This race was decided long before their was even a race. It was always Simmons' Oscar and everyone else was just playing for consolation. It's a good group of actors and as per usual it offers up a good group of performances.
2014 Best Supporting Actor
J. K. Simmons - Whiplash
Holy shit! This category pumps out some really stellar winners, some that I'd consider some of the best ever or at least the top performances of the last 20 years or so. J. K. Simmons provides another name to put on that imaginary list because he knocks this performance out of the fucking park. It's a grand slam in the bottom of the 9th of the World Series while down three runs with 2 outs and 2 strikes. Like it blew me away with how good it truly is. Not many people know that Whiplash was actually a short before a full film and Simmons was in both of them. I think that only served to help him because he was able to hone his character and instead of only putting on screen the initial take on a character, he got another chance and really owned it. I think inhabiting a character for so long can only help a performance to come out better and Simmons really showed that here. He is spell binding, mesmerizing, captivating, intoxicating, whatever cliche adjectives you want to throw out - they all apply to his performance as a jazz teacher whose intensity with his students goes above and beyond. He's hardcore and that intensity isn't like a drill sergeant but more like a reigned in drill sergeant who explodes only when absolutely necessary before snapping back into the focused machine he is. Both Simmons the actor and his character just radiate such intense passion that literally makes your jaw drop. He's able to bring his character to such vivid life that you grow to fear him while he's on screen like you're the one sitting there drumming, it's simply amazing. This was by far the best performance of the year for me and deserved all the awards it received. There's no doubt that Simmons' performance will go down as one of the greatest of all time.
Robert Duvall - The Judge
Okay, so this is the obvious you're gonna die soon, most likely, so let's nominate you one last time for a mediocre performance in a movie that's mostly boring and derivative. And that really is the truth! Duvall was getting backed hard in the lead up to nominations but all the prognosticators had him as an outsider looking in or at the very least a 5th slot. I know when his name was read on announcement day I was a bit surprised, especially since it knocked out one of my favorites of the year in Riz Ahmed for Nightcrawler. About his performance, though - it's not bad or terrible or anything. It's what you'd expect from Duvall, elevating sub par material on the strength of his acting ability. He plays an old, crusty Judge who had an issue with alcohol who goes out for a drive and returns with a damaged car and later is indicted for a hit and run. His estranged son represents him and some family bonding occurs. Formulaic stuff that is stuffed into this bloated movie that runs 2 and a half hours long! Duvall along with Robert Downey Jr. make this movie worth a watch but they really are the only worthy parts to watch. Still, Duvall's performance hits a lot of familiar notes and his character is too rigid too allow for much personality. The Judge is a very moral, upright character that is unwilling to bend to common sense. He doesn't use his illness as a reason he couldn't remember his drive and does some other things that are just too convenient for plot. So while it is a decent Duvall performance, it's frustrating knowing we could have gotten something much better with a stronger story and a better character.
Ethan Hawke - Boyhood
Okay, so I've already talked about how the concept for this film was pretty impressive which by association means the commitment of 12 years by an actor to a single film/performance is also impressive. Ethan Hawke is no stranger to something similar to this with the Before films so it's natural that he fits right in. But is this an impressive performance? I wouldn't use impressive, more like competent or decent given what /who his character is. He plays the father to Mason and his sister and pops in and out of their life when convenient. It's a very supporting role and one that's mostly one note. Hawke's character constantly shows up to be the cool dad who is absent but comes into the picture with presents and fatherly advice. And he is always shown as being kinda cool and hip and more of a friend to the kids instead of the father. He gives advice in almost every scene which makes the character seem too on the nose about growing up and parenting, ya know? Like that's all he's around for is to have these moments with Mason but it all seems so artificial. Hawke is a good choice with his down to earth, cool but pretty nice guy mentality. His life is almost in contrast with Arquette's who is constantly fucking up yet this absent father eventually settles down and has another kid and gets married and becomes religious yet still remains cool while supporting Mason and doing the advice thing. I don't think the character is all that well thought through but Hawke manages to scrape out a decent performance with his charm and good guy qualities. Is it anywhere close to being a winner? Nah. But it is decent even if it's a little too thin.
Edward Norton - Birdman: or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Ah, Edward Norton is pretty great even if he is supposed to be a dick in real life. In this film, he's pretty enjoyable as the ringer, essentially, who is also a dick. One of the actors gets injured and Norton is brought in because he's a dedicated, veteran Broadway actor who somehow knows all the lines even though he was just brought in. He's that kind of Broadway actor. He's super method and needs to drink real gin in a scene, wants to really fuck Naomi Watts in another, and implores Keaton's character to go out and take a risk. It's a sort of stereotypical role in a film about breaking stereotypes so it's not out of place at all. He's very much like what his real life persona is said to be: a womanizing dick who gets so deep into character at times. I think Norton understands the parallel and I'd assume that's why he chose it, much like Keaton choosing to portray a washed up superhero. It's a tongue in cheek role and Norton excels at playing a character that's like Norton. That sounds disparaging but it's not! I quite enjoyed Norton here because he adds to the craziness that is Birdman and his character is a lot of fun to watch. He doesn't distract or detract from the story at all and what else can you really say? He's not the best option for the win but he's a pretty good nominee.
Mark Ruffalo - Foxcatcher
Mark Ruffalo has kinda become a go to pick for the Academy when it comes to filling out their nominations. Which isn't a bad thing at all, really, because he does provide some pretty good to great performances. I've got nothing against Ruffalo being nominated here because Foxcatcher is a great film and because his performance is very authentic. Ruffalo portrays Dave Schultz, an Olympic gold medal wrestling champion and coach. He is sort of the conduit for the audience in this film because he's the only sane character we encounter. He's like us observing the crazy antics of John du Pont and concerned for the well being of his brother, Mark. He takes everything in and tries to process it and get it fixed which ultimately ends tragically for him. But that's where Ruffalo succeeds in being that strong supporting character that's never too flashy. I also just love the way he acts in this role. His walk is unintentionally funny to me because it's the jaunty walk of a wrestler but it feels very lived in and authentic, as is everything else Ruffalo does in this film. It might not be a performance that would win but I'm all for strong supporting characters like these getting their due.
As I said above Simmons gave one of the best performances I've seen since starting this project and I think one of the best of the last 20 or so years, period. This was an easy choice for Oscar. What follows is a list of smaller supporting performances that don't exactly pop or wow but are still mostly solid. Norton comes in second because his is the most fun and it's a nice breath of fresh air over all the serious stuff I see. He's having fun with it and it definitely shows. Then would come Ruffalo for a stalwart performance - a typical Ruffalo job. It doesn't take over the film but if he weren't there, you'd notice it. Hawke would be my fourth only because he just plays the cool dad figure and doesn't do all that much besides offer up advice. Duval is the weak link but not a terrible one. Just knowing that there were better choices out there is what frustrates me about that one. Oh well!
Oscar Winner: J. K. Simmons - Whiplash
My Winner: J. K. Simmons - Whiplash
Edward Norton
Mark Ruffalo
Ethan Hawke
Robert Duvall
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Supporting Actress 2014
Yes! Finally I'm catching up to the current Oscar year (until the 2015 Oscars get nominated in a few, short months) and I couldn't be any more happy! This is the freshest Oscar race in my mind, obviously, and I can still remember my thoughts as the race went on and all the controversy and hype. It will be good to finally get all of that stuff out of my brain and into this blog. I'm also kind of glad to return to some of these films and performances since some of them can get lost in the clamor to see them all before Oscar night. It will be great to fully digest them all. On to my least favorite group, though.
2014 Best Supporting Actress
Patricia Arquette - Boyhood
This was the presumptive winner for the entirety of the Oscar race and made for a pretty boring Supporting Actress race. It doesn't help that I don't think Arquette was worthy of being the Oscar winner. There's just something about her performance that really irked me. Let's be real, she's a really shitty mother. She constantly moves her kids around under the auspices of giving them a better life but puts them in awful situations to begin with and uproots their lives without their input. She shacks up with an abusive alcoholic and seemingly does nothing until he explodes one day. She puts her career ahead of her kids and mostly leaves them to their own devices. She marries another drunk with an anger problem and then seems all too eager to get rid of the kids once they hit 18. And Arquette's acting in all of this is so amateurish. That's the appalling and surprising part to me. I read over and over about how revelatory and masterful it was and I was left wondering if we watched the same performance? I don't know what it is about her but it just kinda comes off like she was still learning to act which I know is not the case. Or maybe she just doesn't thrive under non-scripted acting which I think was how some of the film was done. Like I said, I don't know but something about her acting is off and it does not feel Oscar worthy at all to me. Her big scene at the end of the film where she bursts into tears at the realization that her kids are moving on just felt too cringe worthy and hokey to me. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about with my criticisms of Arquette. Just because it was over 12 years and she portrayed a single mother doesn't mean that automatically equals Oscar which is kinda what happened. Not my favorite for sure.
Laura Dern - Wild
I mean, I thought about making this review about two or three lines and that's it. This is a waste of a nomination. I remember watching the announcements and seeing that Dern was chosen and thinking why the fuck was she even up for a possible nomination? She does absolutely nothing in the film, brings absolutely nothing to the film, and absolutely deserved no nomination for this. She is barely in the film as the mother to Witherspoon's character and I guess shows off some quirkiness and then proceeds to get cancer and die. It really feels needless and pointless and she is such a minor presence that it blows my mind that she was even considered for an Oscar! I say minor presence due to length of time she is onscreen but she's the impetus for Witherspoon making the hike along with her other personal stuff. It still seems underdeveloped and an obvious emotional grab, meant to earn sympathy for Witherspoon's character and I guess partly explain her behavior. But the whole thing is so glossed over that it doesn't even matter much. From what I remember around that time was that her mother was heavily campaigning for her and she had some ads out to vote for her. If that is all it takes to get such a non-entity of a performance nominated then maybe I should quit watching and getting so into the races and ceremony. Literally if you took out Dern's scenes from the film, you either wouldn't notice or the film would seem better for them not being there. I'm just super disappointed that this would get a nod while anyone else wouldn't. I'm not even gonna critique her performance because it's bad. Dern should feel embarrassed that her mom got her another Oscar nomination for a shit role. Gross.
Keira Knightley - The Imitation Game
Knightley delivers a quintessentially supporting performance here. Her character is recruited to help break the Enigma and is the only real female presence in the whole film, which is no small task! Her character is pretty much the classic female character calms and supports the awkward genius so that he can better focus on doing whatever he needs to do. That is the essence of her character and her performance. She is basically an equal of sorts to Turing and gets him to not act like such an arrogant asshole and sort of reigns him in so he can break the Enigma machine. I think Knightley does a perfect job at that role and as the only strong female presence is able to hold her own on screen with all the men. It's good, it's capable and Knightley is endearing but I'm not sure how Oscar-y it really is. But the argument could be made that she is the only female in a big Oscar film and does a good enough job holding her own with Cumberbatch. I'm okay with it being included in this group especially when they went to the Meryl Streep well for the 80th time because apparently there was no one else to choose from. It's a decent performance just not one that will likely be remembered when looking back on this year.
Emma Stone - Birdman: or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
I'm thinking that this nomination got swept up in all the Birdman love because when you watch it, you're left wondering just what exactly did they nominate? That's no knock on Stone, but she only has a handful of scenes, which admittedly do last pretty long, but still. She's Keaton's daughter in the film and is like a personal assistant I guess and back from a stint in rehab. Sounds like boilerplate actor progeny stuff and really is here. She only has one scene where she really shines and it's the scene that you saw at every single awards show because that's all they could play when they kept nominating her. Which is kinda weird since other performances get to pick and choose from Oscar worthy moments or big scenes and yet there is just that one for Emma Stone. In that one scene, she explodes into a doe eyed, spastic speech telling her dad that there's more important things going on in the world. It's not really profound or anything and fits the daughter who doesn't seem to give a shit about what her dad does and is putting on airs as the rehab kid. It's almost a stereotypical character but Stone does give it some pizzazz and she for sure brings a lot to the role that others probably couldn't. But. That big but. There's just not much else to her performance. She has two scenes with Edward Norton where they flirt but that's about it plus the ending scene. I know I expect a lot out of the nominees but they should at least be integral to the story! I dunno. I like Emma Stone but this is underwhelming.
Meryl Streep - Into the Woods
Yawn. This is getting boring now. I feel like the Academy's motto when it comes to the Actress categories is: "When in doubt, just vote for Meryl Streep again." Go ahead and watch Into the Woods and tell me that she deserved a nomination. Because you can't. She's not bad by any means, not at all! She actually is quite good as The Witch. Her opening scene grabs hold of you and doesn't let go until she's made her mark and left quite an impression. But she also has a pretty easy gig playing The Witch and can ham it up with some Meryl Streep flair so that it looks less hammy and more Streepy. When she bursts in and kicks off the story you think this is going to be a pretty great movie. It doesn't quite live up to that notion but it's not for lack of pizzazz by Streep, that's for sure. So she's able to clearly have fun as The Witch but if this were anyone else, there is no way they also would get a nomination out of it. That's the power of Streep, obviously, but also the downside of her acting that I'm complaining about a decent performance because it was nominated. It of course doesn't rank up with her best and when she's had so many good ones, and so many nominations period, that you have to compare them to each other and wonder what else this year could have taken it's place because I'm tired of seeing her decent performances make it. This is a fun performance but I'm not sure it needed to be included in the Oscars for it to be noticed - it is a Streep performance after all.
Kind of another down year. I didn't particularly enjoy any of the nominees. Either I thought they sucked or just wasn't really moved by them in any fashion. To pick a winner is actually really hard because none of them deserve it. So because Emma Stone is pretty hot, let's give it to her. The rest are just boring to me. Knightley is at least the most competent but she's just there to make Cumberbatch not look so gay. Her character is brilliant herself but completely glossed over. Streep is just out there having fun and it's nice to see but not Oscar worthy. Arquette just rubbed me the wrong way and Dern is a joke. Not a good year for Supporting Actress, but really when is it a good year? Hopefully 2015 delivers.
Oscar Winner: Patricia Arquette - Boyhood
My Winner: Emma Stone - Birdman or: (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Keira Knightley
Meryl Streep
Patricia Arquette
Laura Dern
2014 Best Supporting Actress
Patricia Arquette - Boyhood
This was the presumptive winner for the entirety of the Oscar race and made for a pretty boring Supporting Actress race. It doesn't help that I don't think Arquette was worthy of being the Oscar winner. There's just something about her performance that really irked me. Let's be real, she's a really shitty mother. She constantly moves her kids around under the auspices of giving them a better life but puts them in awful situations to begin with and uproots their lives without their input. She shacks up with an abusive alcoholic and seemingly does nothing until he explodes one day. She puts her career ahead of her kids and mostly leaves them to their own devices. She marries another drunk with an anger problem and then seems all too eager to get rid of the kids once they hit 18. And Arquette's acting in all of this is so amateurish. That's the appalling and surprising part to me. I read over and over about how revelatory and masterful it was and I was left wondering if we watched the same performance? I don't know what it is about her but it just kinda comes off like she was still learning to act which I know is not the case. Or maybe she just doesn't thrive under non-scripted acting which I think was how some of the film was done. Like I said, I don't know but something about her acting is off and it does not feel Oscar worthy at all to me. Her big scene at the end of the film where she bursts into tears at the realization that her kids are moving on just felt too cringe worthy and hokey to me. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about with my criticisms of Arquette. Just because it was over 12 years and she portrayed a single mother doesn't mean that automatically equals Oscar which is kinda what happened. Not my favorite for sure.
Laura Dern - Wild
I mean, I thought about making this review about two or three lines and that's it. This is a waste of a nomination. I remember watching the announcements and seeing that Dern was chosen and thinking why the fuck was she even up for a possible nomination? She does absolutely nothing in the film, brings absolutely nothing to the film, and absolutely deserved no nomination for this. She is barely in the film as the mother to Witherspoon's character and I guess shows off some quirkiness and then proceeds to get cancer and die. It really feels needless and pointless and she is such a minor presence that it blows my mind that she was even considered for an Oscar! I say minor presence due to length of time she is onscreen but she's the impetus for Witherspoon making the hike along with her other personal stuff. It still seems underdeveloped and an obvious emotional grab, meant to earn sympathy for Witherspoon's character and I guess partly explain her behavior. But the whole thing is so glossed over that it doesn't even matter much. From what I remember around that time was that her mother was heavily campaigning for her and she had some ads out to vote for her. If that is all it takes to get such a non-entity of a performance nominated then maybe I should quit watching and getting so into the races and ceremony. Literally if you took out Dern's scenes from the film, you either wouldn't notice or the film would seem better for them not being there. I'm just super disappointed that this would get a nod while anyone else wouldn't. I'm not even gonna critique her performance because it's bad. Dern should feel embarrassed that her mom got her another Oscar nomination for a shit role. Gross.
Keira Knightley - The Imitation Game
Knightley delivers a quintessentially supporting performance here. Her character is recruited to help break the Enigma and is the only real female presence in the whole film, which is no small task! Her character is pretty much the classic female character calms and supports the awkward genius so that he can better focus on doing whatever he needs to do. That is the essence of her character and her performance. She is basically an equal of sorts to Turing and gets him to not act like such an arrogant asshole and sort of reigns him in so he can break the Enigma machine. I think Knightley does a perfect job at that role and as the only strong female presence is able to hold her own on screen with all the men. It's good, it's capable and Knightley is endearing but I'm not sure how Oscar-y it really is. But the argument could be made that she is the only female in a big Oscar film and does a good enough job holding her own with Cumberbatch. I'm okay with it being included in this group especially when they went to the Meryl Streep well for the 80th time because apparently there was no one else to choose from. It's a decent performance just not one that will likely be remembered when looking back on this year.
Emma Stone - Birdman: or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
I'm thinking that this nomination got swept up in all the Birdman love because when you watch it, you're left wondering just what exactly did they nominate? That's no knock on Stone, but she only has a handful of scenes, which admittedly do last pretty long, but still. She's Keaton's daughter in the film and is like a personal assistant I guess and back from a stint in rehab. Sounds like boilerplate actor progeny stuff and really is here. She only has one scene where she really shines and it's the scene that you saw at every single awards show because that's all they could play when they kept nominating her. Which is kinda weird since other performances get to pick and choose from Oscar worthy moments or big scenes and yet there is just that one for Emma Stone. In that one scene, she explodes into a doe eyed, spastic speech telling her dad that there's more important things going on in the world. It's not really profound or anything and fits the daughter who doesn't seem to give a shit about what her dad does and is putting on airs as the rehab kid. It's almost a stereotypical character but Stone does give it some pizzazz and she for sure brings a lot to the role that others probably couldn't. But. That big but. There's just not much else to her performance. She has two scenes with Edward Norton where they flirt but that's about it plus the ending scene. I know I expect a lot out of the nominees but they should at least be integral to the story! I dunno. I like Emma Stone but this is underwhelming.
Meryl Streep - Into the Woods
Yawn. This is getting boring now. I feel like the Academy's motto when it comes to the Actress categories is: "When in doubt, just vote for Meryl Streep again." Go ahead and watch Into the Woods and tell me that she deserved a nomination. Because you can't. She's not bad by any means, not at all! She actually is quite good as The Witch. Her opening scene grabs hold of you and doesn't let go until she's made her mark and left quite an impression. But she also has a pretty easy gig playing The Witch and can ham it up with some Meryl Streep flair so that it looks less hammy and more Streepy. When she bursts in and kicks off the story you think this is going to be a pretty great movie. It doesn't quite live up to that notion but it's not for lack of pizzazz by Streep, that's for sure. So she's able to clearly have fun as The Witch but if this were anyone else, there is no way they also would get a nomination out of it. That's the power of Streep, obviously, but also the downside of her acting that I'm complaining about a decent performance because it was nominated. It of course doesn't rank up with her best and when she's had so many good ones, and so many nominations period, that you have to compare them to each other and wonder what else this year could have taken it's place because I'm tired of seeing her decent performances make it. This is a fun performance but I'm not sure it needed to be included in the Oscars for it to be noticed - it is a Streep performance after all.
Kind of another down year. I didn't particularly enjoy any of the nominees. Either I thought they sucked or just wasn't really moved by them in any fashion. To pick a winner is actually really hard because none of them deserve it. So because Emma Stone is pretty hot, let's give it to her. The rest are just boring to me. Knightley is at least the most competent but she's just there to make Cumberbatch not look so gay. Her character is brilliant herself but completely glossed over. Streep is just out there having fun and it's nice to see but not Oscar worthy. Arquette just rubbed me the wrong way and Dern is a joke. Not a good year for Supporting Actress, but really when is it a good year? Hopefully 2015 delivers.
Oscar Winner: Patricia Arquette - Boyhood
My Winner: Emma Stone - Birdman or: (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Keira Knightley
Meryl Streep
Patricia Arquette
Laura Dern
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)