So many goddamn Miramax films! That's the big thing I noticed while watching all the films for this year was just how many started out with the Miramax logo, which means the Weinsteins had a big hand in probably bribing or wining and dining voters to get their films and people nominated. I hate that aspect of the Oscars. Wish the films and performances would just be voted on for their own merits and not because someone gave them money to do so. This is definitely right around the heyday of Miramax who had a very prominent role for a few years before it died down, thankfully. On to the films, though!
2002 Best Picture
Chicago
I love musicals! But I'm having a hard time figuring out what sets Chicago apart and makes it a Best Picture winner. So what does makes it an Oscar winner? The songs are only okay, the acting is not totally great, the singing is awful, the dancing is cringe worthy and the feel of it is inauthentic. So why did this win Best Picture? Simple answer: no fucking clue. As I alluded to in my write-up of the Best Supporting Actress group, I feel like Chicago hit at the right time after Moulin Rouge! broke out the year prior and it became evident that the public's appetite for flashy musicals was still there. It does seem like a cash and Oscar grab kind of movie, somehow capturing the zeitgeist and doing extremely well. Maybe people wanted a movie that was all about fun and made them feel good after the world completely turned on it's head in 2001? The rest of the Best Picture nominees is certainly not an uplifting, feel good, let's have a great time group. Maybe it just simply appeals to the lowest common denominator? It's not a terrible movie by any means and I can absolutely see the appeal. But it never fully comes together for me. It's got the spectacle part down pat and has a great look to it especially during the song and dance numbers. I think that's easily the best part of the movie, the way it looks. But I'm not sold on the performances or the music or the dancing and all of that is pretty vital to the success of a musical. I'm glad a musical won, I just wish it was a better musical that was able to win Best Picture instead of the mediocrity we get with Chicago.
Gangs of New York
I really enjoy watching this film but confession time, prior to right now I had never watched it all the way through in one sitting. It's just under three hours long and Martin Scorsese is notorious for letting his films go on and on even when they should probably be trimmed down. One of the big complaints for Gangs of New York is just that. That it is too long and the story (and Scorsese) needed to be reigned in. On one hand I can kind of agree with that. I find the love story part between DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz is mostly dull and boring and pretty unnecessary. I also really dislike Diaz in the role of the love interest because I just don't think she's a good fit at all. Her accent is alright, I guess, but I just don't buy the love interest part. She's a little bit better at playing the tough thief/pickpocket ward of Bill the Butcher but not enough to sell me on the rest of her character. And that's the big minus for the film for me. Maybe if her part was lessened the story would be a bit more focused and not so long. But on the other hand, Scorsese has so much material to work with and it's clearly obvious he wanted to try and include as much of it as he could. I own the book this story is derived from and it is very dense with so many different names, gangs, places, and just overall information about that time period. A miniseries might have better suited the concept so as to be able to tell all the different stories about the different gangs and about the corruption and culture of that time instead of focusing on Bill the Butcher and lightly touching on the myriad of other things. Now that would have been something to see. But the film version is quite good anyway. I love the music that plays throughout and sort of personifies the different gangs or moods, just a nice touch. And the film looks amazing. Vivid colors and the set pieces look and feel lived in and not just constructed on a sound stage. It's a very real production and one that's a lot of fun to watch. The DDL versus DiCaprio storyline is insanely good because both are phenomenal actors and they throw themselves 100% into their roles. It's easily the strength of the film and I wish Scorsese had more tightly focused on them instead of shoehorning the rather lame love triangle idea.
The Hours
I didn't realize that this was a Stephen Daldry film, but it made sense after I found out. I didn't like The Reader and I wasn't a fan of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and I can't say that I really liked The Hours all that much, either. Each had different reasons but they were all too melodramatic for my tastes. The Hours, however, was also quite dull. That's the main thing that I read about in some of the more negative reviews and I'd have to agree. It's dull and for me the plot is a bit convoluted. The three stories are tangentially related but I didn't really see why or how they related to each other in any real important way. The Hours is about the depressed author Virginia Woolf who is writing a book, Mrs. Dalloway, that Moore's housewife character reads and connects with leaving her to abandon her family. Moore's son grows up to be a famous poet that's also gay and angry about the abandonment and is friends with Streep's character whose name is Clarissa like the main character of Woolf's book. It's a dour two hours and the score is relentlessly ever present, though I do enjoy Phillip Glass otherwise. The film thrives on the acting performances which are all quite good. But I think it's just too slow and somber and not nearly as interesting as it wants to be. It's definitely not the type of film I can see people going back to over and over. Watch it once and experience and that's plenty enough. Without the acting, there's just not much else to watch.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
The Two Towers picks up right where Fellowship of the Ring leaves off. Duh. But I do love how seamlessly they transition into one another. It's quite evident that the trilogy was filmed all at once and that was a brilliant decision by Peter Jackson. Everyone looks the same, the production values are are the same, there's no weird inconsistencies that jump out at you screaming to be noticed. You can focus on the story and become instantly immersed again. Two Towers introduces a ton more of Gollum which might be the single best use of CGI and motion capture acting ever. It's not too jarring and fits in extremely well. Gollum is a fully fleshed out character, acting and voice work included, which is a testament to Andy Serkis' acting abilities. One that carved out a career for himself and thrust motion capture acting into the Oscar discussion as a legitimate choice for nominations. One day I think we'll see a motion capture performance or one like it be nominated, all thanks to this beginning. As for the film itself, I think the major issue against Two Towers is that it is the middle film. The gang has already started their journey and it ends with them still on their journey. There are more action pieces, sure, even impressive ones. But it's easy to get bored at certain points, usually in between those action scenes. It just doesn't have the same flow as Fellowship and so, tends to drag. It's still a great film but not as great as the first one to me.
The Pianist
This was always a film that intrigued me when looking over my list of films to watch for my project. All I ever knew about this one was that it was a long, sad, Holocaust film that also had the youngest Oscar winning Best Actor performance in it. So one hand, it's kind of dreaded due to the whole depressing Holocaust thing and on the other I was anxious to see how Adrien Brody beat out 4 other heavily Oscared veteran actors. And after watching it...wow. It's definitely way better than I ever imagined it would be. It's for sure powerful, emotional, compelling, maddening, depressing, hopeful, and matter-of-fact. It has great acting from Adrien Brody as he survives and hides from Nazi capture in Warsaw, Poland. It has some imagery that should and will resonate with the viewer. Some of the atrocities committed by the Nazis on the Jews are just so matter-of-fact with no great fanfare and brutal in their bluntness that they should stick in your mind forever. How anyone could ever believe that the Holocaust was faked or that Jews deserved what they got is beyond my comprehension. It's a reprehensible part of human history and it's good that we have film to remind us that yeah, this actually happened. Roman Polanski's childhood was similar to Brody's character in that he escaped a Polish ghetto like this one and hid out until the war was over. The intensity of some of the scenes is evident and the film has a no non-sense feel to it. This isn't playing up things for shock value. It's presenting a truth in the most unashamed way. The filmmaking doesn't really celebrate or linger on things for too long. It kind of mirrors Brody's performance of starting out kinda meh or unsure but quickly finds it's voice and releases itself in such a passionate way. It does feel autobiographical at times and it just comes off as a powerful reminder that yes, this did happen and here's the cold truth. Look at it, take it in, remember it, and never forget. We certainly won't forget The Pianist.
When you really look at this group of nominees, I mean really look hard at the 5, what honestly could have won? The Two Towers is the middle film in a trilogy that's going to get it's due next year anyway. The Hours is ultimately kind of dour and depressing and doesn't really inspire anyone to clamor for a win. The Pianist is a Holocaust film that is also depressing and sad and long and, well, a Holocaust film. It was a heavy favorite at points before the ceremony having won the Palme d'Or at Cannes, BAFTA for Best Film, Cesar (French Oscars) for Best Film and many, many others. Gangs of New York is a very long, violent, aggressive, manly film that's good but also alienating. When I put it that way, Chicago actually looks like the easy, no shit choice. It's really not a surprise it won, especially with the Weinsteins behind it. It's the only truly feel good film of the bunch and coming after a difficult year in an uncertain world it makes sense. Do I agree? Nah. I just don't feel Chicago is strong enough to be a winner and Gangs of New York is pretty good though I'm not as fervent of an advocate as say when I was in high school and thought it was soooo awesome. I do think it would be a good winner, though. But right now I'd have to give it to The Pianist. I don't feel manipulated by it which is good for a Holocaust film. Present the story and let history be the background. It's just really good and even if it's sobering, it would probably make a better winner in hindsight than Chicago.
Oscar Winner: Chicago
My Winner: The Pianist
Gangs of New York
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Chicago
The Hours
Showing posts with label 2002. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2002. Show all posts
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Leading Actor 2002
Another interesting year, one that I know surprised a lot of people on Oscar night. Did Brody deserve to win? Was he the winner because of a split in the vote between the other nominees? Let's dive in and see what I think!
2002 Best Actor
Adrien Brody - The Pianist
I've always had apprehension about this watching this win. I wanted so badly to like it but was always afraid that it would suck or that even worse it would be meh. Meh is absolutely worse. Polarizing is understandable but something that is in the middle that wins is almost unforgivable. I know that sounds weird and insane but I'd rather have good/great or bad rather than just meh. This was the last film/performance I watched for 2002, savoring the moment of finally getting to watch it. And I liked it! It's still fresh to me as a write this but man, did I like this. It's satisfying that the Academy didn't fuck this up. Even if the vote was split and that's how Brody won, you can't hate on this performance really and the win is justifiable. I was even worried at the beginning of the film when Brody didn't seem all that remarkable but as he undergoes his change from all the tragic events he witnesses in the Nazi occupied Warsaw, his performance just gets better and better. He is able to act without speaking all that much and just survives on his pure acting ability. And he's able to get us to react emotionally without saying a word and it still comes across as being powerful. That's what really impressed me is that even in silence or in German (which I didn't get subtitles in my version so I was left to sort of piece together what they were saying with what was happening) Brody was able to convey the desperation and the hurt and the true human spirit. He persevered but not in the classical heroic sense. No fighting as part of the underground uprising movement or or daring escapes or cliche Hollywood big moment. Just a man that survived due to sheer dumb luck, the kindness of strangers, and perhaps some divine intervention. It was a very real portrayal and one that absolutely deserves the title of Best Actor. Maybe once I've had a significant time to digest this film and performance I might come down on how good I think it is, it certainly does stand with the rest of the group as a strong addition to the Best Actor race. Brody does a wonderful job here.
Nicolas Cage - Adaptation.
I'll admit that I like almost anything Nic Cage does, from his great performances like this one to those terrible straight to DVD ones as well. And I think those terrible straight to DVD movies are what put a lot of people off to Cage. So much so that I think they might scoff a little at seeing him on a list of Oscar nominees even though he has an Oscar win under his belt. Therefore it's rewarding when he is able to sort of focus and put all his talent and energy behind such a great performance. And it really truly is a great performance. He has the dual role of playing the screenwriter Charlie Kaufman and his brother (who may or may not be real) and dual roles are always tough to pull off. Cage makes it look easy. He is superbly hilarious and his comedic talents are actually well suited for the nerdy, pathetic Kaufman that he portrays. Cage is best at the neurotic, odd ball characters which are the ones I typically really like from him. When he tries to go too badass or macho, it often doesn't work out too well. But those movies are usually pretty terrible action movies to begin with so maybe that's why I like the other ones so much. At any rate, Cage really carries the film. His breathless tone for the voice overs works so well and really makes it sound like we are in Kaufman's head as his thoughts race around. Even things like his posture and forgetting the food after he runs into his agent at the restaurant when he leaves are these nice touches for the character that go above and beyond what a lesser actor would do. I just wish that Cage would get more roles like this because they really highlight how good of an actor he can be. A really well deserved nomination here.
Michael Caine - The Quiet American
More like The Quiet Englishman, amiright? Ok, no it's not a quiet performance or about a mute or anything like that. What it is about is Michael Caine is an English journalist living in Vietnam in the 1950s before American involvement. What we get is the typical Caine performance. He's charming and witty and does a solid job with the material. So that makes it seem like a veteran nomination, but he's already got 2 wins, one of which was relatively recent to this in 1999. Then you think maybe they wanted to nominate a sort of anti-war film/performance given the recent events of the time with 9/11 and war in Afghanistan and a run up to Iraq. I really do think that the anti-war thing comes into play as a legit reason why he was nominated. But as for Caine himself here, his character is introduced to us as a guy enjoying the escapist lifestyle with his lunches, trips to the opium dens, his relationship with his 20 year old Vietnamese mistress. Gradually he becomes more involved rather than just a passive journalist content with not doing much. He deals with Brendan Fraser's American CIA agent and the increasing of hostilities in Vietnam and Caine is able to transition from one extreme to the other convincingly. It's an effective performance in a completely overlooked film that probably deserves a bit more love.
Daniel Day-Lewis - Gangs of New York
I mean, what is there left to say about Daniel Day-Lewis? He is without a doubt THE greatest actor living today and one could make an argument for greatest of all time. There is no debating that he is great. The stories of his unparallelled devotion to method acting and living as his characters are well known and show why exactly he is so great. He is meticulous about the small details: authentic accents, the facial expressions he uses, the way he moves around, how natural he looks doing certain tasks. It's amazing and a wonderful gift to us film lovers. You know if DDL is involved, you're getting the very best performance he could give and one that is typically can't miss. In Gangs of New York, DDL plays Bill 'the Butcher' Cutting, the head of an American born gang. Since it is DDL, his Bill the Butcher is passionate, intense, and highly entertaining. There's shades of Daniel Plainview in this character so it's interesting to see what at times looks like an early version of his second Oscar win. There are similarities with the look and certainly with the voice, which is frankly my favorite part of Bill the Butcher. It just amazes me when a British actor such as DDL can so convincingly sound American like he does here. It blows me away. The entire performance is amazing and absolutely a must watch for anyone. Brilliant work.
Jack Nicholson - About Schmidt
I actually thought this was my second Jack Nicholson review for the blog, think he was nominated for Something's Gotta Give, but nope I was wrong! Which I think speaks to the acting of Nicholson that I want to give him even more nominations than he already has. Amazingly, this is his last nomination and probably will be forever barring some late career stroke of genius. And if this is his last nomination then it's a pretty damn good nomination to go out on. We all know that Jack is one of the greatest actors ever. For me, it was refreshing to see him in this film because he was so human and so real instead of the larger than life movie star. Alexander Payne is great at getting some truly grounded performances out of his talent and this was no exception. Nicholson plays a newly retired insurance man who lived a safe, predictable life. But early on in the film, loses his wife and that causes him to find himself and the meaning of his place in the world. It's a sort of existential character in the not so obvious way and Jack relates so well for the audience. We can see ourselves as him and we can both empathize and sympathize with what he's dealing with. His performance is both emotional (but not in the tear jerking way) and heartfelt. There are these truly human moments where Nicholson shines and lots of little slyly comedic ones where he really flexes his acting muscles. The fact that he can so seamlessly transition between this myriad of emotions is a testament to his abilities and defines what makes Jack so damn good. About Schmidt is a lovely little film that will make you understand just what a treasure Jack Nicholson is.
God damn it this is hard! So besides Brody, everyone else had at least one Oscar win already and 3 of them (minus Cage) had at least 2 (or will have in the future, actually)! That's kind of insane to think about and makes accepting Brody's win a lot easier. No one was harmed by his win. There will be no make up awards down the line, heck, Day-Lewis would win his second AND third years later on his own merit. So it's this weird kind of place where you can't really be mad if you didn't like the Brody win. That tempers things a bit as far as that goes. But! It's a hell of a strong group on it's own. You've got 5 strong performances. I mean 5 fucking strong performances! How the hell do you choose from this group? I totally believe that Brody could have won because the vote was split but how was it split? I wish we could see vote totals because I think this might be one of the closest totals from top to bottom. They are all good. I'll go with Brody as the win because it was a great performance as well as he was the only one without an Oscar. Maybe DDL next because he's amazing and then Nicholson for going against type and wowing us still and then Cage for his dual role amazingness and Caine for being his usual strong actor self. The divide between Brody and Caine is microscopic. Mix em all up and pick from a bag and you really can't go wrong. One of the best groups so far, if not the best group so far. I want more like this.
Oscar Winner: Adrien Brody - The Pianist
My Winner: Adrien Brody - The Pianist
Daniel Day-Lewis
Jack Nicholson
Nicolas Cage
Michael Caine
2002 Best Actor
Adrien Brody - The Pianist
I've always had apprehension about this watching this win. I wanted so badly to like it but was always afraid that it would suck or that even worse it would be meh. Meh is absolutely worse. Polarizing is understandable but something that is in the middle that wins is almost unforgivable. I know that sounds weird and insane but I'd rather have good/great or bad rather than just meh. This was the last film/performance I watched for 2002, savoring the moment of finally getting to watch it. And I liked it! It's still fresh to me as a write this but man, did I like this. It's satisfying that the Academy didn't fuck this up. Even if the vote was split and that's how Brody won, you can't hate on this performance really and the win is justifiable. I was even worried at the beginning of the film when Brody didn't seem all that remarkable but as he undergoes his change from all the tragic events he witnesses in the Nazi occupied Warsaw, his performance just gets better and better. He is able to act without speaking all that much and just survives on his pure acting ability. And he's able to get us to react emotionally without saying a word and it still comes across as being powerful. That's what really impressed me is that even in silence or in German (which I didn't get subtitles in my version so I was left to sort of piece together what they were saying with what was happening) Brody was able to convey the desperation and the hurt and the true human spirit. He persevered but not in the classical heroic sense. No fighting as part of the underground uprising movement or or daring escapes or cliche Hollywood big moment. Just a man that survived due to sheer dumb luck, the kindness of strangers, and perhaps some divine intervention. It was a very real portrayal and one that absolutely deserves the title of Best Actor. Maybe once I've had a significant time to digest this film and performance I might come down on how good I think it is, it certainly does stand with the rest of the group as a strong addition to the Best Actor race. Brody does a wonderful job here.
Nicolas Cage - Adaptation.
I'll admit that I like almost anything Nic Cage does, from his great performances like this one to those terrible straight to DVD ones as well. And I think those terrible straight to DVD movies are what put a lot of people off to Cage. So much so that I think they might scoff a little at seeing him on a list of Oscar nominees even though he has an Oscar win under his belt. Therefore it's rewarding when he is able to sort of focus and put all his talent and energy behind such a great performance. And it really truly is a great performance. He has the dual role of playing the screenwriter Charlie Kaufman and his brother (who may or may not be real) and dual roles are always tough to pull off. Cage makes it look easy. He is superbly hilarious and his comedic talents are actually well suited for the nerdy, pathetic Kaufman that he portrays. Cage is best at the neurotic, odd ball characters which are the ones I typically really like from him. When he tries to go too badass or macho, it often doesn't work out too well. But those movies are usually pretty terrible action movies to begin with so maybe that's why I like the other ones so much. At any rate, Cage really carries the film. His breathless tone for the voice overs works so well and really makes it sound like we are in Kaufman's head as his thoughts race around. Even things like his posture and forgetting the food after he runs into his agent at the restaurant when he leaves are these nice touches for the character that go above and beyond what a lesser actor would do. I just wish that Cage would get more roles like this because they really highlight how good of an actor he can be. A really well deserved nomination here.
Michael Caine - The Quiet American
More like The Quiet Englishman, amiright? Ok, no it's not a quiet performance or about a mute or anything like that. What it is about is Michael Caine is an English journalist living in Vietnam in the 1950s before American involvement. What we get is the typical Caine performance. He's charming and witty and does a solid job with the material. So that makes it seem like a veteran nomination, but he's already got 2 wins, one of which was relatively recent to this in 1999. Then you think maybe they wanted to nominate a sort of anti-war film/performance given the recent events of the time with 9/11 and war in Afghanistan and a run up to Iraq. I really do think that the anti-war thing comes into play as a legit reason why he was nominated. But as for Caine himself here, his character is introduced to us as a guy enjoying the escapist lifestyle with his lunches, trips to the opium dens, his relationship with his 20 year old Vietnamese mistress. Gradually he becomes more involved rather than just a passive journalist content with not doing much. He deals with Brendan Fraser's American CIA agent and the increasing of hostilities in Vietnam and Caine is able to transition from one extreme to the other convincingly. It's an effective performance in a completely overlooked film that probably deserves a bit more love.
Daniel Day-Lewis - Gangs of New York
I mean, what is there left to say about Daniel Day-Lewis? He is without a doubt THE greatest actor living today and one could make an argument for greatest of all time. There is no debating that he is great. The stories of his unparallelled devotion to method acting and living as his characters are well known and show why exactly he is so great. He is meticulous about the small details: authentic accents, the facial expressions he uses, the way he moves around, how natural he looks doing certain tasks. It's amazing and a wonderful gift to us film lovers. You know if DDL is involved, you're getting the very best performance he could give and one that is typically can't miss. In Gangs of New York, DDL plays Bill 'the Butcher' Cutting, the head of an American born gang. Since it is DDL, his Bill the Butcher is passionate, intense, and highly entertaining. There's shades of Daniel Plainview in this character so it's interesting to see what at times looks like an early version of his second Oscar win. There are similarities with the look and certainly with the voice, which is frankly my favorite part of Bill the Butcher. It just amazes me when a British actor such as DDL can so convincingly sound American like he does here. It blows me away. The entire performance is amazing and absolutely a must watch for anyone. Brilliant work.
Jack Nicholson - About Schmidt
I actually thought this was my second Jack Nicholson review for the blog, think he was nominated for Something's Gotta Give, but nope I was wrong! Which I think speaks to the acting of Nicholson that I want to give him even more nominations than he already has. Amazingly, this is his last nomination and probably will be forever barring some late career stroke of genius. And if this is his last nomination then it's a pretty damn good nomination to go out on. We all know that Jack is one of the greatest actors ever. For me, it was refreshing to see him in this film because he was so human and so real instead of the larger than life movie star. Alexander Payne is great at getting some truly grounded performances out of his talent and this was no exception. Nicholson plays a newly retired insurance man who lived a safe, predictable life. But early on in the film, loses his wife and that causes him to find himself and the meaning of his place in the world. It's a sort of existential character in the not so obvious way and Jack relates so well for the audience. We can see ourselves as him and we can both empathize and sympathize with what he's dealing with. His performance is both emotional (but not in the tear jerking way) and heartfelt. There are these truly human moments where Nicholson shines and lots of little slyly comedic ones where he really flexes his acting muscles. The fact that he can so seamlessly transition between this myriad of emotions is a testament to his abilities and defines what makes Jack so damn good. About Schmidt is a lovely little film that will make you understand just what a treasure Jack Nicholson is.
God damn it this is hard! So besides Brody, everyone else had at least one Oscar win already and 3 of them (minus Cage) had at least 2 (or will have in the future, actually)! That's kind of insane to think about and makes accepting Brody's win a lot easier. No one was harmed by his win. There will be no make up awards down the line, heck, Day-Lewis would win his second AND third years later on his own merit. So it's this weird kind of place where you can't really be mad if you didn't like the Brody win. That tempers things a bit as far as that goes. But! It's a hell of a strong group on it's own. You've got 5 strong performances. I mean 5 fucking strong performances! How the hell do you choose from this group? I totally believe that Brody could have won because the vote was split but how was it split? I wish we could see vote totals because I think this might be one of the closest totals from top to bottom. They are all good. I'll go with Brody as the win because it was a great performance as well as he was the only one without an Oscar. Maybe DDL next because he's amazing and then Nicholson for going against type and wowing us still and then Cage for his dual role amazingness and Caine for being his usual strong actor self. The divide between Brody and Caine is microscopic. Mix em all up and pick from a bag and you really can't go wrong. One of the best groups so far, if not the best group so far. I want more like this.
Oscar Winner: Adrien Brody - The Pianist
My Winner: Adrien Brody - The Pianist
Daniel Day-Lewis
Jack Nicholson
Nicolas Cage
Michael Caine
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Leading Actress 2002
As usual, the Actress categories offer up films I'd otherwise probably never see. This year's group brings 3 films I've never seen, one I've seen but can't remember and then Chicago. The names, however, are all strong so I look forward to diving in!
2002 Best Actress
Nicole Kidman - The Hours
There's a lot of things that spring to mind when you think about Kidman's Best Actress win. I think the first thing everyone remembers is that she wore a fake nose for her role as the depressed author Virginia Woolf. There were a lot of jokes made about it at the time and some people felt it was one of the contributing reasons for her win. One of those Oscar stereotypes where a beautiful actress uglifies herself. I don't honestly think it's as easy as that, though. What also comes to mind is that Kidman lost the year prior to Halle Berry, which was a historic win but many thought that Kidman should have won instead and that she won this year to make up for that. And seeing as how one could possibly classify her role as Supporting instead of Lead, well, it looks all set up in her favor to win. If not for those factors, would Zellweger have pulled out the win? And then maybe someone else wins the Best Supporting Actress the next year instead of Renee? Oscar is full of these type of what if moments and it's fun to speculate. But Kidman did win for this role and it's not exactly an undeserved win, either. Kidman is almost unrecognizable as Woolf because of the fake nose (which I actually like) and the frumpy, demure look she sports. Her characterization of Woolf is intense. Her whole being is hardened and she seems to exist deliberately. You could almost say that she comes off as a sociopath because she's so cold and removed and unfeeling in the normal ways. Kidman does a great job and I'm glad to admit that, as I'm definitely not the biggest Kidman fan. Stripped of all the beauty and movie star trappings, she gives an honest performance that's worth of an Oscar win.
Salma Hayek - Frida
Frida was something of a passion project for Salma Hayek and it shows. It took a long time to get the story of surrealist painter Frida Kahlo to the big screen and Hayek was a major part of that process. However, not all passion projects end up being as enjoyable for the audience to watch as it is for the project to be completed by whoever is involved. That's certainly the case here with Frida. While there are parts of the film that are inspired, like the paintings melting into real life, there's overall something lacking, something missing. The same can be said of Hayek's performance. There are times when certain roles just seem tailor made for certain actors, when you can't see anyone else playing the character and it just feels like they were born to do it. Hayek portraying Frida is one of those. With that in mind, however, you'd think the performance would be a little less uneven. Sometimes the passion of bringing the story to life doesn't translate all that well to the actual acting. You can tell she's having fun and enjoying it but it comes off at times as a little too self serving. Like I said, there's just something that's lacking from the film overall. I'm not sure if what would be needed is a stronger performance from Hayek or if they needed to make it seem so less by the numbers or play up the surreal aspect more or not gloss over all the turmoil in Frida's life, I don't know. But that sentence should point to exactly what's wrong with Hayek's performance. I'm glad she was able to be nominated but I just wish we got a lot more out of it.
Diane Lane - Unfaithful
The Academy doesn't often go for these sorts of sexual thrillers much anymore and I can't say I blame them. Movies like these can easily devolve into schlock if those involved aren't careful enough. Ultimately for me, they have to be really, really, exceptionally, amazingly great to get me to like them. I'm not sure I even know of any like that to be honest. Usually there's some pointless and/or gratuitous sex and nudity that does nothing at all for the story and serves only to titillate and tease. Unfaithful does have a little bit of that even though I do think Diane Lane is super hot in this. The thing is, I expect way more from an Oscar nomination and I just don't see what Lane's performance brings that warrants any kind of awards attention. She plays a woman who has a great life but I guess feels bored and decides to cheat on her husband and feels more shame at the idea of getting caught or falling in love with the guy instead of the actual cheating part. Her husband (Richard Gere) finds out and, well, yeah I won't ruin it. But suffice it to say that this is neither an Oscar movie nor an Oscar caliber performance. It doesn't stand out and feels like any other actress could have played the part and hit all the same notes. It has no depth, pushes no boundaries, confronts no taboos or real emotions. It's a paper thin performance and one that reeks of either the Academy wanting to boost the career or Lane and make her into a star or some successful lobbying for votes. I'm sure there was another performance out there somewhere that could have made the list instead. And I don't think the lack of anything that really wows is the fault of Lane, I think this is her in her comfort zone and possibly as good as she can do. I just think it's a shame that the Academy thought this was good enough to be a Best Actress nominee. If you haven't seen it, don't waste your time.
Julianne Moore - Far From Heaven
This is one of those performances that I've marked down in my mind so I can really pay attention to it. Before Julianne Moore won her Oscar this year for Still Alice, most of the talk online was about how she was probably the most deserving actress going who hadn't won an Oscar and everyone usually pointed to this performance as her best and the one she should have won for. So obviously that's some high praise and is going to make me pay extra attention to this performance. It's interesting that both of her nominations in 2002 were essentially for the same type of role: the 50's housewife who battles some demons, whether self made or society made. In this film, Moore plays a housewife whose husband is gay and deals with that by connecting and confiding with a black man. Scandalous stuff for the 1950's. Unfortunately the initial impression of Far From Heaven for me isn't Moore's acting but rather the distractingly terrible old time movie vibe that sucks me right out of the film. It's excruciatingly bad at times and just really doesn't fit the story. The director was trying to go for an actual 50's movie with a modern story but those two ideas clash violently. I don't get the choice, especially because it obscures Moore's acting. Yes, she absolutely looks and acts like she good fit in 50 years ago along with today. The performance itself is full of cringey dialogue and nods to the acting of yesteryear and thankfully Moore is able to rise above that potential disaster. Moore is a gifted actress and has incredible range and it's a testament to that ability that she makes her housewife character still look strong and able despite the ridiculousness of the whole film. Up to that point, it might have been her best work but I think she has grown as an actress since and I'm kinda glad the film wasn't rewarded. The thing about Moore's performance here is that upon first glance it meets the superficiality of the whole film style aping the 50s aesthetic. But if you really start to look at the performance, you'll notice Moore does a lot more with the character than maybe she should or maybe that others would and not in a wrong way. I think it's a better performance than the film actually deserves and I can see why everyone loved it so much. (I kept reading about this film getting compared to Douglas Sirk films and I have no idea who he is. Reviews seemed to like the old school vibe that I hated because it reminded them of his movies. I guess that's the perils of going backwards instead of starting from the beginning since I can't draw these parallels myself. I do know that I'm not one for melodrama, even if it's reverential.)
Renee Zellweger - Chicago
Right in the middle of the Zellweger Renaissance. Or just Zellweger Happening. Or the Zellweger Nightmare, whatever you prefer. She'd get an Oscar the next year but this actually felt like it might be her strongest case. Chicago captured the zeitgeist for whatever reason and as evidenced by the tons of nominations was just a pure Oscar juggernaut. I think with Catherine Zeta-Jones winning in the Best Supporting Actress category, Zellweger was going to get overlooked regardless. Couple that with the Kidman storyline of her being due and, well, it wasn't going to happen. Which is why she won the following year for Cold Mountain. But getting swept up in the love for Chicago was a great shot at winning for her. Unfortunately, I don't think she's all that great as Roxie Hart, the wanna-be star who kills her lover in a fit of rage and goes to jail. While in jail, she makes a name for herself and she finally becomes the celebrity she so desired to be. Not a bad story! Except this is a musical and Zellweger can't sing or dance (or act) for shit, so you're left with a character that's not as interesting or even remotely compelling as she should be. The race that year was between Kidman and Zellweger and I can't for the life of me understand why people were hoodwinked by Zellweger except that they just really seemed to love her for some inexplicable reason. Chicago as a movie falters on Zellweger's performance. She is needed to give the movie the sex appeal and zest it desperately needs but instead we get the sour faced, tone deaf nightmare of a performance. Okay, it's not exactly that awful but it's absolutely not that good. Certainly not good enough to win a Best Actress Oscar!
After the 2003 group, I was hoping that 2002 would be a bit more balanced. Well it was, just not with great performances throughout which is what I'd like. It's kind of a rather mundane group, honestly. Kidman's win certainly isn't one that you hold up and exclaim is quintessential Oscar. It felt more like the Academy wanted to finally reward her and were unable to do it the year prior so here we are. I'd say it's a toss up between Kidman and Moore for me. Moore would eventually win one, so knowing that I might give Kidman the win here so we are spared from make up nominations/win down the road. Tough to say because I don't feel strongly either way. Maybe Moore by a nose. Then you can follow that up with Hayek and Zellweger who are a bit uninspiring and Lane who probably shouldn't be here. Blah. On to 2001 and hopefully a better group.
Oscar Winner: Nicole Kidman - The Hours
My Winner: Julianne Moore - Far From Heaven
Nicole Kidman
Salma Hayek
Renee Zellweger
Diane Lane
2002 Best Actress
Nicole Kidman - The Hours
There's a lot of things that spring to mind when you think about Kidman's Best Actress win. I think the first thing everyone remembers is that she wore a fake nose for her role as the depressed author Virginia Woolf. There were a lot of jokes made about it at the time and some people felt it was one of the contributing reasons for her win. One of those Oscar stereotypes where a beautiful actress uglifies herself. I don't honestly think it's as easy as that, though. What also comes to mind is that Kidman lost the year prior to Halle Berry, which was a historic win but many thought that Kidman should have won instead and that she won this year to make up for that. And seeing as how one could possibly classify her role as Supporting instead of Lead, well, it looks all set up in her favor to win. If not for those factors, would Zellweger have pulled out the win? And then maybe someone else wins the Best Supporting Actress the next year instead of Renee? Oscar is full of these type of what if moments and it's fun to speculate. But Kidman did win for this role and it's not exactly an undeserved win, either. Kidman is almost unrecognizable as Woolf because of the fake nose (which I actually like) and the frumpy, demure look she sports. Her characterization of Woolf is intense. Her whole being is hardened and she seems to exist deliberately. You could almost say that she comes off as a sociopath because she's so cold and removed and unfeeling in the normal ways. Kidman does a great job and I'm glad to admit that, as I'm definitely not the biggest Kidman fan. Stripped of all the beauty and movie star trappings, she gives an honest performance that's worth of an Oscar win.
Salma Hayek - Frida
Frida was something of a passion project for Salma Hayek and it shows. It took a long time to get the story of surrealist painter Frida Kahlo to the big screen and Hayek was a major part of that process. However, not all passion projects end up being as enjoyable for the audience to watch as it is for the project to be completed by whoever is involved. That's certainly the case here with Frida. While there are parts of the film that are inspired, like the paintings melting into real life, there's overall something lacking, something missing. The same can be said of Hayek's performance. There are times when certain roles just seem tailor made for certain actors, when you can't see anyone else playing the character and it just feels like they were born to do it. Hayek portraying Frida is one of those. With that in mind, however, you'd think the performance would be a little less uneven. Sometimes the passion of bringing the story to life doesn't translate all that well to the actual acting. You can tell she's having fun and enjoying it but it comes off at times as a little too self serving. Like I said, there's just something that's lacking from the film overall. I'm not sure if what would be needed is a stronger performance from Hayek or if they needed to make it seem so less by the numbers or play up the surreal aspect more or not gloss over all the turmoil in Frida's life, I don't know. But that sentence should point to exactly what's wrong with Hayek's performance. I'm glad she was able to be nominated but I just wish we got a lot more out of it.
Diane Lane - Unfaithful
The Academy doesn't often go for these sorts of sexual thrillers much anymore and I can't say I blame them. Movies like these can easily devolve into schlock if those involved aren't careful enough. Ultimately for me, they have to be really, really, exceptionally, amazingly great to get me to like them. I'm not sure I even know of any like that to be honest. Usually there's some pointless and/or gratuitous sex and nudity that does nothing at all for the story and serves only to titillate and tease. Unfaithful does have a little bit of that even though I do think Diane Lane is super hot in this. The thing is, I expect way more from an Oscar nomination and I just don't see what Lane's performance brings that warrants any kind of awards attention. She plays a woman who has a great life but I guess feels bored and decides to cheat on her husband and feels more shame at the idea of getting caught or falling in love with the guy instead of the actual cheating part. Her husband (Richard Gere) finds out and, well, yeah I won't ruin it. But suffice it to say that this is neither an Oscar movie nor an Oscar caliber performance. It doesn't stand out and feels like any other actress could have played the part and hit all the same notes. It has no depth, pushes no boundaries, confronts no taboos or real emotions. It's a paper thin performance and one that reeks of either the Academy wanting to boost the career or Lane and make her into a star or some successful lobbying for votes. I'm sure there was another performance out there somewhere that could have made the list instead. And I don't think the lack of anything that really wows is the fault of Lane, I think this is her in her comfort zone and possibly as good as she can do. I just think it's a shame that the Academy thought this was good enough to be a Best Actress nominee. If you haven't seen it, don't waste your time.
Julianne Moore - Far From Heaven
This is one of those performances that I've marked down in my mind so I can really pay attention to it. Before Julianne Moore won her Oscar this year for Still Alice, most of the talk online was about how she was probably the most deserving actress going who hadn't won an Oscar and everyone usually pointed to this performance as her best and the one she should have won for. So obviously that's some high praise and is going to make me pay extra attention to this performance. It's interesting that both of her nominations in 2002 were essentially for the same type of role: the 50's housewife who battles some demons, whether self made or society made. In this film, Moore plays a housewife whose husband is gay and deals with that by connecting and confiding with a black man. Scandalous stuff for the 1950's. Unfortunately the initial impression of Far From Heaven for me isn't Moore's acting but rather the distractingly terrible old time movie vibe that sucks me right out of the film. It's excruciatingly bad at times and just really doesn't fit the story. The director was trying to go for an actual 50's movie with a modern story but those two ideas clash violently. I don't get the choice, especially because it obscures Moore's acting. Yes, she absolutely looks and acts like she good fit in 50 years ago along with today. The performance itself is full of cringey dialogue and nods to the acting of yesteryear and thankfully Moore is able to rise above that potential disaster. Moore is a gifted actress and has incredible range and it's a testament to that ability that she makes her housewife character still look strong and able despite the ridiculousness of the whole film. Up to that point, it might have been her best work but I think she has grown as an actress since and I'm kinda glad the film wasn't rewarded. The thing about Moore's performance here is that upon first glance it meets the superficiality of the whole film style aping the 50s aesthetic. But if you really start to look at the performance, you'll notice Moore does a lot more with the character than maybe she should or maybe that others would and not in a wrong way. I think it's a better performance than the film actually deserves and I can see why everyone loved it so much. (I kept reading about this film getting compared to Douglas Sirk films and I have no idea who he is. Reviews seemed to like the old school vibe that I hated because it reminded them of his movies. I guess that's the perils of going backwards instead of starting from the beginning since I can't draw these parallels myself. I do know that I'm not one for melodrama, even if it's reverential.)
Renee Zellweger - Chicago
Right in the middle of the Zellweger Renaissance. Or just Zellweger Happening. Or the Zellweger Nightmare, whatever you prefer. She'd get an Oscar the next year but this actually felt like it might be her strongest case. Chicago captured the zeitgeist for whatever reason and as evidenced by the tons of nominations was just a pure Oscar juggernaut. I think with Catherine Zeta-Jones winning in the Best Supporting Actress category, Zellweger was going to get overlooked regardless. Couple that with the Kidman storyline of her being due and, well, it wasn't going to happen. Which is why she won the following year for Cold Mountain. But getting swept up in the love for Chicago was a great shot at winning for her. Unfortunately, I don't think she's all that great as Roxie Hart, the wanna-be star who kills her lover in a fit of rage and goes to jail. While in jail, she makes a name for herself and she finally becomes the celebrity she so desired to be. Not a bad story! Except this is a musical and Zellweger can't sing or dance (or act) for shit, so you're left with a character that's not as interesting or even remotely compelling as she should be. The race that year was between Kidman and Zellweger and I can't for the life of me understand why people were hoodwinked by Zellweger except that they just really seemed to love her for some inexplicable reason. Chicago as a movie falters on Zellweger's performance. She is needed to give the movie the sex appeal and zest it desperately needs but instead we get the sour faced, tone deaf nightmare of a performance. Okay, it's not exactly that awful but it's absolutely not that good. Certainly not good enough to win a Best Actress Oscar!
After the 2003 group, I was hoping that 2002 would be a bit more balanced. Well it was, just not with great performances throughout which is what I'd like. It's kind of a rather mundane group, honestly. Kidman's win certainly isn't one that you hold up and exclaim is quintessential Oscar. It felt more like the Academy wanted to finally reward her and were unable to do it the year prior so here we are. I'd say it's a toss up between Kidman and Moore for me. Moore would eventually win one, so knowing that I might give Kidman the win here so we are spared from make up nominations/win down the road. Tough to say because I don't feel strongly either way. Maybe Moore by a nose. Then you can follow that up with Hayek and Zellweger who are a bit uninspiring and Lane who probably shouldn't be here. Blah. On to 2001 and hopefully a better group.
Oscar Winner: Nicole Kidman - The Hours
My Winner: Julianne Moore - Far From Heaven
Nicole Kidman
Salma Hayek
Renee Zellweger
Diane Lane
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Supporting Actor 2002
Now this is a veteran group of actors. I'm looking forward to watching these guys do their thing as I know it's going to be a great group.
2002 Best Supporting Actor
Chris Cooper - Adaptation.
I don't think I've ever seen Chris Cooper act better than he did in this role. Everyone in Adaptation. delivered some top notch performances but Cooper's was downright amazing. I said before for Streep, it's glaringly obvious that everyone was having a ton of fun on set and with their roles because they simply own them and give us pure acting gold. Cooper plays a Florida man who has become an orchid thief, illegally harvesting the flowers from deep in the South Florida swamps. Cooper plays a Florida cracker pretty well and is a real redneck genius. His character is able to attract the New York based Streep character who is writing about him precisely because he's so passionately himself. There's no sense of trying to be someone else or wanting to be someone else. He legitimately thinks he's the smartest orchid guy in the world or whatever new passion he's started on and it's refreshing to see someone not put on airs. This all works because of Cooper's oozing charisma with every toothless grin. Honestly, he's just plain fun to watch and what I'm trying to say with this jumbled mess is that he is really, really good and absolutely deserved his Oscar.
Ed Harris - The Hours
This is a really interesting nomination. When you think of Ed Harris performances, you think rough and tough and manly badass or villain type roles. But in The Hours, Harris plays a gay poet dying of AIDS who is friends with Streep's character. It's a stark contrast to what we expect from Harris and he does a pretty good job of changing up those expectations. The way Harris delivers his lines in a kind of poetic, literary way is a neat touch and fits the character wonderfully. Harris is basically only in two extended scenes with Streep, so he gets to act off one of the greats who is just doing her usual thing. Even though Harris' scenes are short, he leaves an impression on the audience. It sort of jazzes up the modern day story in the film when he's on screen because frankly the story is mostly a bore and I didn't one hundred percent understand it's point to the overall film. Streep's character is named Clarissa Dalloway which is the name of the character from the Virginia Woolf book that Kidman writes and that Moore's character reads and her son is Harris. A convoluted mess but Harris plays his part to perfection. It's a small role that makes an otherwise noteworthy impact on a mostly dull story.
Paul Newman - Road to Perdition
My first Paul Newman! Which makes it sound like I'm collecting baseball cards or something. I'm excited for when I can finally get into some of his more juicy roles, even though that will probably be 10 years from now. It's plainly obvious that this nomination is a veteran nomination, a last chance to honor and reward one of the all time greats. So in that sense, I'm okay with these kinds of veteran nominations. It's a serious acting show from Newman and not just a glorified cameo or something so it doesn't taint the allure and luster of the Oscar nomination. It's a good enough performance, if unremarkable. It doesn't necessarily stand out and doesn't feel memorable, though his final scene is somewhat powerful in it's simplicity. But it works extremely well within the story, with Newman playing the old crime boss whose nefarious ways finally catch up to him. If the Academy is going to keep rewarding actors as a nod to their career, this should be the benchmark by which all the future veteran and career nominations are set against.
John C. Reilly - Chicago
One might easily dismiss this nomination as simply being here because it got swept up in the tremendous love for Chicago that year. But if you look at his resume for 2002, you'll see Reilly is also in 2 other Best Picture nominees: Gangs of New York and The Hours. So this very much seems like a nod to his amazing year on top of his acting ability. Oscar always seems to find a way to nominate actors/actresses that appear in a couple Best Picture worthy films. So how exactly is Reilly's performance in the film? Well, there's not a whole lot to it, honestly. He plays Zellweger's husband and stands by her no matter what looking like quite a buffoon. But he plays the part well enough and has one song and dance number that is mostly forgettable. It's a perfectly benign performance. This was definitely a moment where Oscar rewarded the actor with a nomination based on the sum of his parts rather than his specific performance here. And I'm totally okay with that. Reilly is an underrated actor who is just as good in the dramatic as he is in the comedic. A well deserved nomination based on a tremendous year's worth of work.
Christopher Walken - Catch Me If You Can
When it comes to Christopher Walken, it's easy to forget that he actually is a really talented actor (and dancer) despite all of our preconceived notions about him. Yes, lately he essentially become a kind of caricature of himself and is more well known for the more cowbell SNL sketch or the Fatboy Slim music video. But Walken has some serious acting chops and those are put to good use in this Spielberg film. His signature idiosyncrasies are mostly muted. He talks without his trademark stilted cadence and doesn't lumber around scenes looking like a vacant shell of himself. He is fully engaged in the role of Leonardo DiCaprio's father who has done some shady stuff in the past but doesn't want to see his son get in trouble like he is even though he's extremely proud of what he has accomplished, real or otherwise. I'm not sure if it's because we are used to the eccentric Walken or what but this performance comes off as measured and dare I say normal? I hate to just make it seem that Walken is just this weird, crazy dude that stopped knowing how to act but this isn't what we (I) are used to! He's a great actor and it shows in this film. I'm really eager to watch some of his other, earlier work (he was nominated and won for his role in The Deer Hunter) and I know he'll be in a couple films on my journey even if I don't get to them until 2021. Christopher Walken is supremely talented and that fact can be lost on some people, including me. He does a great job of reminding us of this talent in Catch Me If You Can.
As usual the Best Supporting Actor category delivers a group of nominees that don't disappoint when it comes to their performances. It's a strong group but there is a very clear winner here. Even though it was a sort of surprise on Oscar night, Cooper is hands down the winner. His performance is easily the best of the 5 and is one I can watch over and over without getting tired of it. The rest of the group all kind of fit into the same mold: good but not great. Harris showcases his range, Walken reminds us he is a serious actor, Newman caps off a storied career, and Reilly caps off a hell of a year. Always glad to get a strong group like this one to watch.
Oscar Winner: Chris Cooper - Chicago
My Winner: Chris Cooper - Chicago
Ed Harris
Christopher Walken
Paul Newman
John C. Reilly
2002 Best Supporting Actor
Chris Cooper - Adaptation.
I don't think I've ever seen Chris Cooper act better than he did in this role. Everyone in Adaptation. delivered some top notch performances but Cooper's was downright amazing. I said before for Streep, it's glaringly obvious that everyone was having a ton of fun on set and with their roles because they simply own them and give us pure acting gold. Cooper plays a Florida man who has become an orchid thief, illegally harvesting the flowers from deep in the South Florida swamps. Cooper plays a Florida cracker pretty well and is a real redneck genius. His character is able to attract the New York based Streep character who is writing about him precisely because he's so passionately himself. There's no sense of trying to be someone else or wanting to be someone else. He legitimately thinks he's the smartest orchid guy in the world or whatever new passion he's started on and it's refreshing to see someone not put on airs. This all works because of Cooper's oozing charisma with every toothless grin. Honestly, he's just plain fun to watch and what I'm trying to say with this jumbled mess is that he is really, really good and absolutely deserved his Oscar.
Ed Harris - The Hours
This is a really interesting nomination. When you think of Ed Harris performances, you think rough and tough and manly badass or villain type roles. But in The Hours, Harris plays a gay poet dying of AIDS who is friends with Streep's character. It's a stark contrast to what we expect from Harris and he does a pretty good job of changing up those expectations. The way Harris delivers his lines in a kind of poetic, literary way is a neat touch and fits the character wonderfully. Harris is basically only in two extended scenes with Streep, so he gets to act off one of the greats who is just doing her usual thing. Even though Harris' scenes are short, he leaves an impression on the audience. It sort of jazzes up the modern day story in the film when he's on screen because frankly the story is mostly a bore and I didn't one hundred percent understand it's point to the overall film. Streep's character is named Clarissa Dalloway which is the name of the character from the Virginia Woolf book that Kidman writes and that Moore's character reads and her son is Harris. A convoluted mess but Harris plays his part to perfection. It's a small role that makes an otherwise noteworthy impact on a mostly dull story.
Paul Newman - Road to Perdition
My first Paul Newman! Which makes it sound like I'm collecting baseball cards or something. I'm excited for when I can finally get into some of his more juicy roles, even though that will probably be 10 years from now. It's plainly obvious that this nomination is a veteran nomination, a last chance to honor and reward one of the all time greats. So in that sense, I'm okay with these kinds of veteran nominations. It's a serious acting show from Newman and not just a glorified cameo or something so it doesn't taint the allure and luster of the Oscar nomination. It's a good enough performance, if unremarkable. It doesn't necessarily stand out and doesn't feel memorable, though his final scene is somewhat powerful in it's simplicity. But it works extremely well within the story, with Newman playing the old crime boss whose nefarious ways finally catch up to him. If the Academy is going to keep rewarding actors as a nod to their career, this should be the benchmark by which all the future veteran and career nominations are set against.
John C. Reilly - Chicago
One might easily dismiss this nomination as simply being here because it got swept up in the tremendous love for Chicago that year. But if you look at his resume for 2002, you'll see Reilly is also in 2 other Best Picture nominees: Gangs of New York and The Hours. So this very much seems like a nod to his amazing year on top of his acting ability. Oscar always seems to find a way to nominate actors/actresses that appear in a couple Best Picture worthy films. So how exactly is Reilly's performance in the film? Well, there's not a whole lot to it, honestly. He plays Zellweger's husband and stands by her no matter what looking like quite a buffoon. But he plays the part well enough and has one song and dance number that is mostly forgettable. It's a perfectly benign performance. This was definitely a moment where Oscar rewarded the actor with a nomination based on the sum of his parts rather than his specific performance here. And I'm totally okay with that. Reilly is an underrated actor who is just as good in the dramatic as he is in the comedic. A well deserved nomination based on a tremendous year's worth of work.
Christopher Walken - Catch Me If You Can
When it comes to Christopher Walken, it's easy to forget that he actually is a really talented actor (and dancer) despite all of our preconceived notions about him. Yes, lately he essentially become a kind of caricature of himself and is more well known for the more cowbell SNL sketch or the Fatboy Slim music video. But Walken has some serious acting chops and those are put to good use in this Spielberg film. His signature idiosyncrasies are mostly muted. He talks without his trademark stilted cadence and doesn't lumber around scenes looking like a vacant shell of himself. He is fully engaged in the role of Leonardo DiCaprio's father who has done some shady stuff in the past but doesn't want to see his son get in trouble like he is even though he's extremely proud of what he has accomplished, real or otherwise. I'm not sure if it's because we are used to the eccentric Walken or what but this performance comes off as measured and dare I say normal? I hate to just make it seem that Walken is just this weird, crazy dude that stopped knowing how to act but this isn't what we (I) are used to! He's a great actor and it shows in this film. I'm really eager to watch some of his other, earlier work (he was nominated and won for his role in The Deer Hunter) and I know he'll be in a couple films on my journey even if I don't get to them until 2021. Christopher Walken is supremely talented and that fact can be lost on some people, including me. He does a great job of reminding us of this talent in Catch Me If You Can.
As usual the Best Supporting Actor category delivers a group of nominees that don't disappoint when it comes to their performances. It's a strong group but there is a very clear winner here. Even though it was a sort of surprise on Oscar night, Cooper is hands down the winner. His performance is easily the best of the 5 and is one I can watch over and over without getting tired of it. The rest of the group all kind of fit into the same mold: good but not great. Harris showcases his range, Walken reminds us he is a serious actor, Newman caps off a storied career, and Reilly caps off a hell of a year. Always glad to get a strong group like this one to watch.
Oscar Winner: Chris Cooper - Chicago
My Winner: Chris Cooper - Chicago
Ed Harris
Christopher Walken
Paul Newman
John C. Reilly
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Supporting Actress 2002
By name, it's a pretty good group. 4 of the 5 have eventually won an Oscar or three. So my hope is that I'll finally get a strong group of Supporting Actresses to watch!
2002 Best Supporting Actress
Catherine Zeta-Jones - Chicago
Whenever I think about Chicago as an Oscar movie, I never really think of it as having Oscar winning performances. Yet Zeta-Jones won for her Velma Kelly character and won pretty easily. I will say that out of all the Chicago nominated performances, Zeta-Jones is the one that I like the most and think has the most meat on the bones so to speak. CZJ does everything better than Zellweger in a lesser role. She sings, dances, acts, and just looks better than her counterpart. I feel like she brings a bit more clout to the movie and to the role, even though Zellweger was the darling at the time. Her song and dance routines are just plain better and ooze sex appeal, which she has in spades. I like to think that the audience is drawn more to her abilities than the rest of the cast and that translated into the voters, as well. Her win is a nod to the cast of Chicago. Especially because the roles between her and Zellweger are incredibly similar. Rewarding both would have been redundant and CZJ was clearly the better choice. I still feel a little lukewarm about the win but I think that just mirrors my thoughts on Chicago as a whole.
Kathy Bates - About Schmidt
I was getting worried as the film went along and Kathy Bates hadn't shown up yet. It's not until over an hour in that she finally does and my big worry with that is that we are getting a nomination based off reputation or as a veteran nod to a performance that doesn't really deserve it because it's so small and/or has not much weight behind it. We've seen that before on this blog and I know it will happen again, probably soon. But at least this performance is good enough to warrant a nomination, I think. It's kind of what has become a typical Alexander Payne role. There seems to be at least one person in his films that is unfiltered. Someone that says or does things that are out of the ordinary for what you think they should be. Bates' character is the mother of the groom that Nicholson's daughter is marrying and she is kind of a free spirit. She gets naked with Nicholson in a hot tub and says whatever comes to mind and is an overall comfortable in her skin type of person. I see the appeal for Oscar voters as it adds comedy to the film and is sort of brave for an actress that's older and bigger to get naked on camera. It's easy to be attracted to those roles because we don't see them that often in movies. The other thing is that Bates doesn't play the character over the top at all. It's a very human portrayal. Yes, it's funny and absurd but not in an out place way and it never veers into caricature. That's one of the things I like about Alexander Payne's film is that they are grounded and real but can still poke fun and be absurd at times. As far as a Supporting Actress nomination for this performance, I'm totally okay with it. It serves the story well and doesn't take you out of the film at all. It's a performance where you look at the list go yeah, that belongs and keep moving.
Julianne Moore - The Hours
This performance almost feels like a co-lead. Or is it tri-lead? I'm pretty sure Moore has more screen time than Kidman who won Best Actress and about the same amount of time as Streep who was touted as possibly being nominated for Best Actress as well. It's all a kind of confusing mish mash that accurately describes the Oscar races. Lots of category fraud and should they nominate this actress for this movie or that movie based on chances and backroom dealings. No doubt Streep's nomination for Adaptation. was done to get Kidman her Oscar and Moore was placed here due to already being in the Best Actress race for a different movie. All these machinations are supremely intriguing. So how was Moore's performance here? She's a gifted actress and she delivers a delicate, reserved woman who isn't comfortable living the housewife life and feels suffocated. Moore is teetering on the verge of a breakdown the entire time but never actually falls off balance. It's as if you can see her battling her inner demons every time she is on screen, like she's tip-toeing through a minefield. I think it's wonderful acting by Moore and highlighted just how talented she truly is. It's obvious that it would be too long before she finally won an Oscar herself, which she did in 2015.
Queen Latifah - Chicago
I firmly believe that Queen Latifah is nominated here purely because of the hype for Chicago because her role is exceptionally thin. Latifah plays Mama who is a prisoner with the other ladies of the movie but essentially runs the prisoners and helps facilitate meetings and whatnot. There's not exactly a lot to work with there but Latifah does a good enough job with the material she's given. She is definitely a competent actress and the nomination is the reward but there is just not enough there to really shine with. She has one song and dance number that she completely owns and I'd say she is the best singer of the whole movie, which given her singing background makes sense. She should be the best. And really that's about all there is to her role. I would have liked to see a lot more from her. That character could have easily been developed more and had a lot more depth to her. But Chicago was never overly concerned with characterization instead choosing to focus on the song and dance numbers and appeal to the musical sensibilities of a bygone era. Or at least to cash in on the musical craze that seemed to sprout up at that time. Queen Latifah was unfortunately short changed in her chance to show off more.
Meryl Streep - Adaptation.
Oscar had their choice of Meryl Streep nominations this year along with her work in The Hours. It's not really an Oscar race unless Streep is included, right? Personally, I prefer her performance in this film as opposed to the other one. This performance just has a lot more going for it and the film is way better to boot. In Adaptation. Streep plays a journalist who writes an article and later adapts it into a book about a Florida man who hunted orchids illegally. The film is way more meta than that description makes it out to be and is surreal as can be and just the perfect mix of weird and awesome. Streep's character at first is portrayed as the straight woman to everyone else's crazy, off the wall antics. So at first it seems like we are going to get the typical Streep playing Streep performance, an actor that feels to familiar. But she eventually falls off the deep end as well and really lets loose with a fun take on her character. The film itself is a lot of fun to watch and the actors are all on top of their game and you can tell they are just relishing their roles. I feel like we get just a little bit of a different Streep at the end of this one. Maybe that's because in the beginning it seems like oh, we'll just a get a boring portrayal from her while everyone else get's to act all crazy but it works. Is it her best performance? Of course not. Is it fun to watch (even more so than her work in The Hours)? Absolutely. Am I mad it was nominated? Nope, it's a perfectly adequate inclusion.
Hey look at that! A Supporting Actress group that doesn't have a bad nominee among it at all! It's a miracle! And well overdue. I've been waiting for a good group for what seems like forever and I'm glad that I finally got it. Now is there a performance in here that will stand the test of time and be remembered as a classic? No. But they are all good performances and are kinda what supporting performances should be in a way. Since nothing really stands out to me, I'll go ahead and go with the Academy on this one. CZJ is a fine win, I guess. I'd say Bates and Streep are easily interchangeable depending on when I've last seen their films. Then Moore who is in a pretty dull film and is very intense throughout followed by Queen Latifah who didn't get as much to work with as the others. All in all, a pretty good success for the blog and hopefully we can find a group in this category that all just blow me away instead of just being merely good.
Oscar Winner: Catherine Zeta-Jones - Chicago
My Winner: Catherine Zeta-Jones - Chicago
Kathy Bates
Meryl Streep
Julianne Moore
Queen Latifah
2002 Best Supporting Actress
Catherine Zeta-Jones - Chicago
Whenever I think about Chicago as an Oscar movie, I never really think of it as having Oscar winning performances. Yet Zeta-Jones won for her Velma Kelly character and won pretty easily. I will say that out of all the Chicago nominated performances, Zeta-Jones is the one that I like the most and think has the most meat on the bones so to speak. CZJ does everything better than Zellweger in a lesser role. She sings, dances, acts, and just looks better than her counterpart. I feel like she brings a bit more clout to the movie and to the role, even though Zellweger was the darling at the time. Her song and dance routines are just plain better and ooze sex appeal, which she has in spades. I like to think that the audience is drawn more to her abilities than the rest of the cast and that translated into the voters, as well. Her win is a nod to the cast of Chicago. Especially because the roles between her and Zellweger are incredibly similar. Rewarding both would have been redundant and CZJ was clearly the better choice. I still feel a little lukewarm about the win but I think that just mirrors my thoughts on Chicago as a whole.
Kathy Bates - About Schmidt
I was getting worried as the film went along and Kathy Bates hadn't shown up yet. It's not until over an hour in that she finally does and my big worry with that is that we are getting a nomination based off reputation or as a veteran nod to a performance that doesn't really deserve it because it's so small and/or has not much weight behind it. We've seen that before on this blog and I know it will happen again, probably soon. But at least this performance is good enough to warrant a nomination, I think. It's kind of what has become a typical Alexander Payne role. There seems to be at least one person in his films that is unfiltered. Someone that says or does things that are out of the ordinary for what you think they should be. Bates' character is the mother of the groom that Nicholson's daughter is marrying and she is kind of a free spirit. She gets naked with Nicholson in a hot tub and says whatever comes to mind and is an overall comfortable in her skin type of person. I see the appeal for Oscar voters as it adds comedy to the film and is sort of brave for an actress that's older and bigger to get naked on camera. It's easy to be attracted to those roles because we don't see them that often in movies. The other thing is that Bates doesn't play the character over the top at all. It's a very human portrayal. Yes, it's funny and absurd but not in an out place way and it never veers into caricature. That's one of the things I like about Alexander Payne's film is that they are grounded and real but can still poke fun and be absurd at times. As far as a Supporting Actress nomination for this performance, I'm totally okay with it. It serves the story well and doesn't take you out of the film at all. It's a performance where you look at the list go yeah, that belongs and keep moving.
Julianne Moore - The Hours
This performance almost feels like a co-lead. Or is it tri-lead? I'm pretty sure Moore has more screen time than Kidman who won Best Actress and about the same amount of time as Streep who was touted as possibly being nominated for Best Actress as well. It's all a kind of confusing mish mash that accurately describes the Oscar races. Lots of category fraud and should they nominate this actress for this movie or that movie based on chances and backroom dealings. No doubt Streep's nomination for Adaptation. was done to get Kidman her Oscar and Moore was placed here due to already being in the Best Actress race for a different movie. All these machinations are supremely intriguing. So how was Moore's performance here? She's a gifted actress and she delivers a delicate, reserved woman who isn't comfortable living the housewife life and feels suffocated. Moore is teetering on the verge of a breakdown the entire time but never actually falls off balance. It's as if you can see her battling her inner demons every time she is on screen, like she's tip-toeing through a minefield. I think it's wonderful acting by Moore and highlighted just how talented she truly is. It's obvious that it would be too long before she finally won an Oscar herself, which she did in 2015.
Queen Latifah - Chicago
I firmly believe that Queen Latifah is nominated here purely because of the hype for Chicago because her role is exceptionally thin. Latifah plays Mama who is a prisoner with the other ladies of the movie but essentially runs the prisoners and helps facilitate meetings and whatnot. There's not exactly a lot to work with there but Latifah does a good enough job with the material she's given. She is definitely a competent actress and the nomination is the reward but there is just not enough there to really shine with. She has one song and dance number that she completely owns and I'd say she is the best singer of the whole movie, which given her singing background makes sense. She should be the best. And really that's about all there is to her role. I would have liked to see a lot more from her. That character could have easily been developed more and had a lot more depth to her. But Chicago was never overly concerned with characterization instead choosing to focus on the song and dance numbers and appeal to the musical sensibilities of a bygone era. Or at least to cash in on the musical craze that seemed to sprout up at that time. Queen Latifah was unfortunately short changed in her chance to show off more.
Meryl Streep - Adaptation.
Oscar had their choice of Meryl Streep nominations this year along with her work in The Hours. It's not really an Oscar race unless Streep is included, right? Personally, I prefer her performance in this film as opposed to the other one. This performance just has a lot more going for it and the film is way better to boot. In Adaptation. Streep plays a journalist who writes an article and later adapts it into a book about a Florida man who hunted orchids illegally. The film is way more meta than that description makes it out to be and is surreal as can be and just the perfect mix of weird and awesome. Streep's character at first is portrayed as the straight woman to everyone else's crazy, off the wall antics. So at first it seems like we are going to get the typical Streep playing Streep performance, an actor that feels to familiar. But she eventually falls off the deep end as well and really lets loose with a fun take on her character. The film itself is a lot of fun to watch and the actors are all on top of their game and you can tell they are just relishing their roles. I feel like we get just a little bit of a different Streep at the end of this one. Maybe that's because in the beginning it seems like oh, we'll just a get a boring portrayal from her while everyone else get's to act all crazy but it works. Is it her best performance? Of course not. Is it fun to watch (even more so than her work in The Hours)? Absolutely. Am I mad it was nominated? Nope, it's a perfectly adequate inclusion.
Hey look at that! A Supporting Actress group that doesn't have a bad nominee among it at all! It's a miracle! And well overdue. I've been waiting for a good group for what seems like forever and I'm glad that I finally got it. Now is there a performance in here that will stand the test of time and be remembered as a classic? No. But they are all good performances and are kinda what supporting performances should be in a way. Since nothing really stands out to me, I'll go ahead and go with the Academy on this one. CZJ is a fine win, I guess. I'd say Bates and Streep are easily interchangeable depending on when I've last seen their films. Then Moore who is in a pretty dull film and is very intense throughout followed by Queen Latifah who didn't get as much to work with as the others. All in all, a pretty good success for the blog and hopefully we can find a group in this category that all just blow me away instead of just being merely good.
Oscar Winner: Catherine Zeta-Jones - Chicago
My Winner: Catherine Zeta-Jones - Chicago
Kathy Bates
Meryl Streep
Julianne Moore
Queen Latifah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)