I recently listened to a very interesting podcast about film criticism, where a critic was talking about how many of today's "critics" pretend that they are the authority on film and film criticism and don't allow for any type of discourse. Effectively saying that these writers tend to think that their opinion's are the end-all-be-all word for that particular movie or performance and won't listen to differing opinions or, worse, will attack those that don't agree with them. All of this made me think about my own little project and I wanted to say that I in no way feel I am an authority on anything even remotely having to do with film. I feel that this is more of a journey for myself to discover the history of mostly the Oscars but also a little bit of film in general while going backwards in time. Now going backwards probably puts me at a disadvantage for really feeling the full effects of the Academy's choices since I don't see how things have truly evolved, but I do feel it will still broaden my knowledge and allow me to have a deeper appreciation for more than just the mainstream. And I really hope that if I ever finish this that I can begin a more detailed look at film in general and try my best to become a snobby film guy that only likes art house pics, foreign films, and movies of yesteryear!
As for the actors, again I've only not seen one of the performances so I pretty much know how my rankings will go. And by the time I am finished with 2008 I will have seen most of these films many, many times and I'll be glad to move on! I'm interested in how Richard Jenkins managed to sneak in and if it was a nod to his previous work or on the strength of an amazing performance. I guess I'll see soon.
2008 Best Actor
Sean Penn - Milk
Penn really gives his all, heart and soul, to this performance and makes it look easy. It helps that Penn looks eerily similar to Harvey Milk and seems to share his activist spirit. The best thing about Penn's portrayal of the somewhat selfish but well-meaning Milk is that he makes the character accessible to everyone, regardless of your political or moral leanings. If anyone has seen the great Oscar winning documentary The Times of Harvey Milk you would have seen the amazingly effervescent personality come to life and Penn really brings that palpable energy to the screen. Even though the audience is dropped right in the middle of Harvey's life, we don't feel as if we've missed anything and are fully engaged in Penn's characterization. Milk's death is chilling and we feel a sadness of having lost a friend we made in only 2 hours.
Richard Jenkins - The Visitor
Jenkins' character in this film is a professor who comes back to his apartment in NYC to find an illegal couple squatting in his place who he eventually befriends. His performance is quiet, understated, not flashy, and done in a matter of fact style. It's essentially a character study for Jenkins to flex his acting muscles without being overpowering. Sometimes you want Jenkins to break out of his shell and deliver something powerful and when it finally does happen it hits hard. Though through the entire film it's like you're waiting for the anger to finally boil over but it never really does, it just gives way to sadness. I guess that has to do with this film eschewing the usual Hollywood tropes and instead of getting a comfortable, happy ending we get something that leaves us wanting more but is probably the closest thing to reality. You can tell he feels his life is unfulfilling since his wife passed and he wears it on his face quite noticeably. It's a very restrained performance that doesn't feel out of place and helps this film avoid being a cliche.
Frank Langella - Frost/Nixon
The Academy definitely likes when actors imitate famous people. Langella actually performed this same role on stage before it was adapted for the big screen and he does at times bear a resemblance to Nixon. His accent is most effective and helps the viewer fully accept that they are watching Richard Nixon in action. Langella is engrossing and powerful as he draws you into the narrative. The performance really shines during his tete a tete with Michael Sheen as the two match wits and verbally spar to save their reputations. You can see just how vulnerable Nixon truly was and that's due to the believability of of the performance, especially in the expressiveness of Langella's eyes and face. It's obvious that both Langella and Sheen are extremely comfortable in these roles and it shows in how easily they embody their characters. It's a strong performance worthy of a nomination.
Brad Pitt - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
How much of the make up and digital wizardry helped secure this nomination for Brad Pitt? I would say the novelty of the character had more to do it rather than Pitt's actual performance or the substance the character brought to the film. Pitt really didn't have all that much to work with as far as the story and script went so it is a testament to his acting abilities that he was able to garner a nomination. However, the character of Benjamin Button is very passive as he grows up and interacts with the world around, more like a passenger than anything. And this leads to an overall dull character that's hard to connect with. A lot of that is because Pitt's head/face is tacked on to another person's body when he's in his young and old states, so how much real acting is actually being done by Pitt? He does a decent job with what he has to work with but I can't help but think this is a classic case of style over substance.
Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler
Even though Nic Cage was initially slated for this role, I can't imagine anyone else taking on the role of Randy "The Ram" Robinson. No one. Rourke completely owns this character and imbues a lifetime of glories and failures into the soul of The Ram that the audience gets glimpses of from time to time throughout the film. It really feels like Rourke is exorcising some demons and using this performance as his own form of catharsis. The Ram's self destructive qualities clash with his need for emotional connections with anyone, including his estranged daughter and the stripper he "loves" but who only is fulfilling her job requirement in talking and listening to him. If The Wrestler had instead been a biopic on Rourke's demise in Hollywood and eventual resurrection, it might have looked eerily similar to this film. Rourke is powerful, magnetic, compelling, and warm all at the same time as he is emotionally distant, stubborn, scared, and vulnerable. This was definitely a role that was destined for greatness that only Rourke himself could have given it. Simply a masterful performance.
Another strong group for the Best Actor category. It seems this one has been the most consistent category since I've started doing this and that's really great to see. Especially when the other have some pretty terrible or weak roles nominated, this one delivers every year so far and I hope that continues. I'd say that Penn and Rourke are far and away the cream of this crop and I have had a hard time deciding which I would have wanted to win. I like both for different reasons and they are both incredibly strong actors. I think Rourke gets the nod because it's his once in a lifetime role that really defines him. But it's only a hair above Penn. As for Langella and Jenkins, they would be just a notch below the first two and I'm surprised (again!) at how good Jenkins was in his film. And then below them you have Pitt, which isn't a terrible performance just one where the technical aspects of putting his face on other people's bodies detracts from the overall work. You can still see he his talented just not as talented in this role as the others.
Oscar Winner: Sean Penn - Milk
My Winner: Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler
Sean Penn
Frank Langella
Richard Jenkins
Brad Pitt
No comments:
Post a Comment