it's core but also a film that embraces a strong female lead without hitting us over the head that she's a female. There's so many good things I could keep saying about this film but I just want it to be known I love it. This is definitely one of the best American films ever.
The Master
would have been my winner if I wrote this right around the time of the ceremony. That film was intoxicating to me and still is. It's going to be remembered as one
of those great films when we look back in a few years and it makes all
these lists and we wonder why the fuck Argo won and this wasn't even nominated. Makes no sense to me, especially with Beasts on this list. But since one of my favorites wasn't even included what should win from this group? That's an easy answer: Zero Dark Thirty. Which after watching it again makes me want to rank above even The Master! I think that's a case of whichever one I've seen last gets the nod. Can't really go wrong with either one, though. From there, Lincoln is an easy second on the strength of DDL's performance alone. Throw in the fact that it's one of Spielberg's best films along with Munich since Saving Private Ryan, well that's a no brainer. Life of Pi is so inspiring and such a wonderful story and a visual treat that it makes for a close third. Then we get into the more flawed films like Les Mis which has some bad singing and goes on a bit too long followed by Django which loses lots of points for it's awful last 30 minutes. Finally we get to the Oscar winner in Argo, which is just meh followed by more meh in SLP followed by a film that's obviously great for critics and best of lists but one I don't want to watch again in Amour followed by the film that doesn't belong Beasts. The top half is a very strong group and if The Master was included this would have been a nice 10 nominees. Alas, it wasn't and this year gets weighed down by the bottom few.
Oscar Winner: Argo
My Winner: Zero Dark Thirty
Lincoln
Life of Pi
Les Miserables
Django Unchained
Argo
Silver Linings Playbook
Amour
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Leading Actress 2012
When you really look at this group, it doesn't look like it would be that strong. And unfortunately it really isn't. I have a clear cut winner and then the rest. Let's get on with this.
2012 Best Actress
Jennifer Lawrence - Silver Linings Playbook
The Academy, for whatever reason, was looking to give this award to Lawrence no matter what. It's like the Academy just fell in love with her (which is easy to do admittedly) and wanted to anoint her America's Next Sweetheart regardless of anything or anyone else. Lawrence was one of the youngest actresses ever to win this award and while this will probably be somewhat vindicated as time goes on, I'm not sure this was the right time to reward her. She almost won the next year in 2013 and is being touted for 2015 also, so there's no doubt she'll end up with another if her career holds up. But what do I think of her performance in Silver Linings Playbook? I'm not as enamored with it as everyone else seemed to be. She plays a young woman whose husband died and hasn't dealt with that in the best way and she matches up with Cooper's fragile character. She's supposed to be this wild child who reacted to her husband's death by sleeping with a bunch of guys and being labeled the local slut but even when Lawrence says it in the film, it just isn't believable at all. Even her surly demeanor rings hollow. She has really good chemistry with Cooper (this was their first of 3 films together, so far) and they play off each other really well. I just don't buy her as the crass, say whatever she wants woman who doesn't care what anyone else thinks of her. When she and Cooper are acting together, that's when she's pretty good in the film. You want to watch the two interact and see how their relationship develops. I like the directness and asshole nature of Lawrence's character, I just don't think she is able to get it across believably. Lawrence doesn't sell the character enough to me to consider her the best performance of the year. There is a lot left to be desired and I just don't see what everyone else sees in it.
Jessica Chastain - Zero Dark Thirty
It still pisses me off that Chastain didn't win. Her Maya is one of the strongest and best female characters I've ever seen, no exaggeration. What I love the most about the performance is that Chastain builds the character along with the film. Meaning in the beginning Maya is this timid new to the Pakistan beat woman who needs to learn and find her footing. She grows as the story goes on and becomes this incredibly strong and important and forthright female character. She is able to react to the ever changing intel world and all the torture the same way a man would, which is part of why I like Chastain's performance so much. She doesn't get bogged down in being a female in a male dominated world or anything like that. She plays the character straight and we see this badass who also happens to be a female and who gets shit done. While watching you quickly forget Maya is a woman and just focus on what she's able to do and her strength in her convictions that she will find UBL and you never doubt that she will. What we get is Maya plugging along and going step by step up the ladder to find her guy. She's determined and headstrong and feisty and brave as hell. She suffers a lot but grows in the process. All of that is so intriguing to watch unfold that we forget we are watching Chastain and certainly forget we are watching a woman. The SEALS love her confidence, her station chiefs know not to fuck with her, the bad guys want to kill her, and we all respect her as a gifted intelligence analyst. I think this is Chastain's best role and best performance. I feel like she grew right along with her character and became even better at being an actress. I think when it's all said and done, Chastain will be able to hold this performance up as her best one and we as the audience will hold it up as being light years better than Lawrence's dreck. Every time I watch Zero Dark Thirty, I get really inspired and motivated and hopeful that we will continue to get great female characters and lead roles such as this one. I get happy that I'm watching greatness and the same cannot be said for Lawrence and the awful SLP junk she was in. I think Chastain's performance is a watershed moment for women characters in film and I hope that she can continue to pump out similar performances.
Emmanuelle Riva - Amour
Riva became the oldest Best Actress nominee ever which is somewhat fitting since we also got the youngest Best Actress nominee this year, too. I'm not sure if that's synergy or what but I think it's pretty telling that the Academy was really thinking out of the box for this year's group. This is absolutely one of those career nominations where just being picked is the prize but I'll say this performance was also nominated on it's merits, as well. Meaning without the sympathy/career vote, Riva probably would have still been in the group. Critics fawned all over her and I do think some of that is due to her being an old French actress that's been in some highly regarded films throughout her career and being in another very highly regarded film at the end of it. With all that being said, her performance is very natural which fits the style that the Director Michael Haneke was going for. Riva plays an older woman who suffers a stroke and is incapacitated and then gets worse very quickly. It's a very sad and bleak film about the realities of all the sudden losing a loved one and the burden it puts on everyone involved. It's a very heavy, solemn subject and Riva plays it perfectly. It's a realistic portrayal of a woman who declines rapidly and realizes it and doesn't want people to see her as she is and who would rather just end it on her terms instead of becoming an invalid. I guess you could call it a brave performance but I think real and natural work better. Riva doesn't overact or play up any moment in some grand fashion to have her Oscar moment. She just quietly portrays a woman who can't help but be a burden even though she doesn't want to be. It's a very non-glamorous role which Riva succeeds in. When you watch the film, it's as if you're peeking into the lives of these characters and quietly observing from afar. These people go about their life even with the difficulties it brings. I think that alone is a refreshing take on Oscar films and Riva's performance is part of that. I may not want to ever watch Amour again and I may not be all that moved by what Riva accomplishes but it certainly is a strong piece of acting.
Quvenzhane Wallis - Beasts of the Southern Wild
Wallis was/is the youngest female acting nominee ever which brings up a lot of issues for me. I think it's pretty awesome that a 9 year old (who was even younger when the film was being made) could not only be in a position to be nominated but actually BE nominated. I mean, how many little girls' dream is it to win an Oscar and be there at the ceremony? Tons! And Wallis got to live that dream, so that's pretty cool. My beef with her nomination is whether or not it's actual acting. I read something from the director of this film that said he was basically just telling Wallis what to do and where to stand and all that, so how much of her performance is acting and not just being in a certain spot and doing as told? Does she bring anything to the role that is actually hers? Does she make a cognizant choice to play the character in a certain way? There's a lot of narration that tries to double itself as acting, too, in this film and that seems a bit cheap to me. She's absolutely the heart and soul of the film but it's like watching a documentary of sorts and seeing this precocious girl run around and do things. And that's about all you can say about her performance, really. There's not much to it after her precocious act wears thin. I'm not sure why it was championed so much and I don't think it needed an Oscar nomination on top of that. Maybe I'm being a little too harsh on a kid but I expect more from Oscar.
Naomi Watts - The Impossible
Oh man, a Naomi Watts nomination - ugh. I've let it be known on this blog before that I really dislike most of Watts' performances that I've seen. I find her to be incredibly overrated and talked about way too much as someone who should win and every role of hers should be nominated by super fans online. And that's no different for her turn here as a mother who gets caught up in the tsunami of 2004. I'm not sure what anyone saw in this one, honestly. Critics lauded her with adjectives like brave, vulnerable, emotional, and devastating. Barf, spare me please. In the beginning we are getting to know the family and it's all pretty standard stuff, certainly nothing there that packs an emotional wallop or sets her apart. Then the tsunami hits which is extremely intense but that means we get Watts screaming for a while and, well, that's not very interesting and could be done by anyone. The physical part of it is somewhat impressive. Having to swim around and scream and look terrified certainly takes some acting ability. I'd call it emotional but we as an audience are already amped up from the insane tsunami scenes so it's not like Watts is the one building the emotion or sustaining it - she's just screaming. In fact, her son who is with her is way more impressive and is able to drive the story more as she lays about injured. That is all in the first 30 minutes or so and after that she basically lays around in a hospital moaning and not really doing much for most of the movie. I don't think you can nominate her based on that 15 minutes or so of the aftermath of the tsunami, it just isn't enough. For a Leading performance, I want a lot more than Watts laying around moaning for the whole damn movie. This is a prime example of critics seeing whatever they want to fit their predictions and agendas. This is not an Oscar worthy performance.
I feel like Lawrence was too on the nose in her role. Like someone told her halfway through filming or even before that she will win an Oscar if she really plays it up to what the Academy likes. I think she was too young to be rewarded now and I don't think she gave the best performance at all. I'm not against older or younger women winning here, it's just that it all felt too preordained, for whatever reason. And honestly, that performance is too fucking unsatisfactory to be a winner. It was the Lawrence hype train and nothing else that won her that award. Chastain is the rightful winner. I'd love for the Academy to come out and give it to her and yank Lawrence's win away from her. That sounds as if I hate Lawrence, but I don't. I just hate the win. And her nomination the next year was garbage, too, but whatever. Chastain 4 Life. I've contemplated putting Riva 2nd and you know what, I will. It's a hauntingly beautiful turn as a woman dying, essentially. Wallis is an easy 4th but she would be last in any other year. She is saved from that spot by one of the actresses I dislike the most and feel is super overrated: Naomi Watts. I'm sure she's a lovely woman to meet and I know she's done some good acting work, but not here. This nomination was atrocious. I'm not sure the next year offers much more hope, sadly.
Oscar Winner: Jennifer Lawrence - Silver Linings Playbook
My Winner: Jessica Chastain - Zero Dark Thirty
Emmanuelle Riva
Jennifer Lawrence
Quvenzhane Wallis
Naomi Watts
2012 Best Actress
Jennifer Lawrence - Silver Linings Playbook
The Academy, for whatever reason, was looking to give this award to Lawrence no matter what. It's like the Academy just fell in love with her (which is easy to do admittedly) and wanted to anoint her America's Next Sweetheart regardless of anything or anyone else. Lawrence was one of the youngest actresses ever to win this award and while this will probably be somewhat vindicated as time goes on, I'm not sure this was the right time to reward her. She almost won the next year in 2013 and is being touted for 2015 also, so there's no doubt she'll end up with another if her career holds up. But what do I think of her performance in Silver Linings Playbook? I'm not as enamored with it as everyone else seemed to be. She plays a young woman whose husband died and hasn't dealt with that in the best way and she matches up with Cooper's fragile character. She's supposed to be this wild child who reacted to her husband's death by sleeping with a bunch of guys and being labeled the local slut but even when Lawrence says it in the film, it just isn't believable at all. Even her surly demeanor rings hollow. She has really good chemistry with Cooper (this was their first of 3 films together, so far) and they play off each other really well. I just don't buy her as the crass, say whatever she wants woman who doesn't care what anyone else thinks of her. When she and Cooper are acting together, that's when she's pretty good in the film. You want to watch the two interact and see how their relationship develops. I like the directness and asshole nature of Lawrence's character, I just don't think she is able to get it across believably. Lawrence doesn't sell the character enough to me to consider her the best performance of the year. There is a lot left to be desired and I just don't see what everyone else sees in it.
Jessica Chastain - Zero Dark Thirty
It still pisses me off that Chastain didn't win. Her Maya is one of the strongest and best female characters I've ever seen, no exaggeration. What I love the most about the performance is that Chastain builds the character along with the film. Meaning in the beginning Maya is this timid new to the Pakistan beat woman who needs to learn and find her footing. She grows as the story goes on and becomes this incredibly strong and important and forthright female character. She is able to react to the ever changing intel world and all the torture the same way a man would, which is part of why I like Chastain's performance so much. She doesn't get bogged down in being a female in a male dominated world or anything like that. She plays the character straight and we see this badass who also happens to be a female and who gets shit done. While watching you quickly forget Maya is a woman and just focus on what she's able to do and her strength in her convictions that she will find UBL and you never doubt that she will. What we get is Maya plugging along and going step by step up the ladder to find her guy. She's determined and headstrong and feisty and brave as hell. She suffers a lot but grows in the process. All of that is so intriguing to watch unfold that we forget we are watching Chastain and certainly forget we are watching a woman. The SEALS love her confidence, her station chiefs know not to fuck with her, the bad guys want to kill her, and we all respect her as a gifted intelligence analyst. I think this is Chastain's best role and best performance. I feel like she grew right along with her character and became even better at being an actress. I think when it's all said and done, Chastain will be able to hold this performance up as her best one and we as the audience will hold it up as being light years better than Lawrence's dreck. Every time I watch Zero Dark Thirty, I get really inspired and motivated and hopeful that we will continue to get great female characters and lead roles such as this one. I get happy that I'm watching greatness and the same cannot be said for Lawrence and the awful SLP junk she was in. I think Chastain's performance is a watershed moment for women characters in film and I hope that she can continue to pump out similar performances.
Emmanuelle Riva - Amour
Riva became the oldest Best Actress nominee ever which is somewhat fitting since we also got the youngest Best Actress nominee this year, too. I'm not sure if that's synergy or what but I think it's pretty telling that the Academy was really thinking out of the box for this year's group. This is absolutely one of those career nominations where just being picked is the prize but I'll say this performance was also nominated on it's merits, as well. Meaning without the sympathy/career vote, Riva probably would have still been in the group. Critics fawned all over her and I do think some of that is due to her being an old French actress that's been in some highly regarded films throughout her career and being in another very highly regarded film at the end of it. With all that being said, her performance is very natural which fits the style that the Director Michael Haneke was going for. Riva plays an older woman who suffers a stroke and is incapacitated and then gets worse very quickly. It's a very sad and bleak film about the realities of all the sudden losing a loved one and the burden it puts on everyone involved. It's a very heavy, solemn subject and Riva plays it perfectly. It's a realistic portrayal of a woman who declines rapidly and realizes it and doesn't want people to see her as she is and who would rather just end it on her terms instead of becoming an invalid. I guess you could call it a brave performance but I think real and natural work better. Riva doesn't overact or play up any moment in some grand fashion to have her Oscar moment. She just quietly portrays a woman who can't help but be a burden even though she doesn't want to be. It's a very non-glamorous role which Riva succeeds in. When you watch the film, it's as if you're peeking into the lives of these characters and quietly observing from afar. These people go about their life even with the difficulties it brings. I think that alone is a refreshing take on Oscar films and Riva's performance is part of that. I may not want to ever watch Amour again and I may not be all that moved by what Riva accomplishes but it certainly is a strong piece of acting.
Quvenzhane Wallis - Beasts of the Southern Wild
Wallis was/is the youngest female acting nominee ever which brings up a lot of issues for me. I think it's pretty awesome that a 9 year old (who was even younger when the film was being made) could not only be in a position to be nominated but actually BE nominated. I mean, how many little girls' dream is it to win an Oscar and be there at the ceremony? Tons! And Wallis got to live that dream, so that's pretty cool. My beef with her nomination is whether or not it's actual acting. I read something from the director of this film that said he was basically just telling Wallis what to do and where to stand and all that, so how much of her performance is acting and not just being in a certain spot and doing as told? Does she bring anything to the role that is actually hers? Does she make a cognizant choice to play the character in a certain way? There's a lot of narration that tries to double itself as acting, too, in this film and that seems a bit cheap to me. She's absolutely the heart and soul of the film but it's like watching a documentary of sorts and seeing this precocious girl run around and do things. And that's about all you can say about her performance, really. There's not much to it after her precocious act wears thin. I'm not sure why it was championed so much and I don't think it needed an Oscar nomination on top of that. Maybe I'm being a little too harsh on a kid but I expect more from Oscar.
Naomi Watts - The Impossible
Oh man, a Naomi Watts nomination - ugh. I've let it be known on this blog before that I really dislike most of Watts' performances that I've seen. I find her to be incredibly overrated and talked about way too much as someone who should win and every role of hers should be nominated by super fans online. And that's no different for her turn here as a mother who gets caught up in the tsunami of 2004. I'm not sure what anyone saw in this one, honestly. Critics lauded her with adjectives like brave, vulnerable, emotional, and devastating. Barf, spare me please. In the beginning we are getting to know the family and it's all pretty standard stuff, certainly nothing there that packs an emotional wallop or sets her apart. Then the tsunami hits which is extremely intense but that means we get Watts screaming for a while and, well, that's not very interesting and could be done by anyone. The physical part of it is somewhat impressive. Having to swim around and scream and look terrified certainly takes some acting ability. I'd call it emotional but we as an audience are already amped up from the insane tsunami scenes so it's not like Watts is the one building the emotion or sustaining it - she's just screaming. In fact, her son who is with her is way more impressive and is able to drive the story more as she lays about injured. That is all in the first 30 minutes or so and after that she basically lays around in a hospital moaning and not really doing much for most of the movie. I don't think you can nominate her based on that 15 minutes or so of the aftermath of the tsunami, it just isn't enough. For a Leading performance, I want a lot more than Watts laying around moaning for the whole damn movie. This is a prime example of critics seeing whatever they want to fit their predictions and agendas. This is not an Oscar worthy performance.
I feel like Lawrence was too on the nose in her role. Like someone told her halfway through filming or even before that she will win an Oscar if she really plays it up to what the Academy likes. I think she was too young to be rewarded now and I don't think she gave the best performance at all. I'm not against older or younger women winning here, it's just that it all felt too preordained, for whatever reason. And honestly, that performance is too fucking unsatisfactory to be a winner. It was the Lawrence hype train and nothing else that won her that award. Chastain is the rightful winner. I'd love for the Academy to come out and give it to her and yank Lawrence's win away from her. That sounds as if I hate Lawrence, but I don't. I just hate the win. And her nomination the next year was garbage, too, but whatever. Chastain 4 Life. I've contemplated putting Riva 2nd and you know what, I will. It's a hauntingly beautiful turn as a woman dying, essentially. Wallis is an easy 4th but she would be last in any other year. She is saved from that spot by one of the actresses I dislike the most and feel is super overrated: Naomi Watts. I'm sure she's a lovely woman to meet and I know she's done some good acting work, but not here. This nomination was atrocious. I'm not sure the next year offers much more hope, sadly.
Oscar Winner: Jennifer Lawrence - Silver Linings Playbook
My Winner: Jessica Chastain - Zero Dark Thirty
Emmanuelle Riva
Jennifer Lawrence
Quvenzhane Wallis
Naomi Watts
Leading Actor 2012
This Best Actor group is seriously one of the strongest I've encountered so far. From top to bottom it's pretty amazing. I'll enjoy this group immensely.
2012 Best Actor
Daniel Day-Lewis - Lincoln
I don't know how much more I can gush about DDL but I'll try. It's hard to decide which role of his is better and more iconic: Daniel Plainview, Bill the Butcher, or Abraham Lincoln? And that's not including his earlier work that he was nominated and won an Oscar for! This man is the greatest living actor going and he will never not be amazing to me. When I say that I have a tough time choosing what his best performance is, I mean it. His Lincoln is just immeasurably good. I've marveled in the past about his inhabiting a character and his mastery of different accents and that all holds true here. He IS Lincoln. I can't think of anyone else as being him ever again. His soft voice is mind blowing. It's just so anti DDL that you wonder if he's not some shape-shifting alien or something because he is that good. And when he has a serious moment yet still has that soft voice, it's flipping intense! I love Spielberg's intimate look at Lincoln because DDL shines in making him human and not appear as such a mythological figure. Every other version of Lincoln is the same: a stiff representation of a cliche spouting guy offers nothing unique or that you wouldn't find in an elementary school play. DDL changes all that by giving us a look at a real man and not just a legend. I'm not sure what else can be said because DDL looks the part, sounds great, has the gravitas to pull off a super important US President, and the appeal to make that man human. It's literally one of the greatest performances ever which I know I've said about DDL before but still holds true. He is truly gifted and I can't wait to see what he does next.
Bradley Cooper - Silver Linings Playbook
When I first watched this film, I think Cooper got drowned out. I mean, just look at his competition! DDL is a legend, Denzel is Denzel. Joaquin was fucking amazing and Jackman exceeded expectations. Then you have newbie Cooper and it's easy to overlook him and say yeah, whatever, flavor of the week. But this is really when Cooper caught fire. And it's very easy to see why that happened. He's extremely charming in this film and incredibly likable. That is all despite his mental illness which is the subject of the entire film. He's bipolar and suffered a break that had him committed by the courts and he's returning home and trying to cope with his dysfunctional family. Mental illness doesn't get talked about enough, so it's good to see it tackled here. It can be a rough thing, especially the bipolar disease. It's great that this film shows that one can overcome the setbacks of the disease and live a somewhat normal life, or at least find others that don't make you feel so alone and fucked up. And when it comes to mental illness, it's very easy for an actor to take it to the extremes and overact. But it's typically more subtle than that in regular life. There's probably a lot of people you interact with daily that are dealing with something and you don't even know. That's where Cooper shines for me in this film. Yes, it has comedic elements and when Cooper gets focused on meeting his wife again or getting her a letter it's funny in a sad way. But he brings a human element to the character as well. He makes the mental illness part of the story and character feel a bit more real than it otherwise could have ended up. Cooper shoulders the heaviest load of carrying the film and is mostly up to it. All film we are told Cooper's character was fat and mean and different prior to his stent in the institute but none of that seems believable when you see Cooper. None of that change is effectively shown, it's only told to us over and over. I think that's a misstep for the film since it's supposed to be all about change. Cooper does a good enough job in his first nomination but I feel there are still some glaring faults in the performance. And when you compare it to the 4 other guys nominated here, it just doesn't quite stand up to them.
Hugh Jackman - Les Miserables
This role seems like the one Jackman was born to play, not counting Wolverine, of course. But he just slips into the character so effortlessly that watching him on screen is truly mesmerizing. Upon re-watch, I actually liked it even more because you can just sense the pleasure and pride and comfort radiating off of him throughout the film. He just looks so at home and happy playing Jean Valjean, like he finally found his release. I think you could make a case for his inclusion as a nominee solely based off his song right in the beginning of the film where he sings the shit out of it and creates more feeling in that one song than many bands can do over a career. It's that good to me. It's just raw and powerful and angry and hopeful and sad and determined and a million other adjectives. It doesn't matter that he's not the greatest singer because that's part of the appeal to me. The song and the way he sings it and plays the character doesn't work with a typical Broadway big time singer. He embodies that downtrodden, poor man persona - and it works for him. It's kind of funny that in a musical, I'm not very concerned with the lead actor's singing ability but instead focus on how much he seems to enjoy inhabiting the character. I think that speaks to the acting and how important it can be even in a musical. Jackman really made the most of this heavy role - making it his own and making it look like it was written just for him. To make Jean Valjean your own is certainly no easy feat. What a great performance and nomination.
Joaquin Phoenix - The Master
I am still really surprised that this film didn't get a Best Picture nomination because it more than deserved one. It was my favorite film of the year and this might just be my favorite performance of the year. I know I gushed about DDL but my God, Phoenix is incredible as Freddie Quell. This is to me a performance for the ages and easily the best thing Phoenix has ever done and probably will ever do. It's just so good and such a fully realized character. Phoenix plays Quell, a veteran home from the war trying to adjust back into society. He's a booze hound that seems to only care about next drink and screw he can find. From the beginning you can tell that he's not really normal and we begin to experience just how much of a pathetic loser he is. It's somewhat of a sympathetic character but it's a repulsive sympathy. We look at him with disgust and sadness and feel the palpable awkward tension he emits. That's all from Phoenix who fully inhabits Quell and turns him into this odd little sorry man. Quell works odd jobs and gets drunk on his own concoctions and finally drifts into PSH's cult. The two have amazing chemistry and feed off each other in every scene they have together and really give us some memorable scenes like the jail and the interrogation/interviews. Part of what makes the performance so amazing is how much detail Phoenix has put into quell. His sneer, his bad posture, his inappropriate laughing, his fiery anger, his speech pattern. All of it strengthens a character that is already unique and made the film beyond compelling to watch. The first time I saw it on the big screen, I was mesmerized and in awe the entire time. Part of that reason was because of Phoenix. There's so much subtlety and explosiveness in this performance that seeing the balance from Phoenix is a treat to watch. I could go on and on about this one but I think my point has been made pretty clear - I love this performance! There's so many complex emotions being expressed by Phoenix at one time that it's incredible. Quell is a loner but intrigued by the Master and sees himself in him but doesn't get hooked into the cult because he doesn't believe but he wants to so he can belong and be loved and be wanted but he thinks they are crazy or at least as crazy as he is and on and on. Phoenix can shift between those feelings in one scene and one look with ease. It truly is a great performance and one I highly recommend checking out.
Denzel Washington - Flight
Let's face it, the big appeal of Flight was the big upside down plane sequence. That's in the very beginning and I'm sure there were some upset people that wanted more of that throughout the film. But this is a look at the troubles of addiction and it takes an intimate look that's very compelling. Zemeckis does these sort of adult dramas really well and does the big spectacle such as a plane crash extremely well. He also gets the most out of his actors and it helps that Denzel is world class. Denzel brings his usual bravado to the role where it is well served in smaller doses and at key moments. This isn't just a rehash of his other badass tough guy, super stud roles. No, Denzel brings an honesty to his pilot character in the performance of the addict. He plays a great drunk and shows just how strong the struggle is even if you're a successful pilot who pulled off this impossible maneuver to save a plane full of people and that those people can have demons that are constantly warring inside them. I think we forget just how well Denzel can act because he's had a lot of action roles and those tough guy roles where he can be all gangsta. But he still excels at delivering a thoughtful performance and Flight allows him to do just that. It's not a performance that overwhelms you when you're watching it but when it's over and you think about it, you realize just how good it was. He can make a dickhead addict sympathetic and that's no easy task. Denzel rounds out what came to be a really incredibly strong group of Best Actor nominees and he fully belongs here.
What a hell of a group! Two performances that I think are flat out great and three that I think are pretty damn solid. I'm not sure I can pick a winner between DDL and Phoenix but I think I'd give the nanometer edge to Phoenix because it blew me away and DDL already has two other wins and probably will have more as I go back in time more. From there, the next three are a jumble but I'd go Jackman - Denzel - Cooper as my final three. Jackman was born for that imagining of that role and gave it his all. Denzel gives a solid, but not-so-flashy performance and Cooper throws his hat into the ring and announces his arrival to Oscar with a pretty good performance of his own. Really an incredible group of actors and one that was pretty fun to watch and review. More of these please!
Oscar Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis - Lincoln
My Winner: Joaquin Phoenix - The Master
Daniel Day-Lewis
Hugh Jackman
Denzel Washington
Bradley Cooper
2012 Best Actor
Daniel Day-Lewis - Lincoln
I don't know how much more I can gush about DDL but I'll try. It's hard to decide which role of his is better and more iconic: Daniel Plainview, Bill the Butcher, or Abraham Lincoln? And that's not including his earlier work that he was nominated and won an Oscar for! This man is the greatest living actor going and he will never not be amazing to me. When I say that I have a tough time choosing what his best performance is, I mean it. His Lincoln is just immeasurably good. I've marveled in the past about his inhabiting a character and his mastery of different accents and that all holds true here. He IS Lincoln. I can't think of anyone else as being him ever again. His soft voice is mind blowing. It's just so anti DDL that you wonder if he's not some shape-shifting alien or something because he is that good. And when he has a serious moment yet still has that soft voice, it's flipping intense! I love Spielberg's intimate look at Lincoln because DDL shines in making him human and not appear as such a mythological figure. Every other version of Lincoln is the same: a stiff representation of a cliche spouting guy offers nothing unique or that you wouldn't find in an elementary school play. DDL changes all that by giving us a look at a real man and not just a legend. I'm not sure what else can be said because DDL looks the part, sounds great, has the gravitas to pull off a super important US President, and the appeal to make that man human. It's literally one of the greatest performances ever which I know I've said about DDL before but still holds true. He is truly gifted and I can't wait to see what he does next.
Bradley Cooper - Silver Linings Playbook
When I first watched this film, I think Cooper got drowned out. I mean, just look at his competition! DDL is a legend, Denzel is Denzel. Joaquin was fucking amazing and Jackman exceeded expectations. Then you have newbie Cooper and it's easy to overlook him and say yeah, whatever, flavor of the week. But this is really when Cooper caught fire. And it's very easy to see why that happened. He's extremely charming in this film and incredibly likable. That is all despite his mental illness which is the subject of the entire film. He's bipolar and suffered a break that had him committed by the courts and he's returning home and trying to cope with his dysfunctional family. Mental illness doesn't get talked about enough, so it's good to see it tackled here. It can be a rough thing, especially the bipolar disease. It's great that this film shows that one can overcome the setbacks of the disease and live a somewhat normal life, or at least find others that don't make you feel so alone and fucked up. And when it comes to mental illness, it's very easy for an actor to take it to the extremes and overact. But it's typically more subtle than that in regular life. There's probably a lot of people you interact with daily that are dealing with something and you don't even know. That's where Cooper shines for me in this film. Yes, it has comedic elements and when Cooper gets focused on meeting his wife again or getting her a letter it's funny in a sad way. But he brings a human element to the character as well. He makes the mental illness part of the story and character feel a bit more real than it otherwise could have ended up. Cooper shoulders the heaviest load of carrying the film and is mostly up to it. All film we are told Cooper's character was fat and mean and different prior to his stent in the institute but none of that seems believable when you see Cooper. None of that change is effectively shown, it's only told to us over and over. I think that's a misstep for the film since it's supposed to be all about change. Cooper does a good enough job in his first nomination but I feel there are still some glaring faults in the performance. And when you compare it to the 4 other guys nominated here, it just doesn't quite stand up to them.
Hugh Jackman - Les Miserables
This role seems like the one Jackman was born to play, not counting Wolverine, of course. But he just slips into the character so effortlessly that watching him on screen is truly mesmerizing. Upon re-watch, I actually liked it even more because you can just sense the pleasure and pride and comfort radiating off of him throughout the film. He just looks so at home and happy playing Jean Valjean, like he finally found his release. I think you could make a case for his inclusion as a nominee solely based off his song right in the beginning of the film where he sings the shit out of it and creates more feeling in that one song than many bands can do over a career. It's that good to me. It's just raw and powerful and angry and hopeful and sad and determined and a million other adjectives. It doesn't matter that he's not the greatest singer because that's part of the appeal to me. The song and the way he sings it and plays the character doesn't work with a typical Broadway big time singer. He embodies that downtrodden, poor man persona - and it works for him. It's kind of funny that in a musical, I'm not very concerned with the lead actor's singing ability but instead focus on how much he seems to enjoy inhabiting the character. I think that speaks to the acting and how important it can be even in a musical. Jackman really made the most of this heavy role - making it his own and making it look like it was written just for him. To make Jean Valjean your own is certainly no easy feat. What a great performance and nomination.
Joaquin Phoenix - The Master
I am still really surprised that this film didn't get a Best Picture nomination because it more than deserved one. It was my favorite film of the year and this might just be my favorite performance of the year. I know I gushed about DDL but my God, Phoenix is incredible as Freddie Quell. This is to me a performance for the ages and easily the best thing Phoenix has ever done and probably will ever do. It's just so good and such a fully realized character. Phoenix plays Quell, a veteran home from the war trying to adjust back into society. He's a booze hound that seems to only care about next drink and screw he can find. From the beginning you can tell that he's not really normal and we begin to experience just how much of a pathetic loser he is. It's somewhat of a sympathetic character but it's a repulsive sympathy. We look at him with disgust and sadness and feel the palpable awkward tension he emits. That's all from Phoenix who fully inhabits Quell and turns him into this odd little sorry man. Quell works odd jobs and gets drunk on his own concoctions and finally drifts into PSH's cult. The two have amazing chemistry and feed off each other in every scene they have together and really give us some memorable scenes like the jail and the interrogation/interviews. Part of what makes the performance so amazing is how much detail Phoenix has put into quell. His sneer, his bad posture, his inappropriate laughing, his fiery anger, his speech pattern. All of it strengthens a character that is already unique and made the film beyond compelling to watch. The first time I saw it on the big screen, I was mesmerized and in awe the entire time. Part of that reason was because of Phoenix. There's so much subtlety and explosiveness in this performance that seeing the balance from Phoenix is a treat to watch. I could go on and on about this one but I think my point has been made pretty clear - I love this performance! There's so many complex emotions being expressed by Phoenix at one time that it's incredible. Quell is a loner but intrigued by the Master and sees himself in him but doesn't get hooked into the cult because he doesn't believe but he wants to so he can belong and be loved and be wanted but he thinks they are crazy or at least as crazy as he is and on and on. Phoenix can shift between those feelings in one scene and one look with ease. It truly is a great performance and one I highly recommend checking out.
Denzel Washington - Flight
Let's face it, the big appeal of Flight was the big upside down plane sequence. That's in the very beginning and I'm sure there were some upset people that wanted more of that throughout the film. But this is a look at the troubles of addiction and it takes an intimate look that's very compelling. Zemeckis does these sort of adult dramas really well and does the big spectacle such as a plane crash extremely well. He also gets the most out of his actors and it helps that Denzel is world class. Denzel brings his usual bravado to the role where it is well served in smaller doses and at key moments. This isn't just a rehash of his other badass tough guy, super stud roles. No, Denzel brings an honesty to his pilot character in the performance of the addict. He plays a great drunk and shows just how strong the struggle is even if you're a successful pilot who pulled off this impossible maneuver to save a plane full of people and that those people can have demons that are constantly warring inside them. I think we forget just how well Denzel can act because he's had a lot of action roles and those tough guy roles where he can be all gangsta. But he still excels at delivering a thoughtful performance and Flight allows him to do just that. It's not a performance that overwhelms you when you're watching it but when it's over and you think about it, you realize just how good it was. He can make a dickhead addict sympathetic and that's no easy task. Denzel rounds out what came to be a really incredibly strong group of Best Actor nominees and he fully belongs here.
What a hell of a group! Two performances that I think are flat out great and three that I think are pretty damn solid. I'm not sure I can pick a winner between DDL and Phoenix but I think I'd give the nanometer edge to Phoenix because it blew me away and DDL already has two other wins and probably will have more as I go back in time more. From there, the next three are a jumble but I'd go Jackman - Denzel - Cooper as my final three. Jackman was born for that imagining of that role and gave it his all. Denzel gives a solid, but not-so-flashy performance and Cooper throws his hat into the ring and announces his arrival to Oscar with a pretty good performance of his own. Really an incredible group of actors and one that was pretty fun to watch and review. More of these please!
Oscar Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis - Lincoln
My Winner: Joaquin Phoenix - The Master
Daniel Day-Lewis
Hugh Jackman
Denzel Washington
Bradley Cooper
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Supporting Actor 2012
Not sure what to say other than this is my favorite category. I already know my winner so let's see if any of these guys can change my mind.
2012 Best Supporting Actor
Christoph Waltz - Django Unchained
Quentin Tarantino does it again, delivering another Oscar winning Supporting Actor role for Christoph Waltz. It's obvious that the two are a perfect match because it seems as if Tarantino's writing was tailor made for Waltz to perform. It's a natural fit and Waltz looks at home in his role here as a bounty hunter of sorts. Of course, with this second win the question that one needs to ask is just how similar are the roles and should Waltz have won for a role that is pretty similar to his first win? To me, both winning roles DO feel very similar and I think a lot of that is due to Tarantino's writing and to Waltz's acting ability. His way of delivering lines isn't going to change all that much. We see Waltz's easy confidence when he's first introduced riding up in a dentist cart in the middle of night in a dark forest that feels very much like his intro in Inglourious Basterds at the farm house. It's that sort of chipper friendliness that belies the evil or ulterior motive underneath. He's able to move around in scenes doing as he pleases as everyone else reacts to his performance whether it's drinking milk or freeing slaves. That comfortability within the character makes for a very strong performances for sure. I also think comparing the two wins is fine because it is the same director and because they are both just so fun and insane and perfect Tarantino characters. So it depends on how much you like this one for it to be nominated AND win. I like this one a lot. But I also like Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson in this one as supporting players. In fact, there was a ton of buzz about Leo getting nominated and if he did, finally winning his elusive Oscar. I was on board with that because Waltz already had a similar win and rewarding Leo or Jackson for these roles would have been some inspired, fun choices from the Academy. They went with what they knew and Waltz is another Tarantino film away from a third win.
Alan Arkin - Argo
Sorry, but I'm not sure if this or his win for Little Miss Sunshine is the bigger waste of time. I say that because these two nominations are essentially for the same thing! In his winning performance, Arkin portrayed an asshole who happened to love his granddaughter but here he plays an asshole who loves the movies. But the thing is Arkin is just playing himself. The Academy thought his win was going to be the cap on a successful career and a nice pat on the back, yet Arkin kept making movies and delivered the same performance in Argo which confused voters because they are old and love anything having to do with Hollywood and voted for it again. I'm not sure Arkin would have won his Oscar if they felt he was going to continue to give Oscar worthy performances. I like his turn here in Argo. He's like a grumpy old man that curses and gets shit done and it's all part of his every day life. He's a bullshitter. But he understands he's trusted and can make an important change to world history. It's a performance that's well liked within the film, Arkin certainly knows how to play his character. He's very likable in this film and you can't really dislike what he brings. Even if it's just Arkin being Arkin, it's a fun supporting if a bit familiar.
Robert De Niro - Silver Linings Playbook
Alright, so let's talk about Robert De Niro. He's obviously a legendary actor and someone to be revered. But what does he bring to this nomination exactly? When I first watched this film a couple years ago I didn't have much love. But upon second watch, I found a bit more humanistic qualities in his performance. That sounds like a load of bullshit, and probably is, but honestly I just thought he was more legit this time around. He's a bookie that's lost his job and returned to the bookie lifestyle. He loves all things Philly and that's pretty much his contribution. He loves the Eagles and he loves criticizing his son. When they mix, things get brushed off with love. He's sort of the typical tough love dad that has a softer side deep down somewhere. I'm not sure if this was anyone other than De Niro, that they would have been nominated so this is very obviously a veteran nom on the strength of the film as a whole. I can't really get too upset about this because it is Robert De Niro after all. He does a fine job with the role and doesn't look out of place or ham it up. Also I love his hair since it reminds me of my grandpa's, so he's got that going for him. Obviously this one won't go down as one of De Niro's best but it's not bad.
Philip Seymour Hoffman - The Master
It's crazy that he is in Supporting because he is very much the second Lead to me! Despite that, Holy Shit is PSH so fucking good or what?! He has not so impressive competition and I still can't believe he didn't win. Maybe it is because he was basically a Lead? This is the strongest PSH performance I've ever seen/reviewed. It's that good! He inhabits and makes Lancaster Dodd his own character and his own non-character. Everything is so planned that everything PSH does or doesn't do is damn brilliant. All of his choices are fantastic. His role is essentially the faux-Scientology leader and his interaction and infatuation with Phoenix's character. But PSH makes the Master into a wholly unique character and honestly makes this film so damn watchable. I'm not sure I can keep my love for this film under control! Hoffman is amazing and unequaled. I'm sad this is the last Hoffman review I'll ever do and I won't do it any justice. This is seriously one of the greatest films of all time and here I am trying to explain why one of the main characters makes it so. I can't do that. You just have to sit back and realize it's a great performance. I wish I could say about a thousand words more on why it's great, but it just is. PSH delivers a knockout and I'm sad he wasn't rewarded for it.
Tommy Lee Jones - Lincoln
Jones plays Thaddeus Stevens, a Representative from Pennsylvania that's a staunch abolitionist and can help Lincoln pass his 13th Amendment. There's a lot to like about this performance. It's rather hilarious but not in a strictly comedic way. It's more of an intellectually funny way. Jones' character uses big words of the time to insult his fellow Congressmen and it's pretty funny when he lays into them with the old timey burns. But beneath that crusty exterior is an interior who is fervent in the belief that black folk are just as equal as white folk and need that equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution in an amendment, not just the 13th. It's a pretty admirable role from the start but Jones inject his color into it to make it that much more memorable. The slight issue is that you've seen this same crusty Jones character in many movies before. He plays the same variation of this character to differing degrees of success and it works here. I would like to see Jones bring a different aspect to his acting and roles other than mean old man because we know he can do so much more, he just chooses not to. Regardless of all that, the mean old Thaddeus works for the film and stands out as being the beacon of what is right. The film as a whole treats both sides somewhat equally, meaning the Republicans (Stevens) and Democrats as being steadfast in their views and no exactly saying the Democrats are vile, devil scum. You just get guys that are arguing for what they truly believe in and it's interesting to see. Jones does exactly what he's supposed to with his role and he does it extremely well.
I don't understand why The Master got so much non-love. PSH was brilliant in his role. I did like Waltz but it was too reminiscent of his first win! From there you get a great Tommy Lee Jones nomination and the typical angry Arkin one, as well. Gotta say I hated that De Niro nom because it's so expected and so damn boring. This was a pretty good group, as usual, but more time is needed to write these blurbs and asses these noms.
Oscar Winner: Christoph Waltz - Django Unchained
My Winner: Philip Seymour Hoffman - The Master
Christoph Waltz
Tommy Lee Jones
Alan Arkin
Robert De Niro
2012 Best Supporting Actor
Christoph Waltz - Django Unchained
Quentin Tarantino does it again, delivering another Oscar winning Supporting Actor role for Christoph Waltz. It's obvious that the two are a perfect match because it seems as if Tarantino's writing was tailor made for Waltz to perform. It's a natural fit and Waltz looks at home in his role here as a bounty hunter of sorts. Of course, with this second win the question that one needs to ask is just how similar are the roles and should Waltz have won for a role that is pretty similar to his first win? To me, both winning roles DO feel very similar and I think a lot of that is due to Tarantino's writing and to Waltz's acting ability. His way of delivering lines isn't going to change all that much. We see Waltz's easy confidence when he's first introduced riding up in a dentist cart in the middle of night in a dark forest that feels very much like his intro in Inglourious Basterds at the farm house. It's that sort of chipper friendliness that belies the evil or ulterior motive underneath. He's able to move around in scenes doing as he pleases as everyone else reacts to his performance whether it's drinking milk or freeing slaves. That comfortability within the character makes for a very strong performances for sure. I also think comparing the two wins is fine because it is the same director and because they are both just so fun and insane and perfect Tarantino characters. So it depends on how much you like this one for it to be nominated AND win. I like this one a lot. But I also like Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson in this one as supporting players. In fact, there was a ton of buzz about Leo getting nominated and if he did, finally winning his elusive Oscar. I was on board with that because Waltz already had a similar win and rewarding Leo or Jackson for these roles would have been some inspired, fun choices from the Academy. They went with what they knew and Waltz is another Tarantino film away from a third win.
Alan Arkin - Argo
Sorry, but I'm not sure if this or his win for Little Miss Sunshine is the bigger waste of time. I say that because these two nominations are essentially for the same thing! In his winning performance, Arkin portrayed an asshole who happened to love his granddaughter but here he plays an asshole who loves the movies. But the thing is Arkin is just playing himself. The Academy thought his win was going to be the cap on a successful career and a nice pat on the back, yet Arkin kept making movies and delivered the same performance in Argo which confused voters because they are old and love anything having to do with Hollywood and voted for it again. I'm not sure Arkin would have won his Oscar if they felt he was going to continue to give Oscar worthy performances. I like his turn here in Argo. He's like a grumpy old man that curses and gets shit done and it's all part of his every day life. He's a bullshitter. But he understands he's trusted and can make an important change to world history. It's a performance that's well liked within the film, Arkin certainly knows how to play his character. He's very likable in this film and you can't really dislike what he brings. Even if it's just Arkin being Arkin, it's a fun supporting if a bit familiar.
Robert De Niro - Silver Linings Playbook
Alright, so let's talk about Robert De Niro. He's obviously a legendary actor and someone to be revered. But what does he bring to this nomination exactly? When I first watched this film a couple years ago I didn't have much love. But upon second watch, I found a bit more humanistic qualities in his performance. That sounds like a load of bullshit, and probably is, but honestly I just thought he was more legit this time around. He's a bookie that's lost his job and returned to the bookie lifestyle. He loves all things Philly and that's pretty much his contribution. He loves the Eagles and he loves criticizing his son. When they mix, things get brushed off with love. He's sort of the typical tough love dad that has a softer side deep down somewhere. I'm not sure if this was anyone other than De Niro, that they would have been nominated so this is very obviously a veteran nom on the strength of the film as a whole. I can't really get too upset about this because it is Robert De Niro after all. He does a fine job with the role and doesn't look out of place or ham it up. Also I love his hair since it reminds me of my grandpa's, so he's got that going for him. Obviously this one won't go down as one of De Niro's best but it's not bad.
Philip Seymour Hoffman - The Master
It's crazy that he is in Supporting because he is very much the second Lead to me! Despite that, Holy Shit is PSH so fucking good or what?! He has not so impressive competition and I still can't believe he didn't win. Maybe it is because he was basically a Lead? This is the strongest PSH performance I've ever seen/reviewed. It's that good! He inhabits and makes Lancaster Dodd his own character and his own non-character. Everything is so planned that everything PSH does or doesn't do is damn brilliant. All of his choices are fantastic. His role is essentially the faux-Scientology leader and his interaction and infatuation with Phoenix's character. But PSH makes the Master into a wholly unique character and honestly makes this film so damn watchable. I'm not sure I can keep my love for this film under control! Hoffman is amazing and unequaled. I'm sad this is the last Hoffman review I'll ever do and I won't do it any justice. This is seriously one of the greatest films of all time and here I am trying to explain why one of the main characters makes it so. I can't do that. You just have to sit back and realize it's a great performance. I wish I could say about a thousand words more on why it's great, but it just is. PSH delivers a knockout and I'm sad he wasn't rewarded for it.
Tommy Lee Jones - Lincoln
Jones plays Thaddeus Stevens, a Representative from Pennsylvania that's a staunch abolitionist and can help Lincoln pass his 13th Amendment. There's a lot to like about this performance. It's rather hilarious but not in a strictly comedic way. It's more of an intellectually funny way. Jones' character uses big words of the time to insult his fellow Congressmen and it's pretty funny when he lays into them with the old timey burns. But beneath that crusty exterior is an interior who is fervent in the belief that black folk are just as equal as white folk and need that equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution in an amendment, not just the 13th. It's a pretty admirable role from the start but Jones inject his color into it to make it that much more memorable. The slight issue is that you've seen this same crusty Jones character in many movies before. He plays the same variation of this character to differing degrees of success and it works here. I would like to see Jones bring a different aspect to his acting and roles other than mean old man because we know he can do so much more, he just chooses not to. Regardless of all that, the mean old Thaddeus works for the film and stands out as being the beacon of what is right. The film as a whole treats both sides somewhat equally, meaning the Republicans (Stevens) and Democrats as being steadfast in their views and no exactly saying the Democrats are vile, devil scum. You just get guys that are arguing for what they truly believe in and it's interesting to see. Jones does exactly what he's supposed to with his role and he does it extremely well.
I don't understand why The Master got so much non-love. PSH was brilliant in his role. I did like Waltz but it was too reminiscent of his first win! From there you get a great Tommy Lee Jones nomination and the typical angry Arkin one, as well. Gotta say I hated that De Niro nom because it's so expected and so damn boring. This was a pretty good group, as usual, but more time is needed to write these blurbs and asses these noms.
Oscar Winner: Christoph Waltz - Django Unchained
My Winner: Philip Seymour Hoffman - The Master
Christoph Waltz
Tommy Lee Jones
Alan Arkin
Robert De Niro
Supporting Actress 2012
At last, 2012! I've wanted to get back to the more present day ceremonies for awhile since they are all still so fresh in my head. I can finally get out all these thoughts I've had on all the various people and films. I feel like this might be a little therapeutic for me and should be a lot of fun. But! My only qualms about doing the newer years now is that there are so many looooong films, like close to 3 hour films, especially in this year. And the amount of nominees from different films is less than in the past. Meaning more films have multiple nominees (2-3-4) for the acting categories so the likelihood of me getting burnt out after only watching say 3 or 4 films is very high. Although there is the fact that I've had some of these reviews written in my head for years so it shouldn't take me as long to write some of them.
2012 Best Supporting Actress
Anne Hathaway - Les Miserables
So when I watched this back in 2013 before the ceremony that year, I didn't buy into the hype that this was a powerful and amazing surefire Oscar winner. When that did finally happen I was left scratching my head as to why. I felt it got through on the strength of one song in the film and that was it. And I didn't think her singing of the song (which is obviously a very iconic song) was all that great. It frustrated me beyond belief and is something I've grown more accustomed to from having rooting interests in the Oscar ceremonies now. So the question is how do I feel about her performance now? I've had a couple years to think on it and I've now watched it again. Pretty much the same, honestly. I still don't think it's all that great and she basically won on the strength of the iconic 'I Dreamed A Dream' song. That's really not fair because it's the most well known from the musical and among the general public. Yeah, she belts it out and cries some tears but it felt like it was the high school theater girl who goes all out and thinks she's super great but is just trying way too hard. It didn't move me like some people seemed to be. I thought that Eponine (Samantha Barks) was not only a better singer but a better actress, as well. I would have preferred to see her get the nomination but she didn't have any name recognition and didn't get to sing a no brainer Oscar song, though the song she sang was fantastic. Barks leaves more of an impression on me than Hathaway did and that tells me this was the wrong choice for a nomination AND a win. I'm just not feeling this one.
Amy Adams - The Master
So this was my winner before I rewatched everything here. It really doesn't have much competition if you're not some huge Hathaway fan and I think it's still my winner. After watching The Master for the second time, I think Adams slips a bit honestly. I remembered her being the driving force behind Lancaster Dodd and this huge presence and that's not exactly the case. Adams is more the supportive wife who doesn't want her cult leader husband to lose power or lose a subject and then influences him to stick with it. Maybe my second watch isn't accurate but Adams does seem to be the supportive wife who has a very powerful role in Dodd's life. That's why I loved this performance so much the first time. It felt like a woman who knew her man was a very influential man but did it in a different way to try and protect her man however she can. That's why I thought her version of Dodd's wife was so great because she was actively trying to a bunch of different things at once. She's almost ever present in the scenes and sort of gradually finds herself more involved in the film and it felt so right for her character. Her grip on Dodd is so light that you won't notice it until too late and she's no longer in the picture. Basically, Adams' character is that strong woman behind every guy trope brought to life.
Sally Field - Lincoln
There's not a lot to this nomination sadly. And many were touting this as a possible winner. It received a big push for a bit but that died down once Hathaway started winning everything. Field plays Mrs. Lincoln and is the quintessential worrisome wife who wishes her husband would think more about his family than what's going on in the country. She only shows up to play the irritated wife/mother role and I don't think she has any stand out moments. She's not a pleasant character, which is fine, but she's very one dimensional. I know that she suffered greatly at the time but there's nothing too redeemable about her character. It's like the nagging wife and no one likes that. There's unfortunately not much else to the performance. It's really not something you can root for unless you really, really like Sally Field, but she has enough Oscars as it is so no dice. And that's about all I can say about Field here. There's not much to it and it gets overshadowed by DDL's towering performance.
Helen Hunt - The Sessions
The easy joke to make is what got Helen Hunt nominated this year: her performance or her tits? Because it felt like she spent half of the movie naked! Hunt plays a sex surrogate who I assume helps all kinds of people experience sex but here she focuses on John Hawkes' character who is in an iron lung. It's a pretty bold role to take on because being naked that much is no easy feat. You never see a dude exposing his junk for half a movie yet women are fully expected to do so without hesitation. So bravo to Helen for that (and I realize I was pretty harsh on Kate Winslet for a similar type of role but I didn't think she was good AND she won for it so yeah) because I know it's not easy. She plays a therapist so she is very warm and a bit endearing and eventually starts to form feelings for her subject. Nothing is fully realized emotionally but the two form a bond. This is a role that's more demanding physically rather than showing a wide range of emotions or feelings. It seems women really fall easily for John Hawkes' pitiable character and Hunt's character sort of goes through the motions of that. She falls for him, questions those feelings, and then leaves but still loves him. So I feel that the role was nominated more for the constant nudity and the fact that Hunt is pretty good at the therapist and confused housewife. The two alone don't make a good enough nominee but I guess together it's not so bad. Certainly not the worst of the this year.
Jacki Weaver - Silver Linings Playbook
Alright so I'm not gonna have much to say about this one. There's just nothing to this nomination at all. Weaver does nothing. NOTHING. She is the wife/mother that is in the background the entire time and if she wasn't in the film would not be missed. Replace her with a man or an alien or a rock and it doesn't look bad at all. This nomination was included only because the UK/Australian peeps of the Academy joined forces because there is no other reason why she should be here. She's taking away a deserving spot for someone and that's awful. The nomination also rode the Silver Linings Playbook wave to some goodwill but obviously didn't deserve it. The film has likable characters but Weaver's character was non-existent and brought nothing to the forefront. Easily one of the worst nominations I've seen from the Academy yet.
My enemy! Short reviews because, well, I disliked many of these ladies! Hathaway was a joke. Legit. Like, I can't understand why she won at all. It's stupid. So Adams is my winner with Hunt as my runner up because if you're gonna get totally naked for so long in a mainstream movie you get my kudos. Sally Field and Weaver just simply had nothing much to do and that's sad. Like I could criticize more but I won't. I'll just say Adams and her film are way better than anything listed below!
Oscar Winner: Anne Hathaway - Les Miserables
My Winner: Amy Adams - The Master
Helen Hunt
Anne Hathaway
Sally Field
Jacki Weaver
2012 Best Supporting Actress
Anne Hathaway - Les Miserables
So when I watched this back in 2013 before the ceremony that year, I didn't buy into the hype that this was a powerful and amazing surefire Oscar winner. When that did finally happen I was left scratching my head as to why. I felt it got through on the strength of one song in the film and that was it. And I didn't think her singing of the song (which is obviously a very iconic song) was all that great. It frustrated me beyond belief and is something I've grown more accustomed to from having rooting interests in the Oscar ceremonies now. So the question is how do I feel about her performance now? I've had a couple years to think on it and I've now watched it again. Pretty much the same, honestly. I still don't think it's all that great and she basically won on the strength of the iconic 'I Dreamed A Dream' song. That's really not fair because it's the most well known from the musical and among the general public. Yeah, she belts it out and cries some tears but it felt like it was the high school theater girl who goes all out and thinks she's super great but is just trying way too hard. It didn't move me like some people seemed to be. I thought that Eponine (Samantha Barks) was not only a better singer but a better actress, as well. I would have preferred to see her get the nomination but she didn't have any name recognition and didn't get to sing a no brainer Oscar song, though the song she sang was fantastic. Barks leaves more of an impression on me than Hathaway did and that tells me this was the wrong choice for a nomination AND a win. I'm just not feeling this one.
Amy Adams - The Master
So this was my winner before I rewatched everything here. It really doesn't have much competition if you're not some huge Hathaway fan and I think it's still my winner. After watching The Master for the second time, I think Adams slips a bit honestly. I remembered her being the driving force behind Lancaster Dodd and this huge presence and that's not exactly the case. Adams is more the supportive wife who doesn't want her cult leader husband to lose power or lose a subject and then influences him to stick with it. Maybe my second watch isn't accurate but Adams does seem to be the supportive wife who has a very powerful role in Dodd's life. That's why I loved this performance so much the first time. It felt like a woman who knew her man was a very influential man but did it in a different way to try and protect her man however she can. That's why I thought her version of Dodd's wife was so great because she was actively trying to a bunch of different things at once. She's almost ever present in the scenes and sort of gradually finds herself more involved in the film and it felt so right for her character. Her grip on Dodd is so light that you won't notice it until too late and she's no longer in the picture. Basically, Adams' character is that strong woman behind every guy trope brought to life.
Sally Field - Lincoln
There's not a lot to this nomination sadly. And many were touting this as a possible winner. It received a big push for a bit but that died down once Hathaway started winning everything. Field plays Mrs. Lincoln and is the quintessential worrisome wife who wishes her husband would think more about his family than what's going on in the country. She only shows up to play the irritated wife/mother role and I don't think she has any stand out moments. She's not a pleasant character, which is fine, but she's very one dimensional. I know that she suffered greatly at the time but there's nothing too redeemable about her character. It's like the nagging wife and no one likes that. There's unfortunately not much else to the performance. It's really not something you can root for unless you really, really like Sally Field, but she has enough Oscars as it is so no dice. And that's about all I can say about Field here. There's not much to it and it gets overshadowed by DDL's towering performance.
Helen Hunt - The Sessions
The easy joke to make is what got Helen Hunt nominated this year: her performance or her tits? Because it felt like she spent half of the movie naked! Hunt plays a sex surrogate who I assume helps all kinds of people experience sex but here she focuses on John Hawkes' character who is in an iron lung. It's a pretty bold role to take on because being naked that much is no easy feat. You never see a dude exposing his junk for half a movie yet women are fully expected to do so without hesitation. So bravo to Helen for that (and I realize I was pretty harsh on Kate Winslet for a similar type of role but I didn't think she was good AND she won for it so yeah) because I know it's not easy. She plays a therapist so she is very warm and a bit endearing and eventually starts to form feelings for her subject. Nothing is fully realized emotionally but the two form a bond. This is a role that's more demanding physically rather than showing a wide range of emotions or feelings. It seems women really fall easily for John Hawkes' pitiable character and Hunt's character sort of goes through the motions of that. She falls for him, questions those feelings, and then leaves but still loves him. So I feel that the role was nominated more for the constant nudity and the fact that Hunt is pretty good at the therapist and confused housewife. The two alone don't make a good enough nominee but I guess together it's not so bad. Certainly not the worst of the this year.
Jacki Weaver - Silver Linings Playbook
Alright so I'm not gonna have much to say about this one. There's just nothing to this nomination at all. Weaver does nothing. NOTHING. She is the wife/mother that is in the background the entire time and if she wasn't in the film would not be missed. Replace her with a man or an alien or a rock and it doesn't look bad at all. This nomination was included only because the UK/Australian peeps of the Academy joined forces because there is no other reason why she should be here. She's taking away a deserving spot for someone and that's awful. The nomination also rode the Silver Linings Playbook wave to some goodwill but obviously didn't deserve it. The film has likable characters but Weaver's character was non-existent and brought nothing to the forefront. Easily one of the worst nominations I've seen from the Academy yet.
My enemy! Short reviews because, well, I disliked many of these ladies! Hathaway was a joke. Legit. Like, I can't understand why she won at all. It's stupid. So Adams is my winner with Hunt as my runner up because if you're gonna get totally naked for so long in a mainstream movie you get my kudos. Sally Field and Weaver just simply had nothing much to do and that's sad. Like I could criticize more but I won't. I'll just say Adams and her film are way better than anything listed below!
Oscar Winner: Anne Hathaway - Les Miserables
My Winner: Amy Adams - The Master
Helen Hunt
Anne Hathaway
Sally Field
Jacki Weaver
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)