Finally continuing to move back in time as I move on to 2007. As I've said before, I'm super excited for this year due to the extraordinary amount of great nominees and hopeful that the few I haven't seen can be on the same level. For what has typically been the category I dislike the most, I know this year upends that notion with some great performances. I've already seen 4 of the 5 and the last one is the inimitable Cate Blanchett - she of the TWO acting nominations this year. So you know it's a strong year when the category I usually love to hate ends up being easy to love.
2007 Best Supporting Actress
Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton
Swinton is a stalwart, no nonsense, company woman trying to appease the big bosses of the agrochemical company she is a lawyer for. She is almost like an assassin in her somewhat cold, uncompromising, yet ruthless demeanor. She rehearses answers to an interviewer's questions to perfection so she comes off as strong and a leader during the actual interview. She values her career and works diligently at it no matter what. She wants to quickly put an end to the class action lawsuit against her company which would surely result in being put in a favorable position for promotion and increased responsibility later on down the line. She has a much smaller role than I remember from my first watch years ago which says a lot about her performance. It's intense and incredibly believable. One could easily picture Swinton walking around in a power suit doling out legal advice. Her performance was memorable enough to stand out in my mind when thinking of this film even though she doesn't get a ton of screen time. However, she is but one cog in the machine that is Michael Clayton. Without her costars, her performance would feel out of place or too serious since everyone else delivers career defining performances and this only serves to help buoy Swinton's portrayal along with the rest of the film. Not to say she would sink without the others but she would definitely look out of place, most likely as the lone bright spot. So this is definitely a moment where the actors fed off each other's energy and challenged everyone else to up their game. What we got as a result was one of Swinton's best performances in her career.
Cate Blanchett - I'm Not There
Blanchett encapsulates the persona of Dylan more so than the other big names in this film and she does it with relative ease -- but that could be because she seems to have the easiest role. It's one that is a little more fun and less brooding. She represents the controversial years of Dylan's life as she plays the character Jude Quinn and thus isn't completely pigeonholed into being simply a one note version of Dylan. The looks, mannerisms, and voice are unnervingly accurate and highlights his vulnerability as a person. The carefree demeanor she exudes adds to Dylan's notion at the time that not one person can change the world and being at peace with that. It's almost a comical portrayal that treads ever so lightly around devolving into a caricature. But this is a film where the subject really has to connect with the viewer to make an impact and I just am not a fan of Dylan even if I did like a few songs in the movie (though sung by other people which is probably why). So while the performance obviously shines in the scope of the narrative it doesn't really stay with me after it's over. It was like an appetizer for something that could have been a lot greater than it was. I'd be interested in a film of only Blanchett as Dylan.
Ruby Dee - American Gangster
This is a token nomination and nothing else. One of those nominations where the Academy rewards a body of work and long history in film instead of the actual acting being any good. Of note is Dee being the second oldest nominee ever for Best Supporting Actress -- with one of the shortest screen times ever, just over 5 minutes. That alone should tell you all you need to know about this nomination. The majority of critic's online don't even mention her in their reviews. So how is her actual performance? To me, the performance is a bit labored. It has the air of acting which is never a good sign. Her delivery is hurried and the only real moment is when she slaps Denzel, but that role could have been filled by anyone. From my mom to my grandmas to any woman over 30. Unfortunately, what we are left with is maybe a one minute scene at most, but none of which ever leave their mark or leave you riveted to your seat while she is on screen. Did her 3% of the film leave an indelible mark? Simply...no.
Saoirse Ronan - Atonement
This is the role that brought Ronan to international prominence and began her as to date impressive film career. She plays Briony Tallis, a young privileged English girl during WWII who enjoys writing plays for her family. She is intense and mature beyond her years at times but naive and juvenile at others. Her precociousness can be easily read on her face alone, which is impressive that she can emote a sense of wonderment so willfully at such a young age. You can see the wheels turning in her head as she surveys the grown-up world around her and tries to figure out what's going on and what to do about it. She definitely has a writer's sense of understanding of the world and the people around her, even if it initially is the wrong impression. Briony's childish crush on Robbie, a son of their housekeeper who is in love with her older sister sets in motion the whole plot based on the confusing notions of her budding sexuality and fervor for petty revenge. It's all a misunderstanding because she doesn't understand what she sees (and reads) between her sister and Robbie. Ronan is able to expertly display all of these conflicting emotions with reserve and subtlety, especially during some of the more serious moments. And while she is the forefront of a lot of scenes - hell, most of the movie - she never really takes over and overacts. I actually find it nice that she can be as young as she is here and resist the urge to show off her acting "ability" as many young actors would. This role really demonstrates how ahead of her time Ronan is and why she is an emerging young movie star.
Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
Amy Ryan is authentic. She is incredibly convincing as a drug addled mother who has lost her daughter. Ryan's Southie accent is on point and the viewer can't help but look at her with disdain and sympathy. I don't agree with those that view this as a movie to not like because there is no happy ending and it's grim. It seems immensely real because of this, so the non happy ending feels legit. It's raw and a slice of Boston life that grabs the viewer and doesn't let them go. While all of the other characters in Gone Baby Gone suffer from being too literary (Affleck becomes a super detective, Ed Harris is too stereotypical), Ryan is the only one who feels fully realized and much of that is because of her powerhouse acting. In between her drugged out phases, Ryan's Helene McCready plays up her grieving mother role for the cameras and to get away with her illicit behavior. It's impressive that she can be so manipulative even when high but when one thinks about it, it's obvious that she would have to be to stay alive and never own up to her actions. At times, she almost seems glad for the tragedy to have occurred, but the greater tragedy is knowing that if the child is found she would be returned to her junkie mom. And this makes it hard to hope for the little girl's survival and demonstrates just how utterly disgusting Helene can be, an attribute to Ryan portraying both sides of the woman with equal fervor.
Probably the best Supporting Actress categories I've yet to cover and it's a nice feeling not having to slog through awful films to watch borderline performances. Of note is that Cate Blanchett was nominated for both Supporting and Lead Actress in 2007. That makes her the 11th actor to have two acting nominations in the same year. Minus Ruby Dee, watching the remaining 4 was a lot fun and I'd rank them all close together. Right now my winner would be Ryan but I have a feeling I could put Swinton or Ronan in that spot when I look back at this in 6 months. And that is part of what makes doing this project and blog so much fun. Swinton's win was actually a bit of a shock back in 2008, both to the audience and to Tilda herself (though not a huge shock by any means). Ruby Dee won the SAG Award (gag) and Blanchett had the buzz and the Golden Globe, so even back then it was up in the air.
Oscar Winner: Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton
My Winner: Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton
Saoirse Ronan
Cate Blanchett
Ruby Dee
Monday, June 11, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Best Picture 2011
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
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
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
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Best Picture 2008
The last of the 5 Best Picture nominee years ever and it is plainly obvious while watching all these films so far that this category definitely deserved and needed to be expanded. So many films that should have been nominated like Doubt, The Dark Knight and Wall-E were never given the chance to be a Best Picture nominee even though they deserved it. This also finally ends 2008 for me and I can't be any happier! I feel like I've spent years on these couple of categories and I am absolutely ready to move on to 2007. However, before I do that I am going to review the 2011 nominees while they are still fresh in my mind from their initial viewings so as to better capture the zeitgeist. Hopefully I can have at least one category done before the actual Oscar ceremony later this month. Fingers crossed, although I'm terrible at getting this done in a timely manner!
2008 Best Picture
Slumdog Millionaire
This film rightfully won Best Cinematography as it is simply gorgeous to look at. The story follows young Jamal as he answers questions on the Indian version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? with flashbacks explaining how he was able to answer the questions. It's a simple structure that has been used before but is used here to great effect.It's a wonder how Dev Patel wasn't able to secure a Best Actor nod because I would have easily put him ahead of Brad Pitt. I don't understand the backlash for this film after it won, besides Milk what other nominated film could have been deemed the best? When Jamal and Latika meet again after many years apart, it's a very emotional moment and you can't help but root for Jamal to get his girl. It's not done in a cheesy, forced, or overly cliche way. It's a simple, universal love story that can be understood by anyone. It's a solid movie and one that I can keep coming back to and watching without ever getting sick of it, it only grows in how much I like it and dare I say that it is an instant classic that will only multiply in stature.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Right from the start, let's just get the fact that this is a very long and mostly dull movie out of the way. With that said, why does an obvious Oscar bait film with many distinguished actors fail to deliver on a simple premise? Probably because the premise was so simple to begin with and the idea of this film was left to be filled in with details later. Brad Pitt's character is born old and progresses through the early Twentieth Century while getting younger. This happens in a kind of vignette style with a young girl named Daisy who grows older in the normal way. The two connect almost immediately but their situations prevent them from interacting like they want and their lives weave in and out essentially saying that no matter what age you are, life will still have its problems. Benjamin Button doesn't say much more than that in its 3 hours and thus makes for a very tedious watch. The tone of the film is rather cold and ultimately uninteresting when the meaning rings hollow and could have been summed up in a much shorter time frame and a less self important way. The movie looks amazing and the technical aspects deserve a lot of praise, unfortunately these things outshine the story and characters.
Frost/Nixon
This film is at it's absolute best when Michael Sheen and Frank Langella's characters are facing off with each other, just talking for the interviews. You can see that the story came from the stage during these times and that they probably did really well, too. One can't look away during the rapport the two characters have established and continued to build from stage to big screen. Watching these two giants play off one another is a real treat for the viewer. I do feel the faux documentary parts cheapen an otherwise strong movie and takes away from the very real tension that builds throughout the interviews. There is some fine acting from the supporting cast but the two leads far and away make this movie work. If it had been just the two main characters, the whole premise still would have hit with the intensity that Frost/Nixon sometimes captures. The idea that the two are putting their reputations on the line in order to gain further acceptance by the public and others who doubt their sincerity makes for a film that can really hit home for the general public. Even on re-watch, this film remains as powerful as it is watching it for the first time, a remarkable accomplishment.
Milk
Milk is a movie that made me feel good as a person after watching it. And those movies are truly rare these days. However, the majority of this film really played out like a very well done sports movie. It had all the uplifting moments and the occasional overacting that plagues those types of films. The characters in Milk are definitely the shining moments. Penn and Brolin, and to a lesser degree, Hirsch and Franco, really set the tone of the film through their acting and really engage the viewer into investing their time to get to know the characters presented. What I personally liked about Milk was that the director made sure to let characters grow organically and let the audience make their own connections before he gently tugged on the heartstrings. Even though the pacing was a bit slow, the director let the audience feel what they wanted by the end of the film and didn't force any agenda which is key for socially and politically divisive films such as Milk.
The Reader
The first half of this film is mostly a film more into being a German sex film so to speak that it really hampers it from sticking out on it's own merits. We see way too much of Kate Winslet in the nude to take whatever it says about German guilt from then on into a real serious consideration. Once the first third of the film passes, we finally get what makes The Reader truly special as a film. We see the Michael character years later confronting his former mistress as she testifies on the Holocaust witness stand. He is devastated and this affects his personal relationships which is hinted throughout the film when Ralph Fiennes character (Michael when he is older) has an inability to connect with those around him including his daughter. So what should be an incredible treatise on German guilt because of WWII and how it influenced subsequent generations, turns into how one man was unable to cope with how his past indiscretions shaped his life. I can't say I'm a fan of how Stephen Daldry wants the audience to accept Hanna Schmitz's character as something more than a Nazi SS leader. It's a very middle-serious film that wants to be more important than it really is.
I am really glad that the Academy expanded the amount of nominees for Best Picture after this year. Both Benjamin Button and The Reader were lacking in real Best Picture qualities that I went over in my opening. So many other movies this year probably should have supplanted these two because they were so underwhelming. However, Milk and Slumdog Millionaire were definite highlights of this year and were rightfully rewarded. I contend that Slumdog is an instant classic that should be loved for all time. It's interesting to note that the buzz for Slumdog really started at the Toronto Film Festival and picked up steam when it started winning the Guild awards. It's interesting to me that a film that premiered at a festival that is so soon after the Academy Awards was able to take home the top prize nearly a year later. Anyway, 2008 was a year where I didn't exactly despise all the nominees but I know that there were more deserving films that could have taken their places.
Oscar Winner: Slumdog Millionaire
My Winner: Slumdog Millionaire
Milk
Frost/Nixon
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Reader
2008 Best Picture
Slumdog Millionaire
This film rightfully won Best Cinematography as it is simply gorgeous to look at. The story follows young Jamal as he answers questions on the Indian version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? with flashbacks explaining how he was able to answer the questions. It's a simple structure that has been used before but is used here to great effect.It's a wonder how Dev Patel wasn't able to secure a Best Actor nod because I would have easily put him ahead of Brad Pitt. I don't understand the backlash for this film after it won, besides Milk what other nominated film could have been deemed the best? When Jamal and Latika meet again after many years apart, it's a very emotional moment and you can't help but root for Jamal to get his girl. It's not done in a cheesy, forced, or overly cliche way. It's a simple, universal love story that can be understood by anyone. It's a solid movie and one that I can keep coming back to and watching without ever getting sick of it, it only grows in how much I like it and dare I say that it is an instant classic that will only multiply in stature.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Right from the start, let's just get the fact that this is a very long and mostly dull movie out of the way. With that said, why does an obvious Oscar bait film with many distinguished actors fail to deliver on a simple premise? Probably because the premise was so simple to begin with and the idea of this film was left to be filled in with details later. Brad Pitt's character is born old and progresses through the early Twentieth Century while getting younger. This happens in a kind of vignette style with a young girl named Daisy who grows older in the normal way. The two connect almost immediately but their situations prevent them from interacting like they want and their lives weave in and out essentially saying that no matter what age you are, life will still have its problems. Benjamin Button doesn't say much more than that in its 3 hours and thus makes for a very tedious watch. The tone of the film is rather cold and ultimately uninteresting when the meaning rings hollow and could have been summed up in a much shorter time frame and a less self important way. The movie looks amazing and the technical aspects deserve a lot of praise, unfortunately these things outshine the story and characters.
Frost/Nixon
This film is at it's absolute best when Michael Sheen and Frank Langella's characters are facing off with each other, just talking for the interviews. You can see that the story came from the stage during these times and that they probably did really well, too. One can't look away during the rapport the two characters have established and continued to build from stage to big screen. Watching these two giants play off one another is a real treat for the viewer. I do feel the faux documentary parts cheapen an otherwise strong movie and takes away from the very real tension that builds throughout the interviews. There is some fine acting from the supporting cast but the two leads far and away make this movie work. If it had been just the two main characters, the whole premise still would have hit with the intensity that Frost/Nixon sometimes captures. The idea that the two are putting their reputations on the line in order to gain further acceptance by the public and others who doubt their sincerity makes for a film that can really hit home for the general public. Even on re-watch, this film remains as powerful as it is watching it for the first time, a remarkable accomplishment.
Milk
Milk is a movie that made me feel good as a person after watching it. And those movies are truly rare these days. However, the majority of this film really played out like a very well done sports movie. It had all the uplifting moments and the occasional overacting that plagues those types of films. The characters in Milk are definitely the shining moments. Penn and Brolin, and to a lesser degree, Hirsch and Franco, really set the tone of the film through their acting and really engage the viewer into investing their time to get to know the characters presented. What I personally liked about Milk was that the director made sure to let characters grow organically and let the audience make their own connections before he gently tugged on the heartstrings. Even though the pacing was a bit slow, the director let the audience feel what they wanted by the end of the film and didn't force any agenda which is key for socially and politically divisive films such as Milk.
The Reader
The first half of this film is mostly a film more into being a German sex film so to speak that it really hampers it from sticking out on it's own merits. We see way too much of Kate Winslet in the nude to take whatever it says about German guilt from then on into a real serious consideration. Once the first third of the film passes, we finally get what makes The Reader truly special as a film. We see the Michael character years later confronting his former mistress as she testifies on the Holocaust witness stand. He is devastated and this affects his personal relationships which is hinted throughout the film when Ralph Fiennes character (Michael when he is older) has an inability to connect with those around him including his daughter. So what should be an incredible treatise on German guilt because of WWII and how it influenced subsequent generations, turns into how one man was unable to cope with how his past indiscretions shaped his life. I can't say I'm a fan of how Stephen Daldry wants the audience to accept Hanna Schmitz's character as something more than a Nazi SS leader. It's a very middle-serious film that wants to be more important than it really is.
I am really glad that the Academy expanded the amount of nominees for Best Picture after this year. Both Benjamin Button and The Reader were lacking in real Best Picture qualities that I went over in my opening. So many other movies this year probably should have supplanted these two because they were so underwhelming. However, Milk and Slumdog Millionaire were definite highlights of this year and were rightfully rewarded. I contend that Slumdog is an instant classic that should be loved for all time. It's interesting to note that the buzz for Slumdog really started at the Toronto Film Festival and picked up steam when it started winning the Guild awards. It's interesting to me that a film that premiered at a festival that is so soon after the Academy Awards was able to take home the top prize nearly a year later. Anyway, 2008 was a year where I didn't exactly despise all the nominees but I know that there were more deserving films that could have taken their places.
Oscar Winner: Slumdog Millionaire
My Winner: Slumdog Millionaire
Milk
Frost/Nixon
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Reader
Friday, February 10, 2012
Leading Actor 2008
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
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
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Leading Actress 2008
It's been taking a bit longer for me to watch and review movies than I initially thought, but some of that is due to being busy. Once I watch a few and get in the groove I start knocking out the categories pretty quickly. Bear with me. Part of doing the most recent years first allows me to automatically know which movies/performances I think are going to be tough to make it through. I'm excited for when I start getting into years I don't exactly know much about the movies/performances so I keep a fresh perspective. I really think this is the reason for the lack of consistent posts and the slow nature of my writing stuff out and posting them. The first time I watched Changeling I had to slog through it because it never really captivated me or made me want to keep watching let alone finish it. And that was back before the idea for this blog even came about, back when I was only trying to watch them all and not write about them. Now with trying to objectively watch without instantly saying a film is terrible or not fully paying attention becomes a chore for the ones I have already seen and not enjoyed. So definitely when I finally get into films I haven't seen or heard much about I think the pace will pick up (hopefully) since everything will be fresh. Of course, I'll eventually run into the problem of having to find ways to watch movies that doesn't take forever due to waiting on rentals to come in the mail or hard to find copies. Anyway, enough rambling and on to the Actresses! (forgive the terrible writing, also!)
2008 Best Actress
Kate Winslet - The Reader
Let's start with the fact that the first half of this film is mostly an adolescent German skin flick. Winslet is naked for most of the first third of the film and there is really no character development besides that she's a bossy, illiterate, Nazi. And that is the big revelation for the movie. Winslet and her boy toy have a tumultuous love affair that ends abruptly and then we see how Michael deals with it in the subsequent years. However, he never fully heals and eventually witnesses his lover on trial for war crimes and then can't function normally as a man. For Winslet, she succeeds in the beginning of the film when she is able to portray a woman who wants to be loved but is unable to give love in return. When they boy wants to love her she rebels and comes up with excuses that allows her to remain aloof and disconnected. Eventually she is put on trial and turns into an old lady. However, I hate her expression of surprise and shock. Her breathy gasps and wide eyed look is quite annoying and that may be superficial but Winslet's character never seems to get past that superficial phase for me, especially towards the end of the film. She plays the serious part a little too serious.
Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married
This film felt like a coming out party for Hathaway. After years of toiling in Disney movies, the role of Kym gave her a performance she could sink her teeth into. And sink her teeth into she did. Playing Kym, a recovering addict who has spent the last 9 months in rehab who has come home to be there for her sister's wedding, the character almost allows for Hathaway to indulge in a bit of overacting. There are definite times where her neurotic, chain smoking, talkative, sarcastic yet sincere look-at-me persona should be toned down and becomes more grating than adding anything to story. The film itself tackles how dysfunctional a family can be while still remaining a close family. Kym can't stand that her sister Rachel is getting all of the attention and so there are a lot of moments where Hathaway whines, pouts, acts inappropriately, and generally causes chaos. What makes Hathaway's performance compelling and worthy of attention is that she is able to not get caught up in the moment and chew the scenery every time she's on camera. You can really see the transition to becoming a serious actress for Hathaway in this strong performance.
Angelina Jolie - Changeling
No subtlety, no depth, it's a superficial portrayal that does nothing to rescue a sub par script and it becomes very evident that Jolie's performance is wholly a one-note thing betrayed by Eastwood's directing ability. It's a supremely average take on a woman whose son was taken from her only to have a boy thrust on her by the LAPD who wasn't her son. It's a performance that offers little nuance, little believability. Some of the more compelling parts of the film are when Jolie isn't even in them, not to say this film is in anyway good, however. Amy Ryan actually outshines Jolie as a psychiatric patient in my opinion and I can't help but think that if this film focused on the murder portion of Jolie's son and the serial killer angle that maybe, just maybe, the film would have worked far better and Jolie's effort would have been rewarded in the Supporting Actress category instead. Focusing on her makes me wonder why the Academy sought to reward such a mediocre performance with a nomination until one looks at the 2008 class as a whole....not much there unfortunately.
Melissa Leo - Frozen River
This is a very gritty, non-glamorous role that Leo gives her all in. She brings a humanistic quality to Ray Eddy, a mother of two that is doing everything she can to provide for her kids and survive on the border with Canada. The performance is very real and authentic and I can easily see Leo as this mother who eventually finds herself smuggling humans into the US as one of her last options of maintaining a somewhat normal life. She's a good person deep down and even throws out a Pakistani's duffel bag because she thinks it could have poison gas (not realizing what was actually inside) and she stands up for herself and her Native American partner when they are being short changed. However, there are a few scenes where the writing and directing don't allow Leo to give her best and it ultimately keeps this film from becoming anything more than the low budget, first time directing piece it really is. When Leo is able to showcase her talents, she is really something to see but unfortunately through no fault of her own, the viewer isn't able to witness this from start to finish.
Meryl Streep - Doubt
Another year, another solid Streep performance. I'd be annoyed if her 16 nominations and counting were mostly based off reputation, but she turns in fantastic performances with regularity and maybe that expectation keeps her from actually winning more than 2 awards. As if the Academy and the voters acknowledge her ability without really looking at her performances as anything more than just another Streep nomination before handing the award to someone else. In saying that, her performance in Doubt as a headmaster at a Catholic school is a really solid and fantastic turn. I really can believe Streep could be an old crotchety, nun/principal that is a stickler for the rules. This quality is highlighted with Streep's subdued acting while trying to find out about Hoffman's possible indiscretions with a young boy. She adheres to the rules and would never accuse someone of anything without being absolutely sure. The main theme of Doubt can be seen in Streep's inner turmoil as she struggles with believing the priest could do such a thing and then how she can help the church/get rid of Hoffman. Her doubt and eventual realization are a real treat to watch her explore on screen and makes for a very nuanced and great performance.
I wouldn't exactly say this is a strong group, at least in my opinion. Streep delivers yet another great performance and would have been my winner. However, as far as Streep performances go, I don't think this one is as strong as she has shown in the past. I think Leo's performance was hampered by a script and director that never found their voice. Hathaway gave a strong performance that really didn't get me all that excited for her to be included, but at least it seems the Academy was able to take some chances on the two actresses. Which I think is key for years like this where no one really stands out as the best and there is no sure thing front runner. I also can't help but think that Jolie's nomination and Winslet's win were due to producers or studio heads who campaigned for them. Jolie's inclusion has me scratching my head because I didn't think there was anything noteworthy about it and I feel Winslet's win may be because of the Weinstein effect and possibly her having 2 performances that could have made the Best Actress list and was thus a win for the 2 combined. Really it was a less than stellar group that I'm glad to be finally done with!
Oscar Winner: Kate Winslet - The Reader
My Winner: Meryl Streep - Doubt
Melissa Leo
Anne Hathaway
Kate Winslet
Angelina Jolie
2008 Best Actress
Kate Winslet - The Reader
Let's start with the fact that the first half of this film is mostly an adolescent German skin flick. Winslet is naked for most of the first third of the film and there is really no character development besides that she's a bossy, illiterate, Nazi. And that is the big revelation for the movie. Winslet and her boy toy have a tumultuous love affair that ends abruptly and then we see how Michael deals with it in the subsequent years. However, he never fully heals and eventually witnesses his lover on trial for war crimes and then can't function normally as a man. For Winslet, she succeeds in the beginning of the film when she is able to portray a woman who wants to be loved but is unable to give love in return. When they boy wants to love her she rebels and comes up with excuses that allows her to remain aloof and disconnected. Eventually she is put on trial and turns into an old lady. However, I hate her expression of surprise and shock. Her breathy gasps and wide eyed look is quite annoying and that may be superficial but Winslet's character never seems to get past that superficial phase for me, especially towards the end of the film. She plays the serious part a little too serious.
Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married
This film felt like a coming out party for Hathaway. After years of toiling in Disney movies, the role of Kym gave her a performance she could sink her teeth into. And sink her teeth into she did. Playing Kym, a recovering addict who has spent the last 9 months in rehab who has come home to be there for her sister's wedding, the character almost allows for Hathaway to indulge in a bit of overacting. There are definite times where her neurotic, chain smoking, talkative, sarcastic yet sincere look-at-me persona should be toned down and becomes more grating than adding anything to story. The film itself tackles how dysfunctional a family can be while still remaining a close family. Kym can't stand that her sister Rachel is getting all of the attention and so there are a lot of moments where Hathaway whines, pouts, acts inappropriately, and generally causes chaos. What makes Hathaway's performance compelling and worthy of attention is that she is able to not get caught up in the moment and chew the scenery every time she's on camera. You can really see the transition to becoming a serious actress for Hathaway in this strong performance.
Angelina Jolie - Changeling
No subtlety, no depth, it's a superficial portrayal that does nothing to rescue a sub par script and it becomes very evident that Jolie's performance is wholly a one-note thing betrayed by Eastwood's directing ability. It's a supremely average take on a woman whose son was taken from her only to have a boy thrust on her by the LAPD who wasn't her son. It's a performance that offers little nuance, little believability. Some of the more compelling parts of the film are when Jolie isn't even in them, not to say this film is in anyway good, however. Amy Ryan actually outshines Jolie as a psychiatric patient in my opinion and I can't help but think that if this film focused on the murder portion of Jolie's son and the serial killer angle that maybe, just maybe, the film would have worked far better and Jolie's effort would have been rewarded in the Supporting Actress category instead. Focusing on her makes me wonder why the Academy sought to reward such a mediocre performance with a nomination until one looks at the 2008 class as a whole....not much there unfortunately.
Melissa Leo - Frozen River
This is a very gritty, non-glamorous role that Leo gives her all in. She brings a humanistic quality to Ray Eddy, a mother of two that is doing everything she can to provide for her kids and survive on the border with Canada. The performance is very real and authentic and I can easily see Leo as this mother who eventually finds herself smuggling humans into the US as one of her last options of maintaining a somewhat normal life. She's a good person deep down and even throws out a Pakistani's duffel bag because she thinks it could have poison gas (not realizing what was actually inside) and she stands up for herself and her Native American partner when they are being short changed. However, there are a few scenes where the writing and directing don't allow Leo to give her best and it ultimately keeps this film from becoming anything more than the low budget, first time directing piece it really is. When Leo is able to showcase her talents, she is really something to see but unfortunately through no fault of her own, the viewer isn't able to witness this from start to finish.
Meryl Streep - Doubt
Another year, another solid Streep performance. I'd be annoyed if her 16 nominations and counting were mostly based off reputation, but she turns in fantastic performances with regularity and maybe that expectation keeps her from actually winning more than 2 awards. As if the Academy and the voters acknowledge her ability without really looking at her performances as anything more than just another Streep nomination before handing the award to someone else. In saying that, her performance in Doubt as a headmaster at a Catholic school is a really solid and fantastic turn. I really can believe Streep could be an old crotchety, nun/principal that is a stickler for the rules. This quality is highlighted with Streep's subdued acting while trying to find out about Hoffman's possible indiscretions with a young boy. She adheres to the rules and would never accuse someone of anything without being absolutely sure. The main theme of Doubt can be seen in Streep's inner turmoil as she struggles with believing the priest could do such a thing and then how she can help the church/get rid of Hoffman. Her doubt and eventual realization are a real treat to watch her explore on screen and makes for a very nuanced and great performance.
I wouldn't exactly say this is a strong group, at least in my opinion. Streep delivers yet another great performance and would have been my winner. However, as far as Streep performances go, I don't think this one is as strong as she has shown in the past. I think Leo's performance was hampered by a script and director that never found their voice. Hathaway gave a strong performance that really didn't get me all that excited for her to be included, but at least it seems the Academy was able to take some chances on the two actresses. Which I think is key for years like this where no one really stands out as the best and there is no sure thing front runner. I also can't help but think that Jolie's nomination and Winslet's win were due to producers or studio heads who campaigned for them. Jolie's inclusion has me scratching my head because I didn't think there was anything noteworthy about it and I feel Winslet's win may be because of the Weinstein effect and possibly her having 2 performances that could have made the Best Actress list and was thus a win for the 2 combined. Really it was a less than stellar group that I'm glad to be finally done with!
Oscar Winner: Kate Winslet - The Reader
My Winner: Meryl Streep - Doubt
Melissa Leo
Anne Hathaway
Kate Winslet
Angelina Jolie
Friday, December 9, 2011
Supporting Actor 2008
I actually had written a very long and very awesome post here already that I was very proud of, but like an idiot I accidentally deleted the whole thing right before I finished it. Suffice to say I was beyond pissed at myself. And it unfortunately cooled my zeal to write again for awhile since I knew it would be really difficult to re-write everything I had already spent a good deal of time on and capture exactly what I was thinking after watching these movies. So in saying all that, I don't think this post will be my best unfortunately and I do apologize for that.
When I did finally come to this group, I was beyond excited since I had already seen 4 of the 5 films and loved them all. Knowing I'd get to watch them all over again and write good things instead of criticism really had me pumped to do this one. Micheal Shannon's inclusion was the wild card for me. I wasn't sure what to expect out of his performance but was hoping he would make it a perfect 5 for 5 in great nominations. I definitely already know that Ledger's performance will be my favorite, though. I think I will try a more direct approach that's less flowery than I how normally write since I don't want to try to re-write word for word what I already wrote.
2008 Best Supporting Actor
Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
I just want to say, this is the quintessential Joker ever for me, in any medium. I've read in some places that people feel this was a sympathy award for Ledger, but I frankly feel that is pretty insulting to the performance he made. It's an instant classic and is nothing short of brilliant, captivating, gripping, memorable, and downright mesmerizing. When the Joker is on screen, you can't look away because you don't want to miss a second of his twisted and demented actions, even if you've seen the film 20 times. That's how great Ledger's performance is. It goes way beyond just a comic book character and even further beyond being just another caricature of a zany, kooky Joker. It's real, it's gritty, it's powerful. He's an amoral psychopath that seems like he has a plan to plague Gotham and hound the Batman but you soon realize he really has no plan and essentially makes things up as he goes along. He is not concerned about money or power per se, more about just causing mayhem and chaos in a world that is there for the Joker to bend to his will. The Joker comes off in a very controlled crazy way and there's many scenes where Ledger expertly teeters on the edge of sanity/insanity. In one scene the Joker can play either side of this line and it never feels too over-the-top or uncontrolled. Even the movements of the Joker factor into how creepy and psychotic he can be. The way Ledger moves quickly when he walks, smacks his lips when he's annoyed, the sometimes rhythmic cadence of his speech, the intensity of someone determined to bring the Batman to his level...all make for one of the greatest performances of all time.
Josh Brolin - Milk
Brolin does a great job in working under the confines of his character. From the beginning when we first meet Brolin's character, we instantly get the feeling we won't like him as the film progresses. The audience is able to see through his thinly veiled good guy persona and see the bubbling animosity underneath. He's a fearful individual who feels he's being demeaned which really sets him off and pushes him towards the edge and possibly over. Brolin has very few scenes in which to transform from family man to cold blooded killer but he does a great job in selling us the abrupt change in personality. The viewer never feels comfortable with Dan White on screen which is a testament to the script and Brolin's acting ability. It's an arresting performance of a chilling character.
Robert Downey, Jr. - Tropic Thunder
Good for the Academy in recognizing a comedic role in having more than just the ability to make us laugh. This is what is at the heart of Downey's portrayal of an Australian method actor who churns out Oscars that actually undergoes a skin pigmentation to play the role of a black Vietnam War soldier. There is no doubt that Downey can easily make us laugh in this movie with his great one-liners and over-the-top accent. But he also succeeds in making this role more than just a caricature of blacks and gives is some pretty remarkable depth. He lampoons not only those actors who submerge themselves into the roles they get in hopes of awards but also the hypocrisy of non-minorities receiving roles meant for minorities. Downey also treats the racial aspect of the role with some very deft handling by having Kirk Lazarus come off very sincere in playing a black man and trying to avoid stereotyping himself too much. Of course, we also laugh hard when he sometimes fails to realize how far he has or hasn't gone in his method acting, too. What was so great about this performance for me was that Downey really avoided making the role offensive or even come off like a white guy trying to be black and it totally worked.
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Doubt
I'm amazed that this film was able to garner 4 acting nominations while not being nominated for Best Picture. A great reason why I love the decision to increase the nominees for that category. Hoffman plays this role of a Catholic priest perfectly. It's such a joy to watch him match wits against Streep in this film that lives up to it's name. As much as we doubt Hoffman's innocence every time Streep's character seems to think he is guilty of corrupting the only black kid in the school and acting inappropriately, possibly sexually, with him, we also doubt whether or not we believe Streep when Hoffman and the two cross paths multiple times. Hoffman is able to portray his character as the beloved priest that is only helping a disturbed young boy and mentoring him after hours. We never really know which side to believe, the loved priest who is looking to modernize his parish or the smarmy, quick tempered, power monger who preys on the young boys. This is all due to how effortlessly Hoffman can change from one persona to the next which leaves the audience unsure of what is truly going on in this church. The believability of Hoffman in this role speaks to his acting prowess.
Michael Shannon - Revolutionary Road
I had no idea what to expect from Shannon in this role as I didn't know much about him or what he was capable of besides his awesome work in Boardwalk Empire. I'll admit I was sorta expecting to be letdown but am glad to state that wasn't the case. This is a powerful performance that blew me away because Shannon steals the two short scenes he's in (maybe 10 minutes total in the film) and really saves the movie from itself. And this is pretty incredible since DiCaprio, Winslet, and Kathy Bates were all in the scenes with Shannon. I loved this role because it really grounds the two main characters in reality as Shannon's just released from a psychiatric hospital character delivers the caustic truth and is able to sense all the lies and BS that's floating around and call it all out without caring about pretenses or decorum. He's a kind of controlled crazy that is very refreshing. You can tell he's still somewhat normal but is able to use his "illness" as a way to say whatever he wants, which in turn makes everyone else seem crazy for trying to lead normal lives while hiding all their demons. A masterful performance that kept this move from caving in under it's own self importance.
I am really surprised that the Academy got this group so damn right. Every performance is amazing and Ledger absolutely earned his posthumous win. It was actually only the second posthumous award ever presented and the first in the Supporting Actor category. It was also fantastic to see the Academy reward a comedic performance since I know those have been few and far between in the later years of the Oscars. I would have been happy to see Downey win if Ledger's Joker hadn't been such an instant classic. Shannon's performance really surprised the hell out of me in how much I actually liked it. I thought it would easily be 5th out of the 5 but felt it was powerful enough to be right in the middle of them. Brolin and Hoffman could have easily won this award if they had been nominated in any other year, which says a lot about how strong this group really was. This is the reason I decided to start this blog; to find these amazing groups and see how often the Academy really got things right.
Oscar Winner: Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
My Winner: Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
Robert Downey, Jr.
Michael Shannon
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Josh Brolin
When I did finally come to this group, I was beyond excited since I had already seen 4 of the 5 films and loved them all. Knowing I'd get to watch them all over again and write good things instead of criticism really had me pumped to do this one. Micheal Shannon's inclusion was the wild card for me. I wasn't sure what to expect out of his performance but was hoping he would make it a perfect 5 for 5 in great nominations. I definitely already know that Ledger's performance will be my favorite, though. I think I will try a more direct approach that's less flowery than I how normally write since I don't want to try to re-write word for word what I already wrote.
2008 Best Supporting Actor
Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
I just want to say, this is the quintessential Joker ever for me, in any medium. I've read in some places that people feel this was a sympathy award for Ledger, but I frankly feel that is pretty insulting to the performance he made. It's an instant classic and is nothing short of brilliant, captivating, gripping, memorable, and downright mesmerizing. When the Joker is on screen, you can't look away because you don't want to miss a second of his twisted and demented actions, even if you've seen the film 20 times. That's how great Ledger's performance is. It goes way beyond just a comic book character and even further beyond being just another caricature of a zany, kooky Joker. It's real, it's gritty, it's powerful. He's an amoral psychopath that seems like he has a plan to plague Gotham and hound the Batman but you soon realize he really has no plan and essentially makes things up as he goes along. He is not concerned about money or power per se, more about just causing mayhem and chaos in a world that is there for the Joker to bend to his will. The Joker comes off in a very controlled crazy way and there's many scenes where Ledger expertly teeters on the edge of sanity/insanity. In one scene the Joker can play either side of this line and it never feels too over-the-top or uncontrolled. Even the movements of the Joker factor into how creepy and psychotic he can be. The way Ledger moves quickly when he walks, smacks his lips when he's annoyed, the sometimes rhythmic cadence of his speech, the intensity of someone determined to bring the Batman to his level...all make for one of the greatest performances of all time.
Josh Brolin - Milk
Brolin does a great job in working under the confines of his character. From the beginning when we first meet Brolin's character, we instantly get the feeling we won't like him as the film progresses. The audience is able to see through his thinly veiled good guy persona and see the bubbling animosity underneath. He's a fearful individual who feels he's being demeaned which really sets him off and pushes him towards the edge and possibly over. Brolin has very few scenes in which to transform from family man to cold blooded killer but he does a great job in selling us the abrupt change in personality. The viewer never feels comfortable with Dan White on screen which is a testament to the script and Brolin's acting ability. It's an arresting performance of a chilling character.
Robert Downey, Jr. - Tropic Thunder
Good for the Academy in recognizing a comedic role in having more than just the ability to make us laugh. This is what is at the heart of Downey's portrayal of an Australian method actor who churns out Oscars that actually undergoes a skin pigmentation to play the role of a black Vietnam War soldier. There is no doubt that Downey can easily make us laugh in this movie with his great one-liners and over-the-top accent. But he also succeeds in making this role more than just a caricature of blacks and gives is some pretty remarkable depth. He lampoons not only those actors who submerge themselves into the roles they get in hopes of awards but also the hypocrisy of non-minorities receiving roles meant for minorities. Downey also treats the racial aspect of the role with some very deft handling by having Kirk Lazarus come off very sincere in playing a black man and trying to avoid stereotyping himself too much. Of course, we also laugh hard when he sometimes fails to realize how far he has or hasn't gone in his method acting, too. What was so great about this performance for me was that Downey really avoided making the role offensive or even come off like a white guy trying to be black and it totally worked.
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Doubt
I'm amazed that this film was able to garner 4 acting nominations while not being nominated for Best Picture. A great reason why I love the decision to increase the nominees for that category. Hoffman plays this role of a Catholic priest perfectly. It's such a joy to watch him match wits against Streep in this film that lives up to it's name. As much as we doubt Hoffman's innocence every time Streep's character seems to think he is guilty of corrupting the only black kid in the school and acting inappropriately, possibly sexually, with him, we also doubt whether or not we believe Streep when Hoffman and the two cross paths multiple times. Hoffman is able to portray his character as the beloved priest that is only helping a disturbed young boy and mentoring him after hours. We never really know which side to believe, the loved priest who is looking to modernize his parish or the smarmy, quick tempered, power monger who preys on the young boys. This is all due to how effortlessly Hoffman can change from one persona to the next which leaves the audience unsure of what is truly going on in this church. The believability of Hoffman in this role speaks to his acting prowess.
Michael Shannon - Revolutionary Road
I had no idea what to expect from Shannon in this role as I didn't know much about him or what he was capable of besides his awesome work in Boardwalk Empire. I'll admit I was sorta expecting to be letdown but am glad to state that wasn't the case. This is a powerful performance that blew me away because Shannon steals the two short scenes he's in (maybe 10 minutes total in the film) and really saves the movie from itself. And this is pretty incredible since DiCaprio, Winslet, and Kathy Bates were all in the scenes with Shannon. I loved this role because it really grounds the two main characters in reality as Shannon's just released from a psychiatric hospital character delivers the caustic truth and is able to sense all the lies and BS that's floating around and call it all out without caring about pretenses or decorum. He's a kind of controlled crazy that is very refreshing. You can tell he's still somewhat normal but is able to use his "illness" as a way to say whatever he wants, which in turn makes everyone else seem crazy for trying to lead normal lives while hiding all their demons. A masterful performance that kept this move from caving in under it's own self importance.
I am really surprised that the Academy got this group so damn right. Every performance is amazing and Ledger absolutely earned his posthumous win. It was actually only the second posthumous award ever presented and the first in the Supporting Actor category. It was also fantastic to see the Academy reward a comedic performance since I know those have been few and far between in the later years of the Oscars. I would have been happy to see Downey win if Ledger's Joker hadn't been such an instant classic. Shannon's performance really surprised the hell out of me in how much I actually liked it. I thought it would easily be 5th out of the 5 but felt it was powerful enough to be right in the middle of them. Brolin and Hoffman could have easily won this award if they had been nominated in any other year, which says a lot about how strong this group really was. This is the reason I decided to start this blog; to find these amazing groups and see how often the Academy really got things right.
Oscar Winner: Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
My Winner: Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
Robert Downey, Jr.
Michael Shannon
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Josh Brolin
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Supporting Actress 2008
I am back! And hopefully writing these reviews with some regularity now. Playoff hockey is gone (but a new season has arrived) and my infatuation with Netflix has since waned. This year's crop of supporting actresses only gave me one movie to watch that I haven't seen which means I pretty much know what my order of liking these roles will be (and that is somewhat anti-climactic for me). Hopefully I don't have too much rust to knock off while writing these. Enjoy!
2008 Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona
I must say I expected a lot more out of this performance. It was decent, sure, but I'm not sold on it being Oscar worthy. Cruz's character does breathe some life into this incredibly cliche and stale movie but I also felt her character suffered from being built from a very worn out mold. She was the only thing that actually felt real and authentic about this film due to the fiery passion she exudes while onscreen. But like every other character in this movie, she is a cookie cutter representation of what Allen thinks of, in this case, a Spanish woman is. Meaning she is loud, emotional, violent, fiery, and irrational. This does help break up the monotony of the movie at times and Cruz deftly portrays her character without it seeming too much like a cliche. I just don't think even Cruz's best can elevate this role to anything more than a decent portrayal of a terrible character.
Amy Adams - Doubt
This is the type of role that suits Adams perfectly and I feel she is at her best in these innocent, almost precocious, performances. In Doubt, she does a great job of doing what is required of her character. Her role is essentially to be the go-between for Streep and Hoffman's characters. It is almost like Adams' character is just like the audience: being preyed on and plied by the other two characters so that she'll believe their version of events surrounding the boy and his troubles. For this reason, I feel Adams becomes mostly a blank canvas on which anyone to paint what they want (including the director) and getting the audience to feel a certain way thus making her performance hit without any real effect. Adams does well with what she is given but ultimately cannot elevate it into something other than a vessel to move scenes along.
Viola Davis - Doubt
I think Davis' performance really encapsulates what Doubt is all about. In her very brief role, she is able to further make the audience doubt not only whether or not her son is being abused by the priest, but if it is even a good thing to try and punish the priest which would surely bring to light the boy's actions in a negative way. It makes one wonder if Davis is a good mother protecting her son or a careless mother more concerned about not getting involved in any kind of drama at the school. At first, I wasn't exactly wowed by this performance but the more I thought about it, the more it seemed to capture the movie's point. Davis conveys a lot of different emotions in her very short scene and all of them while remaining very collected and deliberate in her words. It's a powerful performance that really takes the movie to another level.
Taraji P. Henson - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
This nomination felt like it rode the Benjamin Button wave in making its way on this list, since that movie had the most nominations this year. When I was trying to remember anything interesting or memorable about this role before I re-watched it, I honestly could not remember anything about it besides she was the one who raised Brad Pitt's character. Henson does a decent enough job of portraying the caring mother figure, but it just never stood out past the supporting role it is. She makes the relationship between Pitt and herself seem very genuine but I feel that any other actress could have produced the same result. And I'm not so sure one of the other supporting actresses in this movie (Swinton, Blanchett, etc.) couldn't have easily taken her place here.
Marisa Tomei - The Wrestler
One thing is obvious about this film from the start, Mickey Rourke gives an amazing and powerful performance as an aging pro wrestler. Marisa Tomei's character, however, really helps to humanize the larger-than-life Randy "The Ram" Robinson persona. Her character is somewhat vulnerable herself as an aging stripper and Randy mistakes her trying to make a buck for actual friendliness. Tomei displays such a depth to this character when she agrees to help him buy a gift for his estranged daughter and they end up having a good time together. When Tomei's character realizes she is letting a client get close to her and that she is letting her own personal guard down, she takes off. The next meeting is tempestuous at best and it is clear she is conflicted inside about being a stripper and a friend to Randy. Tomei really balances playing Rourke's emotional outlet with maintaining her need to make money very delicately and is what makes this a strong performance.
This was a very interesting group to me. The performances all seemed to be of the same sort of caliber, so to speak, as nothing really stood head and shoulders above the rest. Viola Davis' performance really shocked me because on my first watch, I was really perturbed to find out such a short role was nominated and thought it had to be one of those Oscar token nominations given to someone for their past body of work. So I think re-watching these films and doing this blog has really helped me to see things a different way than I'm used to and it's pretty awesome to be able to say that. I like to think I don't pretend to get things or not get things just because it's the trendy thing to do and I definitely don't try to be "deep" with my choices in hopes of someone somewhere thinking I'm really smart or hip. I just really enjoyed her performance as much as that surprised me. Honestly, the other four nominations could easily be arranged in any order and I wouldn't fight too hard for a performance to go either way. I knew what to expect already from Tomei, Adams, and Henson and was somewhat annoyed that Cruz wasn't as amazing as I thought (and was led to believe by many Woody Allen lovers that that hide as film critics) she was going to be in a Woody Allen movie, which was my first by the way. Another one of the things I can continue to look forward to as I work backwards is finally seeing movies and directors I've heard about for ages but have never seen. Anyway, that was way longer than I intended but I'm definitely glad to be back writing and excited for such a great Supporting Actor group to come!
Oscar Winner: Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona
My Winner: Viola Davis - Doubt
Marisa Tomei
Amy Adams
Penelope Cruz
Taraji P. Henson
2008 Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona
I must say I expected a lot more out of this performance. It was decent, sure, but I'm not sold on it being Oscar worthy. Cruz's character does breathe some life into this incredibly cliche and stale movie but I also felt her character suffered from being built from a very worn out mold. She was the only thing that actually felt real and authentic about this film due to the fiery passion she exudes while onscreen. But like every other character in this movie, she is a cookie cutter representation of what Allen thinks of, in this case, a Spanish woman is. Meaning she is loud, emotional, violent, fiery, and irrational. This does help break up the monotony of the movie at times and Cruz deftly portrays her character without it seeming too much like a cliche. I just don't think even Cruz's best can elevate this role to anything more than a decent portrayal of a terrible character.
Amy Adams - Doubt
This is the type of role that suits Adams perfectly and I feel she is at her best in these innocent, almost precocious, performances. In Doubt, she does a great job of doing what is required of her character. Her role is essentially to be the go-between for Streep and Hoffman's characters. It is almost like Adams' character is just like the audience: being preyed on and plied by the other two characters so that she'll believe their version of events surrounding the boy and his troubles. For this reason, I feel Adams becomes mostly a blank canvas on which anyone to paint what they want (including the director) and getting the audience to feel a certain way thus making her performance hit without any real effect. Adams does well with what she is given but ultimately cannot elevate it into something other than a vessel to move scenes along.
Viola Davis - Doubt
I think Davis' performance really encapsulates what Doubt is all about. In her very brief role, she is able to further make the audience doubt not only whether or not her son is being abused by the priest, but if it is even a good thing to try and punish the priest which would surely bring to light the boy's actions in a negative way. It makes one wonder if Davis is a good mother protecting her son or a careless mother more concerned about not getting involved in any kind of drama at the school. At first, I wasn't exactly wowed by this performance but the more I thought about it, the more it seemed to capture the movie's point. Davis conveys a lot of different emotions in her very short scene and all of them while remaining very collected and deliberate in her words. It's a powerful performance that really takes the movie to another level.
Taraji P. Henson - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
This nomination felt like it rode the Benjamin Button wave in making its way on this list, since that movie had the most nominations this year. When I was trying to remember anything interesting or memorable about this role before I re-watched it, I honestly could not remember anything about it besides she was the one who raised Brad Pitt's character. Henson does a decent enough job of portraying the caring mother figure, but it just never stood out past the supporting role it is. She makes the relationship between Pitt and herself seem very genuine but I feel that any other actress could have produced the same result. And I'm not so sure one of the other supporting actresses in this movie (Swinton, Blanchett, etc.) couldn't have easily taken her place here.
Marisa Tomei - The Wrestler
One thing is obvious about this film from the start, Mickey Rourke gives an amazing and powerful performance as an aging pro wrestler. Marisa Tomei's character, however, really helps to humanize the larger-than-life Randy "The Ram" Robinson persona. Her character is somewhat vulnerable herself as an aging stripper and Randy mistakes her trying to make a buck for actual friendliness. Tomei displays such a depth to this character when she agrees to help him buy a gift for his estranged daughter and they end up having a good time together. When Tomei's character realizes she is letting a client get close to her and that she is letting her own personal guard down, she takes off. The next meeting is tempestuous at best and it is clear she is conflicted inside about being a stripper and a friend to Randy. Tomei really balances playing Rourke's emotional outlet with maintaining her need to make money very delicately and is what makes this a strong performance.
This was a very interesting group to me. The performances all seemed to be of the same sort of caliber, so to speak, as nothing really stood head and shoulders above the rest. Viola Davis' performance really shocked me because on my first watch, I was really perturbed to find out such a short role was nominated and thought it had to be one of those Oscar token nominations given to someone for their past body of work. So I think re-watching these films and doing this blog has really helped me to see things a different way than I'm used to and it's pretty awesome to be able to say that. I like to think I don't pretend to get things or not get things just because it's the trendy thing to do and I definitely don't try to be "deep" with my choices in hopes of someone somewhere thinking I'm really smart or hip. I just really enjoyed her performance as much as that surprised me. Honestly, the other four nominations could easily be arranged in any order and I wouldn't fight too hard for a performance to go either way. I knew what to expect already from Tomei, Adams, and Henson and was somewhat annoyed that Cruz wasn't as amazing as I thought (and was led to believe by many Woody Allen lovers that that hide as film critics) she was going to be in a Woody Allen movie, which was my first by the way. Another one of the things I can continue to look forward to as I work backwards is finally seeing movies and directors I've heard about for ages but have never seen. Anyway, that was way longer than I intended but I'm definitely glad to be back writing and excited for such a great Supporting Actor group to come!
Oscar Winner: Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona
My Winner: Viola Davis - Doubt
Marisa Tomei
Amy Adams
Penelope Cruz
Taraji P. Henson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)