Yep, you guessed it, this has been decided since the start of the season. Oldman has been the only choice at every turn and it is very much a career achievement award as it is for his film. It's sad that there hasn't been any intrigue at all this year. I long for the year where none of the major awards are decided by Oscar night and remain a mystery up until the envelope is opened. It will never happen but I can dream.
2017 Best Actor
Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour
Gary Oldman is going to win the Oscar this year for playing Winston Churchill. Reading that sentence over makes it sound like I'm disgusted or something, but no, Oldman does a fine job as Churchill. It's pretty widely known and accepted that this win is more for his career and not just for playing Churchill here. That's if he wins, of course. Something crazy could happen tomorrow night as I write this the day before the ceremony. I've read a lot of push back on this that the performance isn't good and he shouldn't win because of his troubled past and all that but I'm always about the performance only and I think Oldman is pretty good for what the film is. It's a straightforward historical biopic so really all Oldman has to do is be convincing enough as Churchill and he'd be guaranteed a nomination anyway. The makeup and prosthetics do most of the heavy lifting as Oldman disappears behind it all and is unrecognizable as himself. I'm certainly not a Winston Churchill expert so I don't know if he gets the voice and mannerisms perfect or not, but it's all pretty believable to me. He's intense when needed to be, he's sympathetic when necessary, he's rambunctious at times, he's Winston Churchill. The film doesn't really try to figure out who the man is, it just goes over his accomplishments as we see him deal with his first few weeks as Prime Minister. People doubt his ability to lead effectively and he has to show them that he can. Oldman acquits himself well as the man but doesn't have to do all that much besides become Churchill. We don't really explore the relationship with his wife (which actually seemed like something interesting was there beneath the surface), the new secretary felt like it might become a thing but it doesn't, the meetings with the King aren't as illuminating as maybe they should be for his character, and the fights with Lord Halifax, though satisfying, seem more perfunctory than anything. Another blogger mentioned how the story turns him into another 'movie hero' and I couldn't agree more with that observation. It's the movie version of Churchill that Oldman gets to play and we never get much deeper than that. But Oldman has some great individual scenes where his acting talent is on full display and you realize it is in fact Gary Oldman, the great actor underneath all that makeup. It's good but it feels like one of those performances where you acknowledge it is good and then never really come back to it again. But it will be cool for Oldman to get his Oscar finally, so there's that. But also you know it's not his best work and it's a career award and there was never any actual challenge to his winning and then you wish it was next year already so we can move on.
Timothee Chalamet - Call Me By Your Name
This was one I was really looking forward to finally watching because there was a lot of controversy around the subject of the film and because there were so many people online that were rapturous in their praise for his performance. I think a lot of that had to do with him being a good looking younger dude with some acting chops which those paying attention to Oscar will love, gay or straight. I was worried that he would come off like some entitled, pretty boy, douchebag which is a little like his character in Lady Bird. But that's why I watch the actual films and performances, because Chalamet didn't come off that way at all and is actually a very good actor who has a promising future. The controversy is because Chalamet plays a 17-year old who engages in a sexual relationship with an older men, supposed to be 24, played by Armie Hammer who looks way older than that. But the film is set in Italy in 1983 where consent is considerable lower than 17 and the film doesn't feel too icky or creepy. I think that is people projecting their own issues onto the film and these characters, probably without even seeing it. Chalamet comes from an intelligent, very liberal and academic family. He plays the piano well, reads a lot, hangs with the local girls, and swims. That's his existence until Hammer shows up as a research assistant for Chalamet's father (played wonderfully by Michael Stuhlbarg). It's like a coming of age story because Hammer's presence and his charming demeanor stirs up feelings in Elio and he becomes curious about Hammer and eventually sexually attracted to him. He just seems like a kid who is experimenting and trying to figure out who he is and what he likes in a very welcoming, non-threatening environment. Chalamet is great because he brings a lot of subtlety to the role and a lot internalized machinations. There's time where it's like you can see his mind spinning and thinking about something that catches his eye. There are a lot of moments where Chalamet has to act without saying anything and convey to the audience what Elio is thinking and feeling and without doing so in an obvious, theatrical kind of way. Now, Elio is a bit self absorbed and that can grate usually, but I think it works for his character because he is not quite a loner, but seems to enjoy being on his own or sitting apart from a group in a comfortable way, if that makes sense. He's very self assured and confuses that with his own maturity at times. So it kinda shows that Elio has it in him to be a little different which in turns makes his pursuing of Hammer feel legit. I think Chalamet portrays that independence as well as internalized confusion in a pretty remarkable manner. As dumb as I feel for saying it, Chalamet does exhibit a magnetism with his character and performance. He draws the viewer in to his world even if it's not because you find him attractive or relate to a gay experience or whatever. It's that he's an interesting kid that that's more complex than most young characters. At least that's what draws me in. Plus the ending where he is devastated is some fine acting. I may not be part of the zealous crowd of Chalamet fans that was vocal when this first started showing in film festivals, but I do see the talent in him and am excited to see what he does next. I've seen him on some prediction lists for the next Oscars a year away, so I don't think we will have to wait to long for whatever it is.
Daniel Day-Lewis - Phantom Thread
I feel like you could just copy and paste all my previous reviews of Day-Lewis, change the name of the film and character, and be good to go. DDL delivers brilliant performance after brilliant performance and this one is no exception. If this is truly the last time he acts onscreen (remember he did retire back in the 90s, too) then he will have gone out with a performance many would be envious of. We all know how dedicated DDL is to his craft and for this one he apprenticed as a designer under some top names, even designing and making a dress for his wife from scratch. His dedication in preparing for his roles always shines through onscreen because it looks like he knows what he's doing as a designer. He can sell you that when he's looking at a dress in the film, that he is actually actively coming up with ideas and fixes and isn't just doing acting motions. When he smooths out a dress or puts a pin somewhere, it's for a reason, and DDL is able to convey that through his acting. DDL is this great fashion designer. This is also the first time in decades that he uses his real voice and doesn't use an accent. The soft spoken nature of his voice fits the role and the film and it always impressed me when you'd hear his Lincoln or Daniel Plainview and then his real voice. It's soft spoken, intelligent and warm sounding and fits the fashion designer character he has created. And it's always fun to watch DDL add in all his own little mannerisms or looks. Just watch how he adds in those flourishes of say squinting when remembering something or how his face scrunches up when he is annoyed by Vicky Krieps being noisy or how he tilts his head when listening. I think he's the best at adding this little things to his character that feel natural and give off their own personality. It's not just a guy delivering lines and hitting his mark. It's DDL becoming this person with his own personal touches and I love seeing what he will bring to his roles. It also should be stated that because DDL has given so many brilliant performances and iconic characters, it can be hard to judge his current work without comparing to his previous work. It's like he's sometimes competing against himself when he gives a performance like in this film that doesn't feel as impressive because he's not yelling about drinking your milkshake. But what he is able to do in this role is brilliant and we can take for granted how impressive even his quieter roles are. His devotion to his art is something rarely seen and I really hope he isn't done acting because I want to see what other brilliant performances he can give us.
Daniel Kaluuya - Get Out
I was surprised to see Daniel Kaluuya was nominated on the morning the nominations came out. He had been in some precursors, yes, but it never felt like he was a legitimate contender and yet here he is. I think a lot of that has to do with how well Get Out was received by critics and audiences in general, and a large part of that is thanks to Kaluuya. The one thing you notice about him before you even see the film in the promotional material is his big, expressive eyes. He always had a serious face or a terrified, teary look going on with those big eyeballs telling you everything you need to know about the tone of the film. Then when you finally watch his performance, that's what I'd say really sold his nomination were those looks. This guy has mastered the serious scowl and the horrified, desperate look with added tears. I know it sounds weird to talk about, but in a horror film you need the main protagonist to be expressive and allow the audience to feel the story through him/her. That's the strength of Kaluuya's work for me is allowing us to feel terrified and horrified for him about whatever the hell is going on. He's the anchor for all of us and plays the straight man in this film wonderfully. I was unsure going in if I'd like a horror film performance because I typically loathe horror films, but I was pleasantly surprised that Kaluuya didn't fall into the many horror cliches and played the character like a real person in an increasingly fucked up situation. I think with all the craziness going on around him, Kaluuya being the normal constant is almost taken for granted but he has a tough task of not going overboard himself. And not to just say that all he does is act normal in a sea of crazy, Kaluuya does have an emotional moment when talking about when his mom died when he was young and he hits those emotional beats perfectly. That's where you can really see the acting ability and realize this isn't just a typical horror performance. It also makes the brutality and survival of the final scene work even more for Kaluuya because you feel his betrayal by his girlfriend and the burning hatred for the family members. I feel like this performance can be easily underappreciated given that it's a horror film, but I do think it's a very good portrayal overall.
Denzel Washington - Roman J. Israel, Esq.
This was director Dan Gilroy's follow up to Nightcrawler, so I was very interested to see this film especially since he teamed up with Denzel for it. It seems to have gotten slammed a bit as not a good film, but Denzel is very good in a different role for him. While I agree with the latter, the former seems a bit harsh. It's nowhere near as good as his previous film, but it still is pretty engaging. Denzel makes the film, as usual, but I didn't think the film was as terribad as reviewers and Oscar folk made it out to be. Denzel plays an eccentric, quirky lawyer whose partner dies and their clients are sold or given to another big high priced firm. Denzel kinda comes off as maybe being this genius lawyer who can quote the criminal codes by heart and is idealistic in wanting to fight for civil rights and wants to reform plea bargaining but is just too awkward and autistic-like to be the face of a case. He meets a woman attorney working for some non-profit civil rights organization and clearly likes her. He starts off on the wrong foot with the new attorney group headed by Colin Farrell (who I've met!) and is in desperate need of money. He is assigned a case of a kid whose friend kills a store owner and is in jail. He tells Denzel where to find the actual shooter but the kid is killed in jail. Denzel then calls in the anonymous tip to collect a big reward and spends some money. I say all that to emphasize that there are many threads coming off Denzel and all of them feel under cooked even though the film is just over two hours long. This feels like it needs to be way longer to fully flesh out Denzel's character. That's not Denzel's fault, however, as he sort of plays against his usual type (or at least lately anyway). He is almost an autistic character, he's certainly a savant of some kind, and absolutely an idealistic good guy who wants to make sure the people are protected from shitty prosecuting practices. Yeah, Denzel has some affectations that work for the character but some that definitely feel put on like an afterthought. Also, because it is Denzel, he will always have this badass quality to him that just seeps through the performance. Even when playing a weird, quirky lawyer who is a loner and shouldn't be too likable, his charm punches through and his authoritarian demeanor slips in every so often. I like that he goes against type. I want a lot of other actors to do the same to see them stretch themselves acting wise. But Denzel needs this film to go on for another 30-45 minutes to pull the character together and tie up or cut off these loose threads. I like what it did and where it was going but there is just something that feels unfulfilled with the character and therefore the performance. I think Denzel is good and I think the Academy recognize he went against type. I also think they go to the same well too much. But he was coming off Fences and gave a decent performance here and we are in a new era for the Academy so he got in. It's good but I want more from the film and the performance.
A disappointing Best Actor race as it was Oldman all the way for a role that's admittedly not his best. It feels like an uninspiring choice but this is really a nod to his career. The Academy will forever be playing catch up because they don't reward actors when they do give their best work and have to come back years later to reward mediocre work with an Oscar for their career. It's frustrating but has been happening since the start almost. This Best Actor year is weird because I don't really have a favorite. Yeah, I love DDL and his performance is another feather in his cap but I know it's not even his best work. Denzel takes on a different kind of role yet still puts the Denzel spin to it. It's also obviously not his best performance by any means. Then you have two newcomers in Chalamet and Kaluuya who do deliver really wonderful performances that make you want to pay more attention to them in the future. I think it's going to be tough for Kaluuya to find his way back to being nominated unless there are greater black roles or we stop caring about seeing a Kaluuya in a Chalamet type role or a DDL type role or if Denzel stops hogging them all. I hope I'm wrong but this might be his only shot. I do think we'll see Chalamet again because he is what the Academy likes. Being a young, white actor means he's going to get a ton of roles offered to him so as long as he's smart about what he takes, he'll be back. Just real talk. So it's hard to figure out what to do with this category. A win for DDL or Denzel is superfluous and unnecessary. A win for Chalamet or Kaluuya seems premature, though they would be interesting. Oldman really wouldn't be my choice but eh, no one else blows me away. I'd give it to DDL but he doesn't need it. So Oldman it is, just go with the Academy on this and forget about it.
Oscar Winner: Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour
My Winner: Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour
Timothee Chalamet
Daniel Kaluuya
Daniel Day-Lewis
Denzel Washington
No comments:
Post a Comment