Starting to get to more and more categories where I've not seen a single performance and I love it. Endless possibilities. Curves being thrown at us by the Academy with foreign actresses and Streep's eleventy billionth nomination. I'm eager to dive in, so let's go!
1998 Best Actress
Gwyneth Paltrow - Shakespeare in Love
Paltrow is incredibly likable in this film but her performance was the hardest one for me to write about for the film. That's not saying she did a bad job or anything, in fact, she surprised me with how good she actually was. It's just that she was an IT girl for a couple years and I feel like the Academy really wanted to reward her, as they do lots of women in this category, as part of the moment of her being hot as an actress. Paltrow more than holds her own in this and does not feel out of place at all. She delivers her Shakespeare lines with dramatic effect and her accent is perfectly fine, too. The chemistry she has with Joseph Fiennes is probably the best part of her performance because it's like those two are totally hot for each other in every scene which makes for some really entertaining scenes. I also thought she was able to pull off the dual role of being a boy and a girl even if it wasn't that challenging. That's the thing about her performance is that it's not overwhelming and doesn't knock you out so to speak but it's a more than capable stand in for Juliet. I went in wondering if she could really pull it off but was pleasantly surprised that she did a pretty damn good job. She makes her muse come to life and not just be a one dimensional character for the men to ogle and act around. It's basically a fully realized character which is impressive because let's be honest you don't really think Paltrow can achieve that. Harsh, but true. Paltrow, however, does a fantastic job as the inspiration for Juliet and at least makes a claim for the Best Actress award - I'm not sure if she's quite there yet or not.
Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth
This was the first of her two nominations for the same role. I reviewed her second one back in the 2007 year and felt that Blanchett didn't have much to do but look like a Queen and occasionally have these serious moments that were in contrast to the rest of the film. I wasn't really that impressed. But her performance here in Elizabeth is quite different and more fully realized. Whereas the 2007 one felt more lazy and uninspired, been there done that kind of thing - this performance is startling in it's transformation from bastard daughter to the confident, powerful Virgin Queen. I've got to say Blanchett is incredible. She fits every iteration of Elizabeth as she navigates into the throne perfectly, from the somewhat timid political prisoner to the new Queen testing out her new found authority before finally settling in and becoming comfortable as one of the most powerful women in history. Blanchett succeeds in giving such a well rounded version of Elizabeth, which is why her performance is so good. She makes the woman seem real and grounded at times, while also being authoritarian and regal at others. And she never over does the idea of playing a Queen, either, which many actresses can get caught up in. Her transformation felt natural and realistic and she looks like she's figuring out how to rule as we watch her onscreen. It's a site to behold, for sure. I think Blanchett also benefits from the direction which transcends the stuffy costume period piece in favor of something more electric and dynamic so we don't get a bunch of the same, familiar beats of previous British Royalty dramas. Blanchett is free to make the character human and not this idealized, mythical version of a woman everyone knows about from history class. This was Blanchett's coming out party, as it helped launch her career. Obviously, she's been handsomely rewarded ever since with two Oscar wins and a few more nominations. This is a fitting start to what's been a great acting career so far.
Fernanda Montenegro - Central Station
A complete unknown before or since she was nominated, I had no idea what to expect from this performance. She's an older woman in a Brazilian film I'm certain about only 50 people in America has actually seen, now make it 51. The Academy does have a history with an older, foreign female performance getting nominated (see Emmanuelle Riva in Amour as the recent example) but I guess what is surprising to me is that I've never heard a word about this woman, film, or performance ever. Especially for it being a relatively recent nomination, the fact that even on Oscar blogs and comment sections no one has ever mentioned her name, which makes me think this is probably one of the most overlooked and unknown nominees of recent times. One thing about the foreign nominations is I never know what I'm missing in the translation. Between constantly reading the dialogue and watching the actors do their thing, I wonder if I'm missing out on the subtle things like inflections, tone of voice, word choices, pauses, or even body language and gesticulations. All of those things help shape a performance and if I can't discern what's going on in the acting, how can I accurately judge a performance? I'm not sure I can ever really answer that and so I'll have to just be honest with what I saw as my review. Montenegro is an older woman who writes letters at the railway station for illiterate travelers and doesn't actually mail them. She meets a boy whose mother is run over by a bus and then offers to take him to his father after the mother had a letter written to the father. When we first meet her, she is this gruff old bird doing her job to make a living and seemingly not caring about her customers. Yet she takes pity on the boy and eventually they travel to where his father is supposed to be. The performance is very maternal, which is to be expected, and Montenegro runs the gamut of tough, stern caretaker to loving, sensitive, emotional mother figure. This is obviously a good performance just from the range Montenegro shows and you don't need to know Portuguese to figure that out. It's a touching performance, but not one that really blew me away. I wish there was a little bit more to the performance, however, rather than just the maternal protector one that we got here.
Meryl Streep - One True Thing
I guess it was only natural at some point that Streep would play a woman with cancer and so here we are with her 11th nomination for that very thing. What's strange about this nomination is that this wasn't really Streep's movie, Renee Zellweger was the main focus with how she deals with all this turmoil in her life. For the first 30 minutes, Streep is essentially a background character not doing a whole lot besides playing chippy housewife. I don't like that version of Streep. She's too precious and acts like Super Mom which I guess is supposed to make her inevitable demise hit you all that much harder. But it doesn't for me. Sure, Streep is very warm and natural in her performance as the perfect mother, but it's too superficial. I read online that people were criticizing Streep of being too cold and technical as an actress so maybe this was her response that she can actually do any role in any way. Maybe that's why it feels so superficial to me or maybe because the story just let's her down and doesn't giver anything to do other than to be perfect mom and then die. So yes, Streep accomplished the ability to play a cancer patient and was able to check that box off her list. It's just that when I look at this performance as a whole, it does nothing but reiterate that yeah, Streep can do all kinds of things and make them look professional and that this isn't a leading performance! Streep is clearly supporting because Zellweger is the lead by far even if the story revolves around Streep's character especially since the film never focuses on what's going on in Streep's head. We don't know anything about her character other than she tries to keep the family happy and together and is graceful in death. That's why this is such a superficial role and the main reason why I'm not a big fan of this performance as a nominee. Put it in Supporting where it belongs and then we can talk.
Emily Watson - Hilary and Jackie
Oh joy, a musical performance that turns into a debilitating disease portrayal, how can this not be cliche? That was my big concern going into this movie, how can Watson make her world famous cellist who then gets ravaged by a disease that affects her ability to play different from all the similar type of roles we've seen throughout the years? My answer would be that I don't think she did too much to differentiate herself unfortunately. Watson is the Jackie from the title an plays second fiddle to her older sister when younger who is better at music than she is but then she practices hard and becomes one of the best cello players in the world. The movie looks at each sister and how the interact as adults and it's mostly a boring story for me. Watson at least has more to do than Griffiths, and is able to parlay that into being interesting even if the story isn't. Watson had played the cello as a child so she looks natural when playing it in the film which can be an issue when an actor doesn't look comfortable with their instrument or the director has to hide their hands because they can't play. So Watson has the look down and also has to contend with a seemingly bipolar character who is all over the place scene to scene. She's like a live wire at times, then she has bouts of melancholy and can't handle her touring schedule and misses her family and stays with Hilary. There she disrupts her sister's life, talks about longing for love and says that her sister should share her husband so someone will love her. It's weird speaks to how all over the place Watson has to be for her character. It's a bait-y role no doubt, one where she gets to portray all sorts of emotions, though I'd argue they are all mostly superficial to the character, never getting to the heart of why she feels certain ways and acts out. We don't even really get to the heart of the sisterhood, neither actually feel like real sisters, and the younger versions have more chemistry than the adults. That's ultimately why I think the movie fails for me is because there's such a disconnect between the sisters that it's like two different stories playing out at the same time and neither connect to the other. Watson is doing her thing while Griffiths is doing her own thing and we never understand the why of any of it. So what we are left with is Watson delivering a big performance without any real emotion to it.
The thing about this category is that so far, I've been getting some stinker movies to watch, ones that are just not that interesting. Maybe it's partly because I'm a guy but women centric films can be and should be just as entertaining. It might be due to there not being enough strong female leads and films geared towards those ideals, I understand that, but I just want to watch good, interesting films! I don't think that's so much to ask for! I can only hope for some great ones as I keep going on. As for this group Blanchett stands out as the best closely followed by a surprisingly good Paltrow. Montenegro is the definition of the middle. When a foreign actress is nominated for a small film, I'm expecting the performance to blow me away every time. When it doesn't, I feel gipped, much like I do here. Watson is next for at least being interesting even in a very boring film and then Streep rounds it out with category fraud and a superficial performance. Liking two of these choices should probably be considered a win nowadays.
Oscar Winner: Gwyneth Paltrow - Shakespeare in Love
My Winner: Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth
Gwyneth Paltrow
Fernanda Montenegro
Emily Watson
Meryl Streep
No comments:
Post a Comment