I'm going to try and keep this short. I'm still suffering the post-Oscar burnout, so I'm extremely glad to end 2011 and move on to 2007. Following the Oscar race this year was quite an experience and I can't wait for next year! I have watched some of these films more than a few times and that will wear down anyone. Just as writing about a film after not having watched it for awhile can be quite difficult. This year's field is a little less provocative but still interesting. On to the films!
2011 Best Picture
The Artist
How fitting that for a year that will probably be known for being nostalgic and introspective that a black and white mostly silent film about the birth of talking pictures would win Best Picture. There's no doubt good word of mouth helped buoy this film all the way to a nomination and win. I feel it's a deserving win in a noticeably weaker year, but that's not to say The Artist is sub par or anything. I would best describe it as light, airy, and feel good-y with some serious moments that don't feel forced and fit within the structure of the film quite well. It follows George Valentin who is one of the biggest male movie stars in the silent era as the silent films get supplanted by the "talkies" and a young female star takes his place as the most beloved. His transition is a joy to watch as Dujardin is completely spellbinding and really brings his character to life. We feel his frustration as the world starts to favor the new talkies over silent films and his despair once he is cast aside is very palpable. Even the threat of suicide when Valentin feels he is at rock bottom feels real and natural and gives the film some tangible human emotion. It makes his comeback even more delightful and the film captures the ups and downs of life itself really well. There are times when style wins out over substance in The Artist, but it never detracts from the overall product. I loved the minimal use of sound at different parts to bring tension and a sense of triumph to various scenes - it was a clever touch. For a film that is very much a love letter to Hollywood, it evokes all the great things we love about cinema and helps us forget some of the things we don't want to remember.
The Descendants
Firstly, I love that Jim Rash (Dean Pelton from Community) received an Oscar for Screenwriting for this film because he is hilarious. However, my biggest beef with The Descendants is that it tries it's hardest to be a dramedy but fails at balancing the comedy and dramatic parts. It would have worked better for me if it was more of one or the other. But unfortunately the comedy undermines the dramatic scenes and vice versa, making for a hodge podge of scenes that you feel inappropriate for laughing at on one hand and weirded out on the other. There are some truly funny and serious moments but they never fully mesh and we're left with two separate versions of this film. From what I understand, Alexander Payne re-wrote the screenplay that Nat Faxon and Rash had worked on and it seems that maybe Payne added the more serious moments since the other two were Groundling members (a comedy troupe). This is pure speculation on my part because it seems as if two hands were guiding this film but it would explain a lot. I do think that Shailene Woody's character shines throughout the film as a reasonable version of today's American teen. There was talk she might be nominated for Best Supporting Actress but ultimately did not, though I think she may have been 5th or 6th overall. The character of Sid brings some legitimate funny moments and Clooney excels during his comedic moments, struggling at times to be convincing as a loving, caring, sad father/husband. For a film that should be full of emotion, there's very little here save for the ending which tries to for an emotional gut punch but comes up too little, too late. Add a bunch of unlikable characters and you get a film that underachieves big time.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
I had this review all written out in my head before I even watched it which wasn't fair at all. But I watched with an open mind and I'm glad I did. Not because I love this movie but because I didn't hate this movie. Is it manipulative? Absolutely. It pulls at the heartstrings about a subject that is still all too raw for America and doesn't feel any shame for doing so. It makes the audience sad and want to cry at specific times because of the way the director has presented things and never lets the story do its own talking. The story could have been quite powerful without the bit where Oskar's mom is shown to have followed him around before he got to all the places so as to get a better response for him. If you leave that part out and you end it with him learning a lesson about how grieving is unique for each person and that one's journey for discovery can be another person's end to theirs -- well, that would be a fantastic message. Not everything has a happy ending and certainly a movie about 9-11 should bear that fact but doesn't here. I can agree that Oskar is quite an annoying character at times, Asperger's or not, and understand the dislike leveled his way. However, I feel as if I can relate on the most basic level with him in that he has his obsessions (for me: movies, hockey, music) and confronts them head on with an envious determinism. I don't feel his character ever takes me out of the movie or detracts from the experience in any way. Now I do think the endless voice overs by Oskar can be a bit much. I'm firmly in the show, don't tell camp and I think it could have been used to great effect here instead of hitting us over the head with his inner monologues. And the movie can be incredibly cloying at times (hell, most times) which does a disservice to its actual story. We don't need to be pandered to about 9-11 because most of us can summon the emotions we had that day with ease, so a more subtle approach may work better. For a subject that may still be raw for many, many viewers -- Extremely Loud doesn't do enough, say enough, or care enough to balance such a delicate time in our nation's history without simultaneously being overly sentimental and too insular for everyone involved.
The Help
This seems to be 2011's entry for movie that might be better suited for the Lifetime channel much like The Blind Side was, albeit with much better acting which helps save it. The Help is a weak film that does an injustice to the subject it covers. Racism in the Deep South is not something to sugarcoat and I'm sure it was never intended to come off so flippant but the fact remains you can't make a film about racism and not ruffle some feathers along the way. To completely gloss over the tumultuous and violent nature of the time is missing the opportunity to tell an honest, straightforward story about how relations among the white society women and black help were strained but that the help could have their moments of catharsis and empowerment, too, much like the country as a whole. I think what I'm trying to say is that I really wanted this film to be more than it was: a feel-good, banal piece of white guilt that panders to its audience. It had the ability to really say something about race but chose to dumb it down to a dull story about Emma Stone's character trying to find love and make her big break into writing. Shoe horned in are the arcs about Davis and Spencer, though the material never takes them as seriously as it should. It comes off as a young white girl solves racism in Jackson, Mississippi which I hope many found insulting. It's fitting then that once Stone gets published she takes off to her perfect world in NYC while the women whose stories helped her get there are left to pick up the pieces of their world which is sure to be hard to put back together again. There is some good to great acting in this film that just begged for elevated material.
Hugo
"Like watching beautiful paint dry." A great quote I read that I feel really sums up this film, albeit very harshly. I don't find it as boring as watching paint dry but the sentiment is the same -- a beautifully shot movie that lacks a strong story to back up the visuals. The story about orphan Hugo Cabret and his life in a Paris train station (to put it rather simply) is mediocre at best and stretched too thin over the 2 hours of run time. It's quite evident that the 3D imagery and the history lesson take over where the story slacks. But unfortunately, none of those three things is strong enough to wow me and allow me to forgive the others. I didn't see this in 3D but I've never felt that 3D effects have really ever added to a film (even in Avatar) and made an experience better. It's purely a money thing and cool for the first few times but seems mostly a tool for a director to play around with to satisfy their own curiosities. There are quite a few scenes and sequences that linger a little too long to accommodate the effects but this serves only to slow the pace down and ultimately neuter the film as a whole. Hugo's story is not all that interesting to begin with and George Melies' story loses any importance it might have if the viewer isn't aware of his actual historical significance. Sacha Baron Cohen's character has the only story that I was genuinely interested in and wished Scorsese had developed it further. For a film about the love of the beginning of movies and with a message of film preservation, Hugo lacked the imagination it wanted to honor and created no magic of its own it so desperately craved. I could sense the passion with which Scorsese undertook this film, however, I was never moved by Hugo to feel his passion and I really wanted to.
Midnight in Paris
I was pleasantly surprised that I liked this movie as much as I did. For me, it hit most of the right notes except for a few missteps here and there. I was worried because I had hated Vicky Cristina Barcelona so much and wasn't sure if my 3rd Woody Allen film would satisfy. But satisfy it did! I actually watched this one a few times on my own because it was such a joy to watch and almost everything about it was genuinely pleasing. It's not a film that will so much wow you as it will make you feel good -- so that alone makes it successful to me. Owen Wilson is the perfect stand in for Woody Allen because he captures the neurotic, self effacing, can't-help-but-love funny guy extremely well. And without Wilson's performance, I think this film might have suffered badly. You can't help but like him and get pulled into his world which means appreciating the sights of Paris (on film for us, of course) and wanting to figure out life and where/who we are supposed to be. That's the basic gist of the story with midnight excursions through Paris with some of the early Twentieth Century's literary elite thrown in. I've heard of people not liking the cartoonish portrayals of Ernest Hemingway, Salvador Dali, and Man Ray to name a few, but I ultimately understood it as being Wilson's character's version of these famous people. We aren't entirely sure if the midnight rendezvous are real or all in Wilson's mind, so it makes sense we would get Gil's ideas of who these people were. Adrien Brody is fantastic as Dali and Corey Stoll is completely brilliant and deserved the Best Supporting Actor award in my opinion for his Hemingway. Unfortunately, Wilson's relationship is the main thing I dislike about this film because it's wholly unbelievable. I can't for one second believe Wilson and McAdams would be dating let alone engaged. It never worked and almost pulled me out of the story each time they were on screen. The theme that Woody puts forth about nostalgia being a dangerous idea for the present is something that really resonates and pushes the film into being more than just a quaint comedy. Obsessing on all things nostalgic can prevent someone from living a rewarding and gratifying present and we experience this with Gil taking his current situation for granted. Eventually we see how people from his perfect era (1920's) long for the past just the same as Gil does. It's an interesting idea for a movie to explore, especially since 2011 was such a nostalgic and introspective year for film. Sometimes it's good but it doesn't always work out well as we've seen. All in all, a great little film that will probably be remembered as one of Woody's best.
Moneyball
This was a hard review to start because I wanted to say a lot more than just an I liked this and didn't like that kind of thing. Moneyball is such a different movie to each person that watches it. As a fan of the Rays and living in a "small market" sports area, I can easily connect with the ideas of moneyball and of the unlikely team trying to beat the odds idea. That's why this is more than just a simple baseball movie, it transcends conventional genres and connects with some on a deeper emotional level. To me, it's such an understated movie. There's nothing flashy or over the top about the visuals, the script, the acting, or the "big sports moments" that you see in other sports movies. That's why I think Moneyball belongs as a Best Picture nominee. I can relate as a fan in feeling angry when a team spends more money for the prized players and translates that into wins and championships just as I can relate to how good it feels to take an "inferior" product or lesser payroll from a smaller area and compete and sometimes beat those traditional powerhouses. Moneyball is more about the story of Billy Beane - the once promising baseball player who never amounted to much than it is the actual Oakland A's, but the paralleled vindication and ultimate failure should resonate with most people, not just sports fans. Only a few sports franchises win a championship every year, so many fans understand the letdown of a team that captures your heart and soul only to never fully realize the ultimate goal/dream. This is the same in life as we all have goals that we haven't obtained or cannot reach for some reason. So I can relate to the story of Moneyball on a more personal level, about the ups and downs we all go through, and the trials and tribulations that we face -- whether we succeed or not. That's why I think Moneyball works, because it can be viewed as an accurate description of life itself. Not everyone with the best intentions or plans succeeds and not every team with record winning streaks or pioneering GMs win championships. It's a wonderful movie that keeps growing on me.
The Tree of Life
The beginning of this film is one giant, self indulgent mess. Sean Penn's character seems to be told to look as miserable and tormented as possible in his scenes and his inclusion really serves no purpose and is a waste of his talent. The 20+ minute universe beginning/earth forming/dinosaurs/nature wankfest is pretty insane. It would make a killer documentary series as the visuals are spectacular (and Malick is supposedly going to release a film with all the extra scenes filmed from this part) but it absolutely would have made me leave the theater if I had paid to see this. This is exactly what non film buffs are afraid of seeing when it comes to Best Picture nominees. It's a bloated, artsy, overwrought piece of pseudo-intellectual "film." And one can't blame people for being turned off by films like this since it seems to satisfy only critics and those that want to seem like they know movies. But then once that is out of the way, it becomes a really intense and poignant look into family dynamics and, of course, life itself. The look into the life of a 1950's family did feel like it went on a little too long to get to it's ultimate point that birth, life, and then death is inevitable and something that everyone must go through. The whispered voice-overs throughout speaking deep one-liners got very tiring pretty quickly and reminded me of something a young film student might include to make the work seem more deep and mature or those Levi Strauss commercials from a few years ago that evoked Americana. I can imagine this being a very personal film for Malick as it conjures up emotions of one's own family and childhood while watching which does give it some appeal besides the brilliant editing and cinematography. The acting is also something that I personally liked because everyone seemed so natural and not as if they were acting and being filmed in takes. It had the feel at times of a home movie and it was easy to identify with any of the characters since they were very familiar. Overall, I would not want to watch this one again as the first 30 minutes or so is totally unneeded but I can understand why it was nominated for Best Picture since it was a critical darling.
War Horse
To me, this is an appalling choice for a Best Picture nomination. It seems one film every year somehow makes it in over far better films that actually deserve the recognition. It irritates me that everyone instantly loves the horse without any reason or provocation and that the whole crux of the movie is that everyone who encounters the horse does everything they can to save it in some way whether it be in war or from being bought by a mean land owner or from falling into the Germans' hands. It's an absurd plot device that is repeated many times over. The movie looks great and sounds great but the story is overly sentimental and tells you how to feel in almost every scene. Not to mention the saccharine soundtrack that leaves little emotion up to the viewer. The best part of the film that Spielberg actually gets right is the when Joey is caught in barbed wire in No Man's Land and a soldier from each side come out to help free the horse. It's incredibly intense and punctuated by bleak, black humor that gives it a very post-modern feel. It's an amazing, yet all too brief scene that captures the absurdity of war and is a better metaphor than everyone instantly loving and trying to save an innocent horse. The audience is bludgeoned over the head with the ideas of what is right and wrong and this scene is a nice, cold respite from that. The film tries to appeal to everyone and instead loses it's focus and ends up being a mash of different genres that appeals to only those who love sickeningly sweet sentiment without any hint of intelligence. It's painfully obvious this was first a children's story and then a successful stage play (more so because of the impressive mechanical horse used) because the film really lacks depth and only scratches the surface of the many topics it touches on such as death, war, love, loss. There's no reason for this film to be nominated for Best Picture. Chalk that up to Spielberg having his name attached and 2011 being one of the most "safe" years I've featured so far.
An interesting year to say the least. 2011 will definitely not be remembered as a strong year and you can tell why from these nominees. A few are completely underwhelming as choices or straight up head scratchers. I remember when the nominees were being unveiled and Extremely Loud was the last one to be named and it sent a shock through those gathered and I was shocked while watching at home. I don't think the Academy's new rules helped any, either. Besides being generally confusing, it seems to favor those movies who garner first place votes instead of overall top 5 or top whatever places. So War Horse may have had lots of cronyism involved but amazing films like Drive and Dragon Tattoo were ignored because while they may not have been first place vote getter's in almost everyone's eyes, they were probably top 10 or so on most ballots. I was extremely disgusted with the new rules and the results therein. Either do 5 or 10, don't say well 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 can be voted into Best Picture. The previous 2 years worked well in rewarding films from atypical Best Picture genres from getting nominations, popular films that bring in the audiences on Oscar night, and indie films that deserved some recognition. By now I've understood that I'll never actually understand the Academy and I can only hope that they become more integrated and young so as to better capture what represents great films in a given year. The Artist was my favorite this year because it was simply a wonderful and enjoyable film that probably will become a classic. Moneyball and Midnight in Paris were my next two favorites that I could probably watch over and over. Everything after that is a crap shoot besides my dislike for War Horse. An incredibly weak year but I am excited for 2012 already! It's looking like it could be a year to remember much like 2007.
Oscar Winner: The Artist
My Winner: The Artist
Moneyball
Midnight in Paris
The Descendants
The Tree of Life
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Hugo
War Horse
Showing posts with label 2011. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2011. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Leading Actor 2011
Well I have definitely been suffering from post-Oscars burnout which is why it's taken a little bit for me to finish the last two categories. I actually had most of this written by Oscar night but trying to finish it after a few months of watching tons of movies and then re-watching the nominees sapped some fun out of it. But it's been highly educational and rewarding to experience the awards season with a more focused eye. So with the Actor category now here, I can anticipate another strong year as the last few have been. It's quickly becoming my favorite one to look forward to because usually they are all strong performances and/or from good films. This year was no different and the only one I haven't seen until now is Gary Oldman and I know that he's going to be great like he always is, so it should be fun to write about!
2011 Best Actor
Jean Dujardin - The Artist
It's hard not to like Dujardin in this movie. From the very first scene he oozes charm and charisma and you can't help but get sucked into it. His face is classic and legendary and would have no doubt made him a bonafide Hollywood star back in the 20's and 30's. He's dashing and disarmingly funny and he knows exactly how to make an audience feel good. I have read that his performance is merely emoting and this makes me laugh. Of course it's emoting, that's the point! He's a silent film star who has to convey his emotions and comedy through exaggerated faces and movements. He doesn't have the benefit of language and syntax and tone to move the story along. He does a great job of expressing the point while engaging the audience and not coming across as superficial. He displays a depth and nuance that is envious and is far from the one note actor some have said Dujardin is in this film. Sure he hams it up for effect and dances around and smiles his (soon to be) iconic smile, but he also plays the serious parts after the talkies take over and leave him by the wayside with a sincerity to match the former. We experience just how deep Dujardin's despair is right along side him and realize his serious acting is just as good as his lighter side which speaks to the broad range of his talent. The performance never feels too cloying or treacly and never gets out of hand when transitioning from light to serious to light again. Dujardin wins us over in the first few minutes and keeps us fully engaged in George Valentin for the rest of the film to the point where we are openly rooting for him to make his triumphant comeback. That is the mark of a truly great actor.
Demian Bichir - A Better Life
Bichir gives a quiet and understated performance as an illegal Mexican father raising a son in LA trying to provide while working as a lawn worker/gardener. There is nothing flashy or overly sentimental about Bichir in this role. He gives the performance an honest, hard working quality that makes the role feel extremely real -- as if watching a documentary. At times the character (Carlos) comes off as a bit hokey to me and the writing/directing verges on the melodramatic in the first half of the film. But the film and Bichir hit their stride in the second half as the desperation to retrieve his truck and get his life back on track becomes palpable and intensely compelling. The story and character can seem somewhat formulaic and cliche, since the immigrant story is one that always seems to play the same notes. But in the same respect, Bichir is then a jazz musician giving his own take on the same notes and beats, one that feels like wholly his own.The sentiment is heartfelt and the heartache is real thanks to Bichir.
George Clooney - The Descendants
After first watch, the issue I had with Clooney's performance was that it was simply another Clooney playing Clooney role. I really thought this character was Clooney's role from Up in the Air having moved to Hawaii and settled down but with most of the similar traits. It really is disturbing how accurate that description is! At times there doesn't seem to be much acting and that is both good and bad. Good because Clooney has reached a level of effortlessness where he can show up and pull off detailed characters with ease but also bad because it can be misconstrued as Clooney sleepwalking through a performance. Here it seems to be a mix of both in my opinion. He's so good at playing this type of character and it shows. The comedic moments are his best and the serious moments are when I feel he struggles. I laughed at the crying scene because it really did come off as a farce you might see on SNL or some other show making fun of Clooney. This all sorta works in the context of the film because his character deals with his wife being in a coma and the realization that she has been cheating on him and Director Thomas Payne doesn't dive too deep into the serious side; striking a light balance between comedy and drama which Clooney is able to pull off. It's a worthy depiction, but I wish that Clooney would challenge himself with roles that deserve a lot more than this one gets.
Gary Oldman - Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
One word to sum up Oldman's performance in this film would be solid. It's an effortless take on a character that had already been developed in the mind of the general public through a BBC show starring Alec Guinness as Oldman's George Smiley. The fact that Oldman was able to take a character already established and leave his own mark on it speaks volumes to his ability as an actor. In this film, I likened Oldman as a judge presiding over a courtroom with a quiet, yet stern presence. It's not flashy or gimmicky, but when he speaks you perk up and pay attention. It is surprising that this is Oldman's first ever nomination because he has been in so many great roles and that also helps add to Oldman being at complete ease with his craft and character. You never doubt him as a dignified spy and he quietly without notice gets you on his side trying to solve the mystery of the mole. It's a wonderful performance that really highlights Oldman's ability to wow us in many different ways.
Brad Pitt - Moneyball
The first time I watched this film, I felt as if I were watching Brad Pitt as Brad Pitt playing Billy Beane. Meaning we were seeing more of Pitt than we were of Beane. After my second watch, I've grown to appreciate the performance a lot more than after my initial viewing. There's no doubt Pitt does a very solid job in what is basically a star vehicle for him. But instead of the movie being built around Pitt to showcase his stuff, he injects himself into every part of this film making it his own. It's a steady performance that at times can feel slick, which I think is due in part because of the writing, and Pitt can sometimes tiptoe the line of chewing the scenery, though never fully crossing it. I think that second point is also due to Pitt just being a flat out great actor and being able to take over scenes without really meaning to or even really trying. He makes the role look natural and believable and there are times when you can forget you are watching Pitt the actor because Pitt the baseball GM just seems to make sense. The movie is most effective when he is able to bring you into his world, making you think it's your own reality. He is able to play the role with a depth that is refreshing to see instead of being overly flashy or mawkish. We can see the conflict, the worries, the responsibilities, the frustration, and the joy all in his demeanor and that is what great actors are able to show us without being overwhelming.
Overall, this is another awesome group of Best Actor nominees. This is why I wanted to do this project! Every role is compelling in some way and worthy of the accolades. It's great to see 3(!) newcomers here even if it feels like Oldman has been nominated 5 times already. Dujardin and Bichir came out of nowhere (Bichir especially) to wow me and the voters. And no, Bichir's nomination does not feel like a token one at all, which I have seen online. Clooney and Pitt give their, arguably, best and most Oscar-y roles of their careers. I feel both men have been in better films and done much greater work but these are definitely two of the more buzzworthy roles with the voters. I was glad I liked Oldman's take on an already established character because he was the only potential wildcard once I started and really he was never going to be a wildcard anyway! A great group of actors that I hope continues as 2007 is the next one I'll touch on in this category. I loved, loved, loved Dujardin as he was my runaway favorite. I've really warmed to Pitt's GM and would rate Oldman and Bichir as about equal. I did like Clooney, although, it wasn't my favorite of the 5 here.
Oscar Winner: Jean Dujardin - The Artist
My Winner: Jean Dujardin - The Artist
Brad Pitt
Gary Oldman
Demian Bichir
George Clooney
2011 Best Actor
Jean Dujardin - The Artist
It's hard not to like Dujardin in this movie. From the very first scene he oozes charm and charisma and you can't help but get sucked into it. His face is classic and legendary and would have no doubt made him a bonafide Hollywood star back in the 20's and 30's. He's dashing and disarmingly funny and he knows exactly how to make an audience feel good. I have read that his performance is merely emoting and this makes me laugh. Of course it's emoting, that's the point! He's a silent film star who has to convey his emotions and comedy through exaggerated faces and movements. He doesn't have the benefit of language and syntax and tone to move the story along. He does a great job of expressing the point while engaging the audience and not coming across as superficial. He displays a depth and nuance that is envious and is far from the one note actor some have said Dujardin is in this film. Sure he hams it up for effect and dances around and smiles his (soon to be) iconic smile, but he also plays the serious parts after the talkies take over and leave him by the wayside with a sincerity to match the former. We experience just how deep Dujardin's despair is right along side him and realize his serious acting is just as good as his lighter side which speaks to the broad range of his talent. The performance never feels too cloying or treacly and never gets out of hand when transitioning from light to serious to light again. Dujardin wins us over in the first few minutes and keeps us fully engaged in George Valentin for the rest of the film to the point where we are openly rooting for him to make his triumphant comeback. That is the mark of a truly great actor.
Demian Bichir - A Better Life
Bichir gives a quiet and understated performance as an illegal Mexican father raising a son in LA trying to provide while working as a lawn worker/gardener. There is nothing flashy or overly sentimental about Bichir in this role. He gives the performance an honest, hard working quality that makes the role feel extremely real -- as if watching a documentary. At times the character (Carlos) comes off as a bit hokey to me and the writing/directing verges on the melodramatic in the first half of the film. But the film and Bichir hit their stride in the second half as the desperation to retrieve his truck and get his life back on track becomes palpable and intensely compelling. The story and character can seem somewhat formulaic and cliche, since the immigrant story is one that always seems to play the same notes. But in the same respect, Bichir is then a jazz musician giving his own take on the same notes and beats, one that feels like wholly his own.The sentiment is heartfelt and the heartache is real thanks to Bichir.
George Clooney - The Descendants
After first watch, the issue I had with Clooney's performance was that it was simply another Clooney playing Clooney role. I really thought this character was Clooney's role from Up in the Air having moved to Hawaii and settled down but with most of the similar traits. It really is disturbing how accurate that description is! At times there doesn't seem to be much acting and that is both good and bad. Good because Clooney has reached a level of effortlessness where he can show up and pull off detailed characters with ease but also bad because it can be misconstrued as Clooney sleepwalking through a performance. Here it seems to be a mix of both in my opinion. He's so good at playing this type of character and it shows. The comedic moments are his best and the serious moments are when I feel he struggles. I laughed at the crying scene because it really did come off as a farce you might see on SNL or some other show making fun of Clooney. This all sorta works in the context of the film because his character deals with his wife being in a coma and the realization that she has been cheating on him and Director Thomas Payne doesn't dive too deep into the serious side; striking a light balance between comedy and drama which Clooney is able to pull off. It's a worthy depiction, but I wish that Clooney would challenge himself with roles that deserve a lot more than this one gets.
Gary Oldman - Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
One word to sum up Oldman's performance in this film would be solid. It's an effortless take on a character that had already been developed in the mind of the general public through a BBC show starring Alec Guinness as Oldman's George Smiley. The fact that Oldman was able to take a character already established and leave his own mark on it speaks volumes to his ability as an actor. In this film, I likened Oldman as a judge presiding over a courtroom with a quiet, yet stern presence. It's not flashy or gimmicky, but when he speaks you perk up and pay attention. It is surprising that this is Oldman's first ever nomination because he has been in so many great roles and that also helps add to Oldman being at complete ease with his craft and character. You never doubt him as a dignified spy and he quietly without notice gets you on his side trying to solve the mystery of the mole. It's a wonderful performance that really highlights Oldman's ability to wow us in many different ways.
Brad Pitt - Moneyball
The first time I watched this film, I felt as if I were watching Brad Pitt as Brad Pitt playing Billy Beane. Meaning we were seeing more of Pitt than we were of Beane. After my second watch, I've grown to appreciate the performance a lot more than after my initial viewing. There's no doubt Pitt does a very solid job in what is basically a star vehicle for him. But instead of the movie being built around Pitt to showcase his stuff, he injects himself into every part of this film making it his own. It's a steady performance that at times can feel slick, which I think is due in part because of the writing, and Pitt can sometimes tiptoe the line of chewing the scenery, though never fully crossing it. I think that second point is also due to Pitt just being a flat out great actor and being able to take over scenes without really meaning to or even really trying. He makes the role look natural and believable and there are times when you can forget you are watching Pitt the actor because Pitt the baseball GM just seems to make sense. The movie is most effective when he is able to bring you into his world, making you think it's your own reality. He is able to play the role with a depth that is refreshing to see instead of being overly flashy or mawkish. We can see the conflict, the worries, the responsibilities, the frustration, and the joy all in his demeanor and that is what great actors are able to show us without being overwhelming.
Overall, this is another awesome group of Best Actor nominees. This is why I wanted to do this project! Every role is compelling in some way and worthy of the accolades. It's great to see 3(!) newcomers here even if it feels like Oldman has been nominated 5 times already. Dujardin and Bichir came out of nowhere (Bichir especially) to wow me and the voters. And no, Bichir's nomination does not feel like a token one at all, which I have seen online. Clooney and Pitt give their, arguably, best and most Oscar-y roles of their careers. I feel both men have been in better films and done much greater work but these are definitely two of the more buzzworthy roles with the voters. I was glad I liked Oldman's take on an already established character because he was the only potential wildcard once I started and really he was never going to be a wildcard anyway! A great group of actors that I hope continues as 2007 is the next one I'll touch on in this category. I loved, loved, loved Dujardin as he was my runaway favorite. I've really warmed to Pitt's GM and would rate Oldman and Bichir as about equal. I did like Clooney, although, it wasn't my favorite of the 5 here.
Oscar Winner: Jean Dujardin - The Artist
My Winner: Jean Dujardin - The Artist
Brad Pitt
Gary Oldman
Demian Bichir
George Clooney
Friday, March 2, 2012
Leading Actress 2011
By name alone, this is a strong group of leading ladies with Mara being the wildcard. And though the Supporting roles proved to be mostly mediocre or middling or not strong enough to wow me, the Leading roles almost all look to impress in one way or another. I am definitely excited to watch these performances and see how well they stack up not only against each other, but versus the previous few years that I've done as well. Is the Academy getting these right or setting themselves up to be questioned in the future for their choices? There were some other strong roles to choose from during the lead up to the nominations this year with Tilda Swinton (We Need to Talk About Kevin), Kirsten Dunst (Melancholia), Charlize Theron (Young Adult), and Elizabeth Olsen (Martha Marcy May Marlene) and a few others with legit shots at being selected. A good year for the Best Actress race!
2011 Best Actress
Viola Davis - The Help
Davis is one of the only actresses in The Help that eschews the stereotypes this film is plagued with and she comes out better for it. Though her character can be a bit broad at times, she is able to overcome the writing and directing to deliver one of the finer performances of the year. Her Aibileen is a kind, gentle woman but can focus her anger and indignation in a powerful and constructive way. Helping to speak out about the help's treatment is courageous, especially when she knows what can happen in the racist Deep South. Her character had essentially resigned herself to help raise white babies after her own son died in an accident and Davis portrays the tired, defeated house maid ably. Helping out on the book allows her optimism to grow that her life can be more than just a second class citizen and her burgeoning courage is a sight to behold. Davis' weighty performance, however, demands a film that doesn't pander to white guilt and gloss over a volatile time in our nation's history and is almost wasted on something that never takes its subject too seriously. One thing I don't really like about this role and performance is that it reminds me way too much of her Doubt nomination. The two are very similar in tone and I hope Davis can avoid delivering the same performance in her future movies because she certainly is talented enough.
Glenn Close - Albert Nobbs
This nomination is an absolute travesty, especially considering that there were a few other more deserving actresses who were left out because of this bogus nod. I have absolutely nothing good to say about her performance here or the movie in general besides McTeer's role. I feel like the Academy was too enamored with the fact that this has been Close's passion project for almost 30 years and that it has been 23 years since her last nomination. None of those are good reasons for her to be here and it's a shame she is. Her role as a woman playing a man who works as a hotel waiter in 19th-century Ireland is a cold, uninspiring, boring one. Not much happens in the movie and Close's title character does nothing to involve the viewer and certainly nothing to make you root for her/him in trying to woo one of the hotel staff girls. Close exhibits a blank expression and soft, manly voice that only grates the more you experience it. I will say the make-up is convincing enough and I can appreciate it's Best Make-Up nomination. However, it's a truly awful performance and it blows my mind that she was included in a Best Actress list.
Rooney Mara - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
This was the one role I was looking forward to most because of everything I had read about the film, character, and Mara herself. I had no real expectations, but I'm glad she was nominated for sure. Mara totally inhabits the character and gives a brutally honest portrayal of Lisbeth. Lisbeth is all at once a stoic, quiet, brilliant young woman who has led a rough life and makes her living as a for hire computer hacker. She has an emotionless face and eyes that betray the rage and intensity that simmer just beneath her hard exterior. We are able to read the pain she has on every inch of her body and soul which might make her come off as cold and unlikeable, yet Mara is able to give Lisbeth a humanistic quality at times that dares the viewer to feel for her. She is a strong and independent woman who knows that life can and will be truly awful to her at times, but still powers forward and takes no shit. She is a fascinating character and we don't get to learn as much about her as we want to, though Mara doesn't let this denigrate her performance or our view of Lisbeth. The depth and complexity in which Mara portrays Lisbeth makes this one of the most interesting and involving characters I've seen in quite some time. I love that she can bring the viewer to her side without us getting overly sentimental about her -- we feel for her at a distance which is how she keeps the rest of the world but we know she can take care of herself despite the horrible things going on. It's a mesmerizing performance that has me wanting to see more from Mara.
Meryl Streep - The Iron Lady
Another year, another Streep nomination. And for another impersonation, this time of Margaret Thatcher. There's nothing new that needs to be said about Streep and her acting ability, as she is fantastic as ever. You know you are going to get a believable and honest performance when you watch whatever she is in. This rings true for her role here. She is utterly convincing and shines whether or not she is portraying Thatcher in her golden years or in her old age. Streep during the older years is actually where some of her better acting is in this film. It almost seems to be a completely different character and one that is not built off of mimicry, which is quite refreshing to see. Sometimes it's easy to forget she can be a powerful and dynamic actress when not just portraying a real life person. Sometimes, however, the old age scenes ring a bit melodramatic, as does much of the film itself. But she does make the dementia and visions of her dead husband feel authentic and treats the subject less as an acting tool to showcase herself and more as an honest look at how growing old can be so frustrating. The scenes of the golden era Thatcher land with considerably less force mostly due to the writing and directing. Streep does her best to get the look and voice down which helps to forgive any weak spots in the film of which there are many. So really Streep is the only reason to watch The Iron Lady as it is another in a long line of solid performances.
Michelle Williams - My Week with Marilyn
Williams does an amazing job of mimicry when it comes to Marilyn Monroe. She dances and talks and looks almost exactly like her silver screen doppelganger. She is able to play the sex kitten, needy little girl, and competent actress role on all levels without missing a beat. Monroe definitely does her best to actually embody the role of Marilyn. She gives the little details in the role such as facial movements and body language her all and it is absolutely clear Williams did her best to replicate these things. But Williams stumbles into stereotype territory, betrayed by a weak script that puts more focus on her looks and sexiness than is necessary. Essentially, this film is nothing more than a star vehicle for Williams to sink her teeth into and while one might like her performance in it, the rest of the film itself is easily forgettable. And after getting some distance from the film, Williams' performance begins to feel a little light -- a sugary feast for the eyes that ultimately doesn't satiate one's appetite.
In full disclosure, I watched and wrote all the reviews except for Rooney Mara before the actual Oscar night. So I didn't have the benefit of knowing the winner so as better to compare the the roles against each other, which actually made it a little more fun to write about not knowing who was going to win. The race was always only between Streep and Davis. And by the time the ceremony arrived, it was widely thought that Davis would win for her performance. Obviously that was not the case and I think a lot of the prediction aspect had to do with bloggers pimping Davis in hopes that enough buzz would cause her to win as if the voters were listening. The bloggers also lead a small backlash against Streep and all of this was interesting to watch play out but somewhat sickening that that racism and hatred had to come into play instead of letting the acting do the talking. I think we might see more of this in the future if there is no clear cut favorite like this year, though I'm not against the actual debate -- just the gossip-like nature of some of the discussion. So Streep won her 3rd Oscar after almost 30 years of going home empty handed even with her tons of nominations. I totally understand the award and don't necessarily see it as lifetime achievement award since her performance was pretty good. Davis was under served by her film but gave a heartfelt performance even still. I was less enthused about Williams, though I would never say it was bad, and in total disbelief over Close being here. Mara's role was a pleasure to watch because it was the wildcard and I would have preferred her being the winner. I loved her character and she did a tremendous job with it. I really hope we see more from her in the future and she doesn't become another one-hit wonder.
Oscar Winner: Meryl Streep - The Iron Lady
My Winner: Rooney Mara - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep
Viola Davis
Michelle Williams
Glenn Close
2011 Best Actress
Viola Davis - The Help
Davis is one of the only actresses in The Help that eschews the stereotypes this film is plagued with and she comes out better for it. Though her character can be a bit broad at times, she is able to overcome the writing and directing to deliver one of the finer performances of the year. Her Aibileen is a kind, gentle woman but can focus her anger and indignation in a powerful and constructive way. Helping to speak out about the help's treatment is courageous, especially when she knows what can happen in the racist Deep South. Her character had essentially resigned herself to help raise white babies after her own son died in an accident and Davis portrays the tired, defeated house maid ably. Helping out on the book allows her optimism to grow that her life can be more than just a second class citizen and her burgeoning courage is a sight to behold. Davis' weighty performance, however, demands a film that doesn't pander to white guilt and gloss over a volatile time in our nation's history and is almost wasted on something that never takes its subject too seriously. One thing I don't really like about this role and performance is that it reminds me way too much of her Doubt nomination. The two are very similar in tone and I hope Davis can avoid delivering the same performance in her future movies because she certainly is talented enough.
Glenn Close - Albert Nobbs
This nomination is an absolute travesty, especially considering that there were a few other more deserving actresses who were left out because of this bogus nod. I have absolutely nothing good to say about her performance here or the movie in general besides McTeer's role. I feel like the Academy was too enamored with the fact that this has been Close's passion project for almost 30 years and that it has been 23 years since her last nomination. None of those are good reasons for her to be here and it's a shame she is. Her role as a woman playing a man who works as a hotel waiter in 19th-century Ireland is a cold, uninspiring, boring one. Not much happens in the movie and Close's title character does nothing to involve the viewer and certainly nothing to make you root for her/him in trying to woo one of the hotel staff girls. Close exhibits a blank expression and soft, manly voice that only grates the more you experience it. I will say the make-up is convincing enough and I can appreciate it's Best Make-Up nomination. However, it's a truly awful performance and it blows my mind that she was included in a Best Actress list.
Rooney Mara - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
This was the one role I was looking forward to most because of everything I had read about the film, character, and Mara herself. I had no real expectations, but I'm glad she was nominated for sure. Mara totally inhabits the character and gives a brutally honest portrayal of Lisbeth. Lisbeth is all at once a stoic, quiet, brilliant young woman who has led a rough life and makes her living as a for hire computer hacker. She has an emotionless face and eyes that betray the rage and intensity that simmer just beneath her hard exterior. We are able to read the pain she has on every inch of her body and soul which might make her come off as cold and unlikeable, yet Mara is able to give Lisbeth a humanistic quality at times that dares the viewer to feel for her. She is a strong and independent woman who knows that life can and will be truly awful to her at times, but still powers forward and takes no shit. She is a fascinating character and we don't get to learn as much about her as we want to, though Mara doesn't let this denigrate her performance or our view of Lisbeth. The depth and complexity in which Mara portrays Lisbeth makes this one of the most interesting and involving characters I've seen in quite some time. I love that she can bring the viewer to her side without us getting overly sentimental about her -- we feel for her at a distance which is how she keeps the rest of the world but we know she can take care of herself despite the horrible things going on. It's a mesmerizing performance that has me wanting to see more from Mara.
Meryl Streep - The Iron Lady
Another year, another Streep nomination. And for another impersonation, this time of Margaret Thatcher. There's nothing new that needs to be said about Streep and her acting ability, as she is fantastic as ever. You know you are going to get a believable and honest performance when you watch whatever she is in. This rings true for her role here. She is utterly convincing and shines whether or not she is portraying Thatcher in her golden years or in her old age. Streep during the older years is actually where some of her better acting is in this film. It almost seems to be a completely different character and one that is not built off of mimicry, which is quite refreshing to see. Sometimes it's easy to forget she can be a powerful and dynamic actress when not just portraying a real life person. Sometimes, however, the old age scenes ring a bit melodramatic, as does much of the film itself. But she does make the dementia and visions of her dead husband feel authentic and treats the subject less as an acting tool to showcase herself and more as an honest look at how growing old can be so frustrating. The scenes of the golden era Thatcher land with considerably less force mostly due to the writing and directing. Streep does her best to get the look and voice down which helps to forgive any weak spots in the film of which there are many. So really Streep is the only reason to watch The Iron Lady as it is another in a long line of solid performances.
Michelle Williams - My Week with Marilyn
Williams does an amazing job of mimicry when it comes to Marilyn Monroe. She dances and talks and looks almost exactly like her silver screen doppelganger. She is able to play the sex kitten, needy little girl, and competent actress role on all levels without missing a beat. Monroe definitely does her best to actually embody the role of Marilyn. She gives the little details in the role such as facial movements and body language her all and it is absolutely clear Williams did her best to replicate these things. But Williams stumbles into stereotype territory, betrayed by a weak script that puts more focus on her looks and sexiness than is necessary. Essentially, this film is nothing more than a star vehicle for Williams to sink her teeth into and while one might like her performance in it, the rest of the film itself is easily forgettable. And after getting some distance from the film, Williams' performance begins to feel a little light -- a sugary feast for the eyes that ultimately doesn't satiate one's appetite.
In full disclosure, I watched and wrote all the reviews except for Rooney Mara before the actual Oscar night. So I didn't have the benefit of knowing the winner so as better to compare the the roles against each other, which actually made it a little more fun to write about not knowing who was going to win. The race was always only between Streep and Davis. And by the time the ceremony arrived, it was widely thought that Davis would win for her performance. Obviously that was not the case and I think a lot of the prediction aspect had to do with bloggers pimping Davis in hopes that enough buzz would cause her to win as if the voters were listening. The bloggers also lead a small backlash against Streep and all of this was interesting to watch play out but somewhat sickening that that racism and hatred had to come into play instead of letting the acting do the talking. I think we might see more of this in the future if there is no clear cut favorite like this year, though I'm not against the actual debate -- just the gossip-like nature of some of the discussion. So Streep won her 3rd Oscar after almost 30 years of going home empty handed even with her tons of nominations. I totally understand the award and don't necessarily see it as lifetime achievement award since her performance was pretty good. Davis was under served by her film but gave a heartfelt performance even still. I was less enthused about Williams, though I would never say it was bad, and in total disbelief over Close being here. Mara's role was a pleasure to watch because it was the wildcard and I would have preferred her being the winner. I loved her character and she did a tremendous job with it. I really hope we see more from her in the future and she doesn't become another one-hit wonder.
Oscar Winner: Meryl Streep - The Iron Lady
My Winner: Rooney Mara - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep
Viola Davis
Michelle Williams
Glenn Close
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Supporting Actor 2011
I'm not exactly thrilled by any of these choices by name alone. I actually would have loved to see Albert Brooks nominated and win for his role in Drive, which was fantastic. I have only seen 2 of these prior to my reviewing and both were kinda average. Plummer's nomination is intriguing because he is the clear cut favorite and will most likely win the Oscar, so it'll be interesting to see if it is actually worthy. 2011 is shaping up to be the year of the mediocre nominees in every category.
2011 Best Supporting Actor
Christopher Plummer - Beginners
We don't get to see enough of Hal (Plummer's character) in my opinion, as we are force fed these endearing moments in his later life as he embraces his homosexuality with a zeal and vigor of a much younger man. You can't help but like Hal as he is far from flamboyant, taking a more earnest approach as if coming to terms with his new found out-ness is like finding he really enjoys making pottery or playing the tuba. We are immediately aware that Hal has passed away since the story is told in flashbacks and we are told he is gay in the very beginning, which unfortunately doesn't allow the audience to organically form their own opinion of Hal. Plummer is a man in complete control of his craft and embodies the role perfectly. His portrayal of Hal is honest and believable, if lacking in true originality, and he plays the character with a sweet sincerity. Unfortunately, we never get past the face value of Hal, never dive into his soul to see who he really he is and why he is that way. This keeps the performance from being truly well-rounded and makes it feel a little one-note at times.
Kenneth Branagh - My Week with Marilyn
I can't say that I know all that much about Laurence Olivier and what he looked like but I do know Kenneth Branagh from all his Shakespeare productions and I can't envision him as one of the most beloved British actors of all time. He plays the character like another Shakespeare creation and really goes full earnest. What it really reminded me of is Kenneth Branagh playing whoever and being perturbed that Monroe dares to screw up her lines and get the scene wrong. This grew to a hot indignation at her diva-like behavior that he ultimately wasn't able to do anything about. He would let Monroe take as much time as she wanted before she galloped out to do her thing while the rest of the cast and crew scrambled to get in place. Branagh is an amazing talent to be sure and does a requisite job for getting his character of Laurence Olivier across but it never delved into depth or nuance and never asked anymore of Branagh, especially when his character demanded it of Monroe. It's painfully obvious, too, that Branagh wants so very much to be the acting royalty Olivier is and while he may be inspired, his performance is not inspiring to us the viewer.
Jonah Hill - Moneyball
Hill's role as Peter Brand is used essentially as a character for which Pitt to act against and bounce his snappy dialogue back and forth with. That's not to say that Hill's superbly understated role as the geeky, nervousy, computer whiz is underutilized. The character does a great job of balancing Pitt's hyper and somewhat manic-y Beane and acts as the comic foil to what could be some of the more serious, yet boring, moments. Hill understands when to hold back and let Pitt do his thing and when to turn up the acting volume and hold his own. There's times when Hill (and his character) come off timid when going up against Pitt, but Hill is able to nicely settle into his role, and eventually by the end of the film -- own it. Hill allows the character to dictate how things go and his decision to not ham it up when the opportunities present themselves (which must be hard for a comedic actor) speaks to his acting ability. The subtlety of his character and his actions helps buoy this performance into another level.
Nick Nolte - Warrior
I've read in various places that this is the quintessential Nolte role and while I haven't seen enough of his stuff to say so otherwise, I know of his issues and reputation. It would seem Nolte is playing a version of his actual self with this role and that it's not exactly much of a stretch. Where does one draw the line for acting and reality? And should the fact that we can't tell the difference mean it is good or bad? I tend to side with it's good because I assume most actors act from experience or at least by studying someone like their character. To say Nolte is believable in Warrior would be an understatement, as he is effective as the recovering alcoholic father who once physically abused his two sons before they left him. While it's clearly a good performance, it's not exactly as powerful as it should be - especially given the subject it's dealing with. It should have been a chance to really wow the audience and steal scenes but that doesn't really happen. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh because I actually did like Nolte in this film (which is a lot better than I thought it would be), I just would have liked a little bit more from him.
Max von Sydow - Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
An interesting year for silent performances. Max (because it's shorter than typing out von Sydow) does an admirable job in this 9-11 weepy about a boy coming to grips with the loss of his father. He plays an old mute who travels with Oskar as he tries to find where a key he found in his father's closet belongs. Max has a very tired and weathered face that is extremely expressive and it helps add to his charm throughout the film. Max becomes a pseudo father figure for Oskar during their time together and plays his character with a genuine aloofness that can be somewhat endearing. But his emoting begins to lose its luster after a while and the scenes begin to feel a little repetitive. And even though this is Oskar's story, we never get a chance to delve into Max's character and why exactly he turned mute besides an all too brief scene in a bar that only scratches the surface. There's way more to this character than is presented here and for that reason this performance only satisfies a tiny bit of my hunger for a role that could be more fulfilling.
Overall, these nominations are pretty underwhelming. Nothing stands head and shoulders above the others and it really seems to be the theme for this year. I'm not sure what that says about film in 2011 or the Academy, but I think they may have made more than a few mistakes in their nominations. Which just gives more fuel to the fire that the Academy is out of touch with what the current public and critics love. If and when Plummer wins, he will be the oldest Oscar winner ever at 82. Neither Nolte nor Branagh did all that much for me and both von Sydow and Plummer gave performances that were about equal in my estimation. They didn't exactly wow me, especially Plummer who will probably win, which I was really hoping one them would. Hill is my favorite just due to me liking the character and the subtle performance he gave. I don't really understand the derision Hill has received for being nominated and how badly he has been put down in some blogs and prognostications sites. I can only think that his comedy background is the reason anyone would hate on him because his role really speaks for itself. Maybe it has to do with others wanting von Sydow or Plummer to get their first Oscars as nods to their careers. If I had my way, Albert Brooks from Drive would have been nominated and would have been my winner. Sadly, I have no Academy vote.
Oscar Winner: Christopher Plummer - Beginners
My Winner: Jonah Hill - Moneyball
Christopher Plummer
Max von Sydow
Nick Nolte
Kenneth Branagh
2011 Best Supporting Actor
Christopher Plummer - Beginners
We don't get to see enough of Hal (Plummer's character) in my opinion, as we are force fed these endearing moments in his later life as he embraces his homosexuality with a zeal and vigor of a much younger man. You can't help but like Hal as he is far from flamboyant, taking a more earnest approach as if coming to terms with his new found out-ness is like finding he really enjoys making pottery or playing the tuba. We are immediately aware that Hal has passed away since the story is told in flashbacks and we are told he is gay in the very beginning, which unfortunately doesn't allow the audience to organically form their own opinion of Hal. Plummer is a man in complete control of his craft and embodies the role perfectly. His portrayal of Hal is honest and believable, if lacking in true originality, and he plays the character with a sweet sincerity. Unfortunately, we never get past the face value of Hal, never dive into his soul to see who he really he is and why he is that way. This keeps the performance from being truly well-rounded and makes it feel a little one-note at times.
Kenneth Branagh - My Week with Marilyn
I can't say that I know all that much about Laurence Olivier and what he looked like but I do know Kenneth Branagh from all his Shakespeare productions and I can't envision him as one of the most beloved British actors of all time. He plays the character like another Shakespeare creation and really goes full earnest. What it really reminded me of is Kenneth Branagh playing whoever and being perturbed that Monroe dares to screw up her lines and get the scene wrong. This grew to a hot indignation at her diva-like behavior that he ultimately wasn't able to do anything about. He would let Monroe take as much time as she wanted before she galloped out to do her thing while the rest of the cast and crew scrambled to get in place. Branagh is an amazing talent to be sure and does a requisite job for getting his character of Laurence Olivier across but it never delved into depth or nuance and never asked anymore of Branagh, especially when his character demanded it of Monroe. It's painfully obvious, too, that Branagh wants so very much to be the acting royalty Olivier is and while he may be inspired, his performance is not inspiring to us the viewer.
Jonah Hill - Moneyball
Hill's role as Peter Brand is used essentially as a character for which Pitt to act against and bounce his snappy dialogue back and forth with. That's not to say that Hill's superbly understated role as the geeky, nervousy, computer whiz is underutilized. The character does a great job of balancing Pitt's hyper and somewhat manic-y Beane and acts as the comic foil to what could be some of the more serious, yet boring, moments. Hill understands when to hold back and let Pitt do his thing and when to turn up the acting volume and hold his own. There's times when Hill (and his character) come off timid when going up against Pitt, but Hill is able to nicely settle into his role, and eventually by the end of the film -- own it. Hill allows the character to dictate how things go and his decision to not ham it up when the opportunities present themselves (which must be hard for a comedic actor) speaks to his acting ability. The subtlety of his character and his actions helps buoy this performance into another level.
Nick Nolte - Warrior
I've read in various places that this is the quintessential Nolte role and while I haven't seen enough of his stuff to say so otherwise, I know of his issues and reputation. It would seem Nolte is playing a version of his actual self with this role and that it's not exactly much of a stretch. Where does one draw the line for acting and reality? And should the fact that we can't tell the difference mean it is good or bad? I tend to side with it's good because I assume most actors act from experience or at least by studying someone like their character. To say Nolte is believable in Warrior would be an understatement, as he is effective as the recovering alcoholic father who once physically abused his two sons before they left him. While it's clearly a good performance, it's not exactly as powerful as it should be - especially given the subject it's dealing with. It should have been a chance to really wow the audience and steal scenes but that doesn't really happen. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh because I actually did like Nolte in this film (which is a lot better than I thought it would be), I just would have liked a little bit more from him.
Max von Sydow - Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
An interesting year for silent performances. Max (because it's shorter than typing out von Sydow) does an admirable job in this 9-11 weepy about a boy coming to grips with the loss of his father. He plays an old mute who travels with Oskar as he tries to find where a key he found in his father's closet belongs. Max has a very tired and weathered face that is extremely expressive and it helps add to his charm throughout the film. Max becomes a pseudo father figure for Oskar during their time together and plays his character with a genuine aloofness that can be somewhat endearing. But his emoting begins to lose its luster after a while and the scenes begin to feel a little repetitive. And even though this is Oskar's story, we never get a chance to delve into Max's character and why exactly he turned mute besides an all too brief scene in a bar that only scratches the surface. There's way more to this character than is presented here and for that reason this performance only satisfies a tiny bit of my hunger for a role that could be more fulfilling.
Overall, these nominations are pretty underwhelming. Nothing stands head and shoulders above the others and it really seems to be the theme for this year. I'm not sure what that says about film in 2011 or the Academy, but I think they may have made more than a few mistakes in their nominations. Which just gives more fuel to the fire that the Academy is out of touch with what the current public and critics love. If and when Plummer wins, he will be the oldest Oscar winner ever at 82. Neither Nolte nor Branagh did all that much for me and both von Sydow and Plummer gave performances that were about equal in my estimation. They didn't exactly wow me, especially Plummer who will probably win, which I was really hoping one them would. Hill is my favorite just due to me liking the character and the subtle performance he gave. I don't really understand the derision Hill has received for being nominated and how badly he has been put down in some blogs and prognostications sites. I can only think that his comedy background is the reason anyone would hate on him because his role really speaks for itself. Maybe it has to do with others wanting von Sydow or Plummer to get their first Oscars as nods to their careers. If I had my way, Albert Brooks from Drive would have been nominated and would have been my winner. Sadly, I have no Academy vote.
Oscar Winner: Christopher Plummer - Beginners
My Winner: Jonah Hill - Moneyball
Christopher Plummer
Max von Sydow
Nick Nolte
Kenneth Branagh
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Supporting Actress 2011
This is my first time doing my reviews in the midst of the Oscar race and it's really been a lot of fun. Seeing the race develop from the very beginning has been eye opening. And reading all the many different blogs and articles about which person or movie would and/or should be nominated was interesting to see just how wrong our predictions can be. I love knowing how the race shaped up and knowing that when I look back on this year that I'll have a more in-depth, personal knowledge of it instead of relying on Oscar history books and wikipedia! Normally I might have already seen 1 or 2 performances and would need to see the rest to make up my mind, but of course all of them were new so this has been refreshing and let's me know what it'll be like when I get deeper into this.
2011 Best Supporting Actress
Octavia Spencer - The Help
The presumed front runner, it is all but assured that Spencer will win. But does she deserve to? I'm inclined to think otherwise, but her performance is by no means bad. Her character, Minny, is very broadly written and comes off very much like a stereotype at times. Minny is the strong black woman who takes no shit when it comes to her daughter, her work, her friends but suffers violent abuse at the hands of her (presumed) husband. Spencer does act with an earnestness that is refreshing at times but during others, you half expect her to snap her fingers in the air three times and say "Mmhmm" and a laugh track to start playing. A lot of the issues stem from the actual story which is far from being Best Picture worthy, but Spencer does her best to give Minny the depth the character deserves. However, for what should have been a fully fleshed out role, it falls victim to the kid gloves treatment the whole movie is subjected to and that's a shame for Spencer.
Berenice Bejo - The Artist
It is no small feat to be able to steal scenes from the uber charming Jean Dujardin and uber cute Uggie the Dog, but steal scenes Bejo did. She plays the role with pitch perfect simplicity. From the first time we see her getting her picture taken with Dujardin's character and parlaying that into working on silent films as an extra, she deftly conveys the shy, young, demure girl trying to break into Hollywood. As her roles increase and she becomes a major star with the advent of the talkies, we see her remain gracious and pure from the stain of Hollywood's brutality. She even shows concern for her former inspiration, George Valentin, as he fails to adapt to a movie business with sound drowning out the silent era he reigned over. Bejo does this all very convincingly, keeping up with her charismatic co-stars with equally expressive faces and movements that really show off her acting abilities. However, it becomes obvious through the movie that Bejo is merely a character for Dujardin to interact with as we experience his ups and downs. There's not a whole lot of depth to the character of Peppy (who lives up to her name) though Bejo does a marvelous job with what she is given. She's a sweet, caring, loveable woman who avoids any real conflict that could challenge her and push her performance from good to great.
Jessica Chastain - The Help
I feel this nomination is due more to Chastain bursting onto the scene with 7 different movies in 2011, 6 of which were critical and/or commercial successes, rather than on the merit of this role itself. Chastain's character, Celia, is a dopey, newly married, white trash southern woman who is in over her head as she tries to fit in with the other society women in town. She is an outsider who has married into wealth and the other women can't stand her uncouth behavior. So she takes on Spencer's character as a maid and treats her as a sort of equal and confidant. Chastain is essentially used as a character to show that not all of the white society women are evil racists and that they can somewhat coexist with "the help." Chastain does a convincing enough job in her role, one that is sincere in her innocent personality, which further shows how The Help treats its subject with kid gloves.
Melissa McCarthy - Bridesmaids
I'm still a bit unsure if this performance deserves its nomination here or if it just rode the popularity of the movie into one. That's not to say I dislike McCarthy in this movie. She is actually the flat out funniest thing about Bridesmaids, which says a lot about her comedic chops that she can come out on top in a movie featuring many other funny women. But how much of it is people overreacting to there finally being a raunchy, all-girl, gross out movie that rivals some of the many similar movies that feature mostly men? I could see a Jack Black or Zach Galifianakis filling the same type of role and getting no Oscar love though they might be equally as funny. It seems odd to me that this would get nominated as if a woman playing this type of comedic role is more worthy because it is so rarely done. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it because I'm definitely for more comedy roles and movies being included in these awards, male or female! McCarthy does steal almost every scene she is in, though I do feel she is given some of the best writing (although I'm sure some is improvised) and best situations with which to act in. I'd say that her character makes this movie worth watching on her own and helps elevate it to a level where awards talk isn't totally unwarranted.
Janet McTeer - Albert Nobbs
Janet McTeer is the only good thing about this movie, so I can understand why she was nominated here. When her character first appeared onscreen, it took me a good while to tell that she wasn't actually a man (obviously I had never seen McTeer before to be able to tell differently). The make-up and effects were obviously very good, but the mannerisms and voice of McTeer really helped to convince me she was a man for the first part of the film. What really impressed me was that in every scene she is in, even with Glenn Close, she acts circles around everyone else. She completely owns this otherwise dreadful movie and is its only saving grace. She gives a decent and believable performance that is sabotaged by a weak script and an awful role by Glenn Close that would make me look like an accomplished actor.
This group was really underwhelming and it feels like I say that about almost every Supporting Actress category so I don't want to come off as some sexist guy that hates women actors. I think the Supporting category lends itself to having some performances get nominated that aren't exactly worthy and we all know the Academy indulges itself in whatever suits their whims. So you might get lifetime achievements, make up nominees, or ones that make the Academy seem hip or not the stuffy club it really is. But with all that said, all I want is good performances that blow me away more than leave me wanting more, men or women. None of these 5 performances really wow me. In fact, they all are about the same in that you could mix em all up and randomly rank them and I'd probably be ok with all the different iterations. I like things about all of them just as I dislike different things about all of them. I don't think I can definitively give the win to any of these (though I think I like Bejo's performance the best so far) and I feel I may need to give these a little distance in time to better judge their impact on me.
Oscar Winner: Octavia Spencer - The Help
My Winner: Berenice Bejo - The Artist
Octavia Spencer
Jessica Chastain
Melissa McCarthy
Janet McTeer
2011 Best Supporting Actress
Octavia Spencer - The Help
The presumed front runner, it is all but assured that Spencer will win. But does she deserve to? I'm inclined to think otherwise, but her performance is by no means bad. Her character, Minny, is very broadly written and comes off very much like a stereotype at times. Minny is the strong black woman who takes no shit when it comes to her daughter, her work, her friends but suffers violent abuse at the hands of her (presumed) husband. Spencer does act with an earnestness that is refreshing at times but during others, you half expect her to snap her fingers in the air three times and say "Mmhmm" and a laugh track to start playing. A lot of the issues stem from the actual story which is far from being Best Picture worthy, but Spencer does her best to give Minny the depth the character deserves. However, for what should have been a fully fleshed out role, it falls victim to the kid gloves treatment the whole movie is subjected to and that's a shame for Spencer.
Berenice Bejo - The Artist
It is no small feat to be able to steal scenes from the uber charming Jean Dujardin and uber cute Uggie the Dog, but steal scenes Bejo did. She plays the role with pitch perfect simplicity. From the first time we see her getting her picture taken with Dujardin's character and parlaying that into working on silent films as an extra, she deftly conveys the shy, young, demure girl trying to break into Hollywood. As her roles increase and she becomes a major star with the advent of the talkies, we see her remain gracious and pure from the stain of Hollywood's brutality. She even shows concern for her former inspiration, George Valentin, as he fails to adapt to a movie business with sound drowning out the silent era he reigned over. Bejo does this all very convincingly, keeping up with her charismatic co-stars with equally expressive faces and movements that really show off her acting abilities. However, it becomes obvious through the movie that Bejo is merely a character for Dujardin to interact with as we experience his ups and downs. There's not a whole lot of depth to the character of Peppy (who lives up to her name) though Bejo does a marvelous job with what she is given. She's a sweet, caring, loveable woman who avoids any real conflict that could challenge her and push her performance from good to great.
Jessica Chastain - The Help
I feel this nomination is due more to Chastain bursting onto the scene with 7 different movies in 2011, 6 of which were critical and/or commercial successes, rather than on the merit of this role itself. Chastain's character, Celia, is a dopey, newly married, white trash southern woman who is in over her head as she tries to fit in with the other society women in town. She is an outsider who has married into wealth and the other women can't stand her uncouth behavior. So she takes on Spencer's character as a maid and treats her as a sort of equal and confidant. Chastain is essentially used as a character to show that not all of the white society women are evil racists and that they can somewhat coexist with "the help." Chastain does a convincing enough job in her role, one that is sincere in her innocent personality, which further shows how The Help treats its subject with kid gloves.
Melissa McCarthy - Bridesmaids
I'm still a bit unsure if this performance deserves its nomination here or if it just rode the popularity of the movie into one. That's not to say I dislike McCarthy in this movie. She is actually the flat out funniest thing about Bridesmaids, which says a lot about her comedic chops that she can come out on top in a movie featuring many other funny women. But how much of it is people overreacting to there finally being a raunchy, all-girl, gross out movie that rivals some of the many similar movies that feature mostly men? I could see a Jack Black or Zach Galifianakis filling the same type of role and getting no Oscar love though they might be equally as funny. It seems odd to me that this would get nominated as if a woman playing this type of comedic role is more worthy because it is so rarely done. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it because I'm definitely for more comedy roles and movies being included in these awards, male or female! McCarthy does steal almost every scene she is in, though I do feel she is given some of the best writing (although I'm sure some is improvised) and best situations with which to act in. I'd say that her character makes this movie worth watching on her own and helps elevate it to a level where awards talk isn't totally unwarranted.
Janet McTeer - Albert Nobbs
Janet McTeer is the only good thing about this movie, so I can understand why she was nominated here. When her character first appeared onscreen, it took me a good while to tell that she wasn't actually a man (obviously I had never seen McTeer before to be able to tell differently). The make-up and effects were obviously very good, but the mannerisms and voice of McTeer really helped to convince me she was a man for the first part of the film. What really impressed me was that in every scene she is in, even with Glenn Close, she acts circles around everyone else. She completely owns this otherwise dreadful movie and is its only saving grace. She gives a decent and believable performance that is sabotaged by a weak script and an awful role by Glenn Close that would make me look like an accomplished actor.
This group was really underwhelming and it feels like I say that about almost every Supporting Actress category so I don't want to come off as some sexist guy that hates women actors. I think the Supporting category lends itself to having some performances get nominated that aren't exactly worthy and we all know the Academy indulges itself in whatever suits their whims. So you might get lifetime achievements, make up nominees, or ones that make the Academy seem hip or not the stuffy club it really is. But with all that said, all I want is good performances that blow me away more than leave me wanting more, men or women. None of these 5 performances really wow me. In fact, they all are about the same in that you could mix em all up and randomly rank them and I'd probably be ok with all the different iterations. I like things about all of them just as I dislike different things about all of them. I don't think I can definitively give the win to any of these (though I think I like Bejo's performance the best so far) and I feel I may need to give these a little distance in time to better judge their impact on me.
Oscar Winner: Octavia Spencer - The Help
My Winner: Berenice Bejo - The Artist
Octavia Spencer
Jessica Chastain
Melissa McCarthy
Janet McTeer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)