Even though I haven't seen 3 of these performances yet, I'm not all
that excited by the choices. Hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised and
enjoy a banner year like the rest of the categories. However, I am
worried that this category might drag on if the films themselves turn
out to be boring - which I know isn't very fair to say - but none of
these stand out like in the other categories. I will keep an open mind,
though, since that's what this project is all about!
2006 Best Actress
Helen Mirren - The Queen
Even though she plays The Queen and is the main focus of the film, Mirren at times seems to try to purposefully lose herself in the background to show just how stoic and reserved Queen Elizabeth actually is. It's a remarkable way to present her character and while it's near impossible to achieve we can understand the idea that Mirren is going for. She's a woman that has years of expectations, policy, and breeding that forms her royal visage and outlook. It has not prepared her well for the modern world that confronts her when Diana dies and her nation and people expect her to treat Diana as one of her own. She is out of touch with the public and she comes off so cold. But eventually she realizes she must adapt to an ever changing world and not the other way around. Mirren keeps the reserved Queen Elizabeth as still being reserved in her performance and refrains from any over the top moments that most biopics seem to demand. I feel that Mirren's performance would have been easily lost if she went full Oscar bait-y, so the subtlety she exhibits is absolutely refreshing here. Mirren is methodical, deliberate, and fascinating to watch not only as Queen Elizabeth but as an Actress in general and her win here comes as no surprise.
Penelope Cruz - Volver
Here's a pro tip: don't try to watch a 2 hour, subtitled foreign film with an actress you generally don't care for after a night of drinking because it's going to be super confusing and the subtitles are going to seem to go by way too fast. On my second attempt, I was able to cogently follow the plot and subtitles and actually review Cruz's performance (amazing how that works out!). Cruz is actually pretty good in this film, much to my surprise. The film itself is a bit weird until the ending where all was revealed. I'm not sure how it would have played over here but it definitely felt like more of a Spanish concept than anything. Back to Cruz, who I wasn't rooting against by the way, she scales back the Spanish sass and big acting to deliver something more universal and calmer. A couple of the actresses in this film were on par with Cruz but they had more supporting roles so Cruz gets the nod here. It's not exactly a powerhouse performance and doesn't overly wow us but we can understand why exactly she's an international star besides her good looks. That's to say, for me, Cruz isn't the standout, just one of the key parts to a great ensemble. What I especially liked is that Cruz finally looked natural in a movie of hers that I've seen. Acting in her native tongue, in a film who's story probably connects a bit more personally than say her work with Woody Allen, really let's her shine - even if it's not as bright here as others seems to think. I look forward to seeing more of her earlier work outside of Hollywood to see just how good an actress she really is.
Judi Dench - Notes on a Scandal
Within the first few minutes of watching this movie, you can tell that Dench is pumping life into every scene. She does a very convincing job as the old, academic spinster who is super nosy about all the goings on in her school. She's a lesbian (we assume, anyway) and grows to like Cate Blanchett's character, almost obsessively so. What I do love is how she narrates like the history teacher she is. It might be missed by most but it's as if she's recounting the events for some history textbook. She's almost like a Hitchcockian character who sees a potential victim. She obsesses over Sheba to the point where she overlooks Sheba's indiscretion with a student in hopes that it will bring her closer to Dench. Dench turns into almost a horror figure by turning into the neighbor that peers through the blinds and knows everything about your secrets. She obsesses over women she meets that are friendly to her and begins these delusional relationships in her head, concocting absurd ways to trick them into being with her. You half expect Dench to kill Blanchett in the end to complete the character arc. The movie itself isn't very good and tries to be many different things that it most certainly is not. Dench is able to overcome that through her star power alone and delivers something interesting despite the missteps of the rest of the film.
Meryl Streep - The Devil Wears Prada
Another year, another iconic character created by Meryl Streep. This time we get Miranda Priestly, the head of a fashion magazine who is ice cold and razor sharp. She is the titular Devil in the film's title and she certainly plays her role as if she has sold her soul. Meryl is acting royalty and here she plays fashion royalty and is the complete opposite of her real world self. If Priestly was how Streep acted in real life, I don't think many people would bat an eyelash since she is widely considered the greatest living actress today. Streep is in absolute command of her craft here. Her calm, whispered speech belies her ruthless, relentless demeanor. Her performance is both loud and not loud at the same time. It's subdued but Streep has the natural gravitas to take over every scene she's in without overacting. It's quite wonderful to watch her work because it's so methodical and deliberate that it's like watching an acting class. I found myself wishing Anne Hathaway (Oscar winner! blech) would get off the screen so I could see more of Streep and Stanley Tucci. Streep is every adjective in the book that you can throw at her and this performance doesn't let us down whatsoever. That's all.
Kate Winslet - Little Children
Sitting here trying to come up with what to write about Winslet's performance and all I can think of is that yup, this was a Kate Winslet performance. She just consistently pumps out these roles with a seeming effortlessness because they are never bad and always nominated. Maybe she gets nominated for her name at times more than for her efforts and maybe because she's so beloved that her work is trumpeted to be more amazing than it really is. So that's why I sit here trying to figure out what to write. Her role here as a bored mother and housewife longing for some adventure and excitement in all areas of her life doesn't seem too far fetched from what we might think the real Winslet could be like. Meaning her performance does indeed seem natural, if a little too easy. I'm sure the performance hit home for many of the women who watched it. What I really didn't like about her character was how she was in such a loveless marriage that instead of divorcing her husband and allowing herself to be free to have an actual life she enjoyed, she just maintained the status quo which is I guess more true to life. Yes, she had an affair and wanted to run away from her life with the guy, but it just seemed more like a mid life crisis than a real life changing event. That her character might have run away for 2 weeks or so before limping back to her boring life seemed likely. Winslet does a good enough job of showing the complexities of going after something forbidden while wrestling with the notion of whether to stay or go. For me, this is a typical Kate Winslet performance: above average and workman-like.
Best Actress continues it's (backwards for me) trend of being good, but not great. All of these women have been nominated multiple times (though Cruz would later score 2 more, winning 1 Oscar, after this her first nomination) and as such is an incredibly experienced group. All of them are also winners, which I imagine is somewhat of a rare feat in itself. Cruz was only the second Spanish woman to be nominated for this category which seems a little surprising to me. It almost feels as if during these few years, these women (minus Cruz) took turns winning Oscars and being nominated. Which I think says a lot about how strong they are as actresses but also that the Academy likes going back to the same few women and not leaving their comfort zones. Because there are certainly other great female performances that seem to get overlooked. There are no bad performances in this group. I think Winslet's is the weakest and probably could have been replaced with someone else since it just didn't do much for me. Then I think you could say the other 4 women are about equal in my estimation. Dench played a different character than I'm used to for her and was good. I'd give a slight edge to Cruz who absolutely convinced me there is more to her acting abilities. It's a toss up between Streep and Mirren so I'd go with the Academy here. I'm sure by the time I get through all of Streep's nominations, I'll have given her about 10 Oscars anyway. No one stood head and shoulders above the rest which hopefully becomes less and less true as I go back in time because I'm really wanting to be wowed by this category!
Oscar Winner: Helen Mirren - The Queen
My Winner: Helen Mirren - The Queen
Meryl Streep
Penelope Cruz
Judi Dench
Kate Winslet
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Supporting Actor 2006
This category always seems to be full of great performances. I'm excited to go back and watch a few of these, since it's been years since I've seen them. I remember them all being worthy of being included here so let's see how they stand up 7 years later.
2006 Best Supporting Actor
Alan Arkin - Little Miss Sunshine
This is one of those wins where after you watch the performance you have to wonder why exactly it won over the others, which isn't to put down what Arkin did at all. Arkin is pretty funny in his role of the wild and crass grandfather but it's also pretty short. He cracks some jokes, encourages his granddaughter to be herself, and then goes away. His character is important for helping to foster Breslin's character's independence and joie de vivre and after he's gone we miss his sarcastic, biting, caustic wit which probably would have made the ending even better. It's a good performance and fits the tone of the movie perfectly but I almost feel like Steve Carell (a mostly unknown at the time the film was made) gave a more satisfying performance and showed great range. I love that a comedic performance won but it also seems like maybe the Academy wanted to reward and honor Arkin's career thinking they wouldn't get another chance. Little did they know he would be nominated again for a very similar role in Argo at the 2013 Oscars - one where he was considered a front runner at times in a wide open race. I know many people wanted Eddie Murphy to win here but I have no issue with this win. Arkin does a solid job - I only wish we could have seen more from his character.
Jackie Earle Haley - Little Children
Jackie Earle Haley is perfect for this role just by looks alone. He's gaunt, creepy, and weird looking which suits a man who has been convicted of exposing himself to a minor. He's a man fighting his demons and who let's them win every now and then. The ending of this film is similar to Blanchett's ending yet we fully believe in Haley's version. His anguish and heartache is real. The boiling over of emotions is natural given the circumstances and we are saddened by the ending because Haley has made his character human no matter the fact that he's a convicted sex offender. We understand that he's a man struggling within the world and we openly root for him and hope he finds peace just like his mother does. Sure the director molds our perception of Haley's character with the way he and his mother are treated by their neighborhood but Haley deftly portrays all the subtleties necessary of a man at odds with his self. He wants to do right by his mother and not give in to his urges and try to live a normal life, but people won't let him move on so he's constantly aware of his past troubles. That would be draining on anyone and Haley wears that on his face without being over the top. The director does nothing to try and convince us that Haley is anything but a creep, Haley's acting is what makes us equivocate. It's a powerful performance that almost endears a sexual deviant to the audience - which is no small feat.
Djimon Hounsou - Blood Diamond
Hounsou plays a stock role of the noble, yet suffering African caught up in a civil war where more stock roles of vicious and violent Africans rape and pillage the land under the guise of rebellion/revolution while stock roles of white men take advantage of these other two for profit and, here, diamonds. You can't really fault Hounsou here for trying his best given what he has to work with. He can't write the role for himself so we are stuck with an action/adventure story where Hounsou can show off his muscles as he tries to rescue his son while running all over Sierra Leone with DiCaprio in tow. There are some dramatic moments where we can see bits and pieces of just how good Hounsou can act if only he were given the chance but those are very few and far between. He's more than capable in an action role and approaches it with plenty of aplomb. Ultimately, he's underused here and comes off as the token African along for the ride as the stale white relationship tries to convince us it's something more. Hounsou deserves better from the script but I don't think we would have gotten much more out of it to be honest.
Eddie Murphy - Dreamgirls
Murphy was widely believed to be THE front runner in this category by many critics and Oscar pundits. A lot of people thought his win was merely a formality, as much for his amazing work in Dreamgirls as for his comedic past. That of course didn't happen. And looking back, that's kind of an unfortunate thing since Murphy owned this character. I couldn't get enough of his character and wanted more, more, more. I would have much preferred an entire film about his character's career, as it would have been way more interesting. His portrayal of fictional R&B star Jimmy Early is all at once sleazy, caustic, and raucous. Early is a true showman, to which Murphy brings tons of experience and it shows. When Murphy is on screen he just sizzles and feels real, bringing a much needed vitality to the film which can get bogged down in character tropes and cliches. Every time he's on screen you pay attention and don't want to look away - a true sign of a great performance.
Mark Walhberg - The Departed
This is just an enjoyable performance for me. I'm sure other people might wonder how Wahlberg was nominated here and I could understand their point that there's not a whole lot to his character, but I love it anyway. I think he represents the film well as all the acting was top notch, something that Scorsese is known for. Wahlberg was one of the funniest parts of this film and his jokes and putdowns were all fantastic. And that's about all he brought to the the film, but he didn't need to do anything more. His thick Boston accent with his devastating wit and comebacks were perfect for a police sergeant in an elite unit. It reminded me of some people I knew while in the Army, so it felt very true to life for me. I also liked Alec Baldwin's character and thought that you could almost switch the two for this nomination if you wanted. Wahlberg was just the flashier role and I fully support the Academy's choice.
This is by far my favorite category of the 5. It seems every year is just as strong as the one after it. I seem to have very few complaints about the 5 chosen, though I may differ in who the I think the winner should be. That stands true here. I don't dislike Arkin's role but I definitely prefer Murphy for the win. Walhberg and Arkin had very similar roles but for some reason I just loved Wahlberg's more. The two more serious roles are still pretty good and I'd give the edge to Haley over Arkin right now. Dropping Arkin to 4th might seem like I don't like him but I think this group was just that good. Can't wait to keep going back in time with this group to see if it stays my favorite.
Oscar Winner: Alan Arkin - Little Miss Sunshine
My Winner: Eddie Murphy - Dreamgirls
Mark Walhberg
Jackie Earle Haley
Alan Arkin
Djimon Hounsou
2006 Best Supporting Actor
Alan Arkin - Little Miss Sunshine
This is one of those wins where after you watch the performance you have to wonder why exactly it won over the others, which isn't to put down what Arkin did at all. Arkin is pretty funny in his role of the wild and crass grandfather but it's also pretty short. He cracks some jokes, encourages his granddaughter to be herself, and then goes away. His character is important for helping to foster Breslin's character's independence and joie de vivre and after he's gone we miss his sarcastic, biting, caustic wit which probably would have made the ending even better. It's a good performance and fits the tone of the movie perfectly but I almost feel like Steve Carell (a mostly unknown at the time the film was made) gave a more satisfying performance and showed great range. I love that a comedic performance won but it also seems like maybe the Academy wanted to reward and honor Arkin's career thinking they wouldn't get another chance. Little did they know he would be nominated again for a very similar role in Argo at the 2013 Oscars - one where he was considered a front runner at times in a wide open race. I know many people wanted Eddie Murphy to win here but I have no issue with this win. Arkin does a solid job - I only wish we could have seen more from his character.
Jackie Earle Haley - Little Children
Jackie Earle Haley is perfect for this role just by looks alone. He's gaunt, creepy, and weird looking which suits a man who has been convicted of exposing himself to a minor. He's a man fighting his demons and who let's them win every now and then. The ending of this film is similar to Blanchett's ending yet we fully believe in Haley's version. His anguish and heartache is real. The boiling over of emotions is natural given the circumstances and we are saddened by the ending because Haley has made his character human no matter the fact that he's a convicted sex offender. We understand that he's a man struggling within the world and we openly root for him and hope he finds peace just like his mother does. Sure the director molds our perception of Haley's character with the way he and his mother are treated by their neighborhood but Haley deftly portrays all the subtleties necessary of a man at odds with his self. He wants to do right by his mother and not give in to his urges and try to live a normal life, but people won't let him move on so he's constantly aware of his past troubles. That would be draining on anyone and Haley wears that on his face without being over the top. The director does nothing to try and convince us that Haley is anything but a creep, Haley's acting is what makes us equivocate. It's a powerful performance that almost endears a sexual deviant to the audience - which is no small feat.
Djimon Hounsou - Blood Diamond
Hounsou plays a stock role of the noble, yet suffering African caught up in a civil war where more stock roles of vicious and violent Africans rape and pillage the land under the guise of rebellion/revolution while stock roles of white men take advantage of these other two for profit and, here, diamonds. You can't really fault Hounsou here for trying his best given what he has to work with. He can't write the role for himself so we are stuck with an action/adventure story where Hounsou can show off his muscles as he tries to rescue his son while running all over Sierra Leone with DiCaprio in tow. There are some dramatic moments where we can see bits and pieces of just how good Hounsou can act if only he were given the chance but those are very few and far between. He's more than capable in an action role and approaches it with plenty of aplomb. Ultimately, he's underused here and comes off as the token African along for the ride as the stale white relationship tries to convince us it's something more. Hounsou deserves better from the script but I don't think we would have gotten much more out of it to be honest.
Eddie Murphy - Dreamgirls
Murphy was widely believed to be THE front runner in this category by many critics and Oscar pundits. A lot of people thought his win was merely a formality, as much for his amazing work in Dreamgirls as for his comedic past. That of course didn't happen. And looking back, that's kind of an unfortunate thing since Murphy owned this character. I couldn't get enough of his character and wanted more, more, more. I would have much preferred an entire film about his character's career, as it would have been way more interesting. His portrayal of fictional R&B star Jimmy Early is all at once sleazy, caustic, and raucous. Early is a true showman, to which Murphy brings tons of experience and it shows. When Murphy is on screen he just sizzles and feels real, bringing a much needed vitality to the film which can get bogged down in character tropes and cliches. Every time he's on screen you pay attention and don't want to look away - a true sign of a great performance.
Mark Walhberg - The Departed
This is just an enjoyable performance for me. I'm sure other people might wonder how Wahlberg was nominated here and I could understand their point that there's not a whole lot to his character, but I love it anyway. I think he represents the film well as all the acting was top notch, something that Scorsese is known for. Wahlberg was one of the funniest parts of this film and his jokes and putdowns were all fantastic. And that's about all he brought to the the film, but he didn't need to do anything more. His thick Boston accent with his devastating wit and comebacks were perfect for a police sergeant in an elite unit. It reminded me of some people I knew while in the Army, so it felt very true to life for me. I also liked Alec Baldwin's character and thought that you could almost switch the two for this nomination if you wanted. Wahlberg was just the flashier role and I fully support the Academy's choice.
This is by far my favorite category of the 5. It seems every year is just as strong as the one after it. I seem to have very few complaints about the 5 chosen, though I may differ in who the I think the winner should be. That stands true here. I don't dislike Arkin's role but I definitely prefer Murphy for the win. Walhberg and Arkin had very similar roles but for some reason I just loved Wahlberg's more. The two more serious roles are still pretty good and I'd give the edge to Haley over Arkin right now. Dropping Arkin to 4th might seem like I don't like him but I think this group was just that good. Can't wait to keep going back in time with this group to see if it stays my favorite.
Oscar Winner: Alan Arkin - Little Miss Sunshine
My Winner: Eddie Murphy - Dreamgirls
Mark Walhberg
Jackie Earle Haley
Alan Arkin
Djimon Hounsou
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Supporting Actress 2006
I know it's been a long time since I last posted. Instead of listing my excuses, I'll just get right into it! One thing I love about the Supporting categories is that it seems to be very representative of the world of film and ahead of it's time. By that I mean, the Academy doesn't hesitate to nominate young actors with old, minorities and foreign actors and stars from minor movies. Maybe you could say these two are a dumping ground so as to avoid looking predominantly white and old and stuck in the "glory" years. But I love that I can be exposed to so many different performances from a wide variety of actors. I've seen 2 nominees in this group and look forward to finally having some films and performances I haven't seen for once.
2006 Best Supporting Actress
Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls
She may not have won American Idol, but I'd imagine an Oscar and a financially sound singing career cures the sting. In Dreamgirls, she plays Effie White, a singer with lofty aspirations who is determined to be heard. I recognize that she sings well, but her singing is just not appealing to me at all. I don't like her style of singing, though I can understand why she was chosen for the role. There's no subtlety or nuance with Effie, everything is bombastic and over the top. She's not likeable and her character never really grows. She starts off as a selfish, temperamental, drama queen and continues down that path the entire movie without budging. I think we're supposed to be rooting for her to succeed after she gets bumped from The Dreams but throw away lines about her personal life like how she drank away her money for 2 years doesn't really endear her to the audience. I never connected with Effie in any meaningful way, she gets all these opportunities that don't feel deserved and certainly don't feel like someone that has worked hard to climb out of any kind of hole that the movie wants us to believe. I still don't understand how Effie became the cause de celebre within the film and I honestly didn't care if she made it back to the top because I was never given a reason to root for her. So I guess besides the singing part, I don't see what was so worthy for a win here.
Adriana Barraza - Babel
Honestly, this is a kind of ho-hum performance. Barraza plays a woman who runs a household for a well-off white couple and looks after their kids. Ho-hum might be a little harsh because it's definitely a capable performance but there is nothing that wows the viewer. There's nothing that endears us to Barraza's character and therefore we feel we are just watching from far, far away. We don't feel connected to her and only watch as if we're sitting in a theater and everything is happening on a big screen. The choices she made seem a bit far fetched, as if she couldn't find anyone at all to watch the kids for a bit and would actually take them into Mexico without the parents' ok. Her character is very caring for those kids but it comes at a cost to herself and for a woman who is an illegal alien, her actions just seem incredibly contradictory. It's obvious the story was meant to shock but Barraza's narrative was the weakest of the bunch. Let me be clear that I don't think it's a bad performance, I just don't think it's all that Oscar worthy. It seems that Barraza's nomination may have got swept in with the other Babel nominations because I don't think it could stand on its own.
Cate Blanchett - Notes on a Scandal
Blanchett is a way better actress than she shows here. She floats through most scenes and it's irritating knowing she could easily turn up the acting power and deliver something to rival Dench's performance in this overly ambitious film. What's equally sad is that at the end of the film she does turn up the volume only to give a laughable, highly overacted take on her character finally breaking down. I don't know if Dench makes Blanchett look worse than she really is or if Blanchett makes Dench look better but I'd venture it's a little of both at different times. Part of the blame can fall on the rest of the movie itself - the inappropriate score that is usually the opposite of what is needed for specific scenes and the lazy story/script which doesn't challenge the viewer or ask much from the characters. I never completely bought Blanchett falling for a young student even with the idea that she was bored in marriage being floated about. She just easily gives in and we never really see any moral doubts in her character or thoughts of the consequences of her action. Without Dench finding out and eventually telling on her, the film and script never was really concerned with painting the affair as illicit or morally reprehensible because it was all done in a matter of fact way. I would have hoped that Blanchett recognized this and brought it to the attention of the writer/director. Maybe that's expecting too much out of an actress but I felt like Blanchett was just along for the ride and didn't put enough into her role.
Abigail Breslin - Little Miss Sunshine
Quite a feat to be 10 years old and nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Breslin plays a spunky young girl who enjoys performing in beauty pageants even though she's a bit of an ugly duckling. Her character is the motor that drives the film and it never feels like it drags because of her. Her performance is natural and not obnoxious like most child actors. You almost wish she was your daughter/niece/etc. because she's so pleasant and has such an unfettered sense of adventure and has yet to be corrupted and jaded by society. You root for her which ultimately makes the film better because at times it can be a little too satirical and cliche but her natural joy keeps you emotionally invested. Breslin is great in the ending scene where she performs her routine she practiced with her grandfather. It's a great moment of be who you are and don't worry about anything else type attitude and Breslin absolutely shines in that moment. You can't really say anything bad about her performance and I think any other actor would have floundered in the role, a testament to Breslin.
Rinko Kikuchi - Babel
Kikuchi plays a girl dealing with being deaf, her mother's suicide prior to the film taking place, her father who is emotionally and physically absent, and the typical complexities of being a teenager. Her desperation at belonging and fitting in in a world where she thinks she doesn't, is very palpable and convincing. She is hyper sexual due to wanting attention from boys her age and ends up licking her dentist, flashes random guys, and tries to seduce a detective who comes to her home. All of this shows the vulnerability of Kikuchi's character. She's been traumatized by the death of her mother and acts out in rebellion as her form of grieving. Though her character is Japanese, it's a form of coping that transcends cultures and nations. That behavior could easily be found here in the States and her frustration rings as universal. Her best scene is when she goes to a nightclub with a group of her friends and the guys they just met and we see the club from her perspective. There's no sound but the pulsing lights and the moving bodies and Kinkuchi looks like she feels both free and restricted. Kinkuchi does a god job of building a character we can all understand.
Another year of Best Supporting Actress nominees, another year of being extremely underwhelmed by the choices. I don't know why it is that I seem to always have issues with this group but 2006 didn't really offer any that wowed me and honestly none of them was head and shoulders above the others. I was irritated with Blanchett because I know she could have been way better. Barraza was an able performance but just that - it didn't really grab me at all. Hudson was too over the top for me and lacked any real subtlety and at times it looked like it was her first time acting. Kikuchi does a great job of building an interesting character that I wasn't expecting to like. Breslin gave the most fun performance and I'd say had the easiest one of the group, as well. Right now, I give the slight edge to Kikuchi but my opinion could change at any moment if asked to rank them again. I really do like the diversity in this group, though. Black, white, Hispanic, Japanese, old, young. That's the one plus I'll take from this group and be happy with the Academy these last few years for getting out of their comfort zones.
Oscar Winner: Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls
My Winner: Rinko Kikuchi - Babel
Abigail Breslin
Jennifer Hudson
Adriana Barraza
Cate Blanchett
2006 Best Supporting Actress
Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls
She may not have won American Idol, but I'd imagine an Oscar and a financially sound singing career cures the sting. In Dreamgirls, she plays Effie White, a singer with lofty aspirations who is determined to be heard. I recognize that she sings well, but her singing is just not appealing to me at all. I don't like her style of singing, though I can understand why she was chosen for the role. There's no subtlety or nuance with Effie, everything is bombastic and over the top. She's not likeable and her character never really grows. She starts off as a selfish, temperamental, drama queen and continues down that path the entire movie without budging. I think we're supposed to be rooting for her to succeed after she gets bumped from The Dreams but throw away lines about her personal life like how she drank away her money for 2 years doesn't really endear her to the audience. I never connected with Effie in any meaningful way, she gets all these opportunities that don't feel deserved and certainly don't feel like someone that has worked hard to climb out of any kind of hole that the movie wants us to believe. I still don't understand how Effie became the cause de celebre within the film and I honestly didn't care if she made it back to the top because I was never given a reason to root for her. So I guess besides the singing part, I don't see what was so worthy for a win here.
Adriana Barraza - Babel
Honestly, this is a kind of ho-hum performance. Barraza plays a woman who runs a household for a well-off white couple and looks after their kids. Ho-hum might be a little harsh because it's definitely a capable performance but there is nothing that wows the viewer. There's nothing that endears us to Barraza's character and therefore we feel we are just watching from far, far away. We don't feel connected to her and only watch as if we're sitting in a theater and everything is happening on a big screen. The choices she made seem a bit far fetched, as if she couldn't find anyone at all to watch the kids for a bit and would actually take them into Mexico without the parents' ok. Her character is very caring for those kids but it comes at a cost to herself and for a woman who is an illegal alien, her actions just seem incredibly contradictory. It's obvious the story was meant to shock but Barraza's narrative was the weakest of the bunch. Let me be clear that I don't think it's a bad performance, I just don't think it's all that Oscar worthy. It seems that Barraza's nomination may have got swept in with the other Babel nominations because I don't think it could stand on its own.
Cate Blanchett - Notes on a Scandal
Blanchett is a way better actress than she shows here. She floats through most scenes and it's irritating knowing she could easily turn up the acting power and deliver something to rival Dench's performance in this overly ambitious film. What's equally sad is that at the end of the film she does turn up the volume only to give a laughable, highly overacted take on her character finally breaking down. I don't know if Dench makes Blanchett look worse than she really is or if Blanchett makes Dench look better but I'd venture it's a little of both at different times. Part of the blame can fall on the rest of the movie itself - the inappropriate score that is usually the opposite of what is needed for specific scenes and the lazy story/script which doesn't challenge the viewer or ask much from the characters. I never completely bought Blanchett falling for a young student even with the idea that she was bored in marriage being floated about. She just easily gives in and we never really see any moral doubts in her character or thoughts of the consequences of her action. Without Dench finding out and eventually telling on her, the film and script never was really concerned with painting the affair as illicit or morally reprehensible because it was all done in a matter of fact way. I would have hoped that Blanchett recognized this and brought it to the attention of the writer/director. Maybe that's expecting too much out of an actress but I felt like Blanchett was just along for the ride and didn't put enough into her role.
Abigail Breslin - Little Miss Sunshine
Quite a feat to be 10 years old and nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Breslin plays a spunky young girl who enjoys performing in beauty pageants even though she's a bit of an ugly duckling. Her character is the motor that drives the film and it never feels like it drags because of her. Her performance is natural and not obnoxious like most child actors. You almost wish she was your daughter/niece/etc. because she's so pleasant and has such an unfettered sense of adventure and has yet to be corrupted and jaded by society. You root for her which ultimately makes the film better because at times it can be a little too satirical and cliche but her natural joy keeps you emotionally invested. Breslin is great in the ending scene where she performs her routine she practiced with her grandfather. It's a great moment of be who you are and don't worry about anything else type attitude and Breslin absolutely shines in that moment. You can't really say anything bad about her performance and I think any other actor would have floundered in the role, a testament to Breslin.
Rinko Kikuchi - Babel
Kikuchi plays a girl dealing with being deaf, her mother's suicide prior to the film taking place, her father who is emotionally and physically absent, and the typical complexities of being a teenager. Her desperation at belonging and fitting in in a world where she thinks she doesn't, is very palpable and convincing. She is hyper sexual due to wanting attention from boys her age and ends up licking her dentist, flashes random guys, and tries to seduce a detective who comes to her home. All of this shows the vulnerability of Kikuchi's character. She's been traumatized by the death of her mother and acts out in rebellion as her form of grieving. Though her character is Japanese, it's a form of coping that transcends cultures and nations. That behavior could easily be found here in the States and her frustration rings as universal. Her best scene is when she goes to a nightclub with a group of her friends and the guys they just met and we see the club from her perspective. There's no sound but the pulsing lights and the moving bodies and Kinkuchi looks like she feels both free and restricted. Kinkuchi does a god job of building a character we can all understand.
Another year of Best Supporting Actress nominees, another year of being extremely underwhelmed by the choices. I don't know why it is that I seem to always have issues with this group but 2006 didn't really offer any that wowed me and honestly none of them was head and shoulders above the others. I was irritated with Blanchett because I know she could have been way better. Barraza was an able performance but just that - it didn't really grab me at all. Hudson was too over the top for me and lacked any real subtlety and at times it looked like it was her first time acting. Kikuchi does a great job of building an interesting character that I wasn't expecting to like. Breslin gave the most fun performance and I'd say had the easiest one of the group, as well. Right now, I give the slight edge to Kikuchi but my opinion could change at any moment if asked to rank them again. I really do like the diversity in this group, though. Black, white, Hispanic, Japanese, old, young. That's the one plus I'll take from this group and be happy with the Academy these last few years for getting out of their comfort zones.
Oscar Winner: Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls
My Winner: Rinko Kikuchi - Babel
Abigail Breslin
Jennifer Hudson
Adriana Barraza
Cate Blanchett
Friday, August 24, 2012
Best Picture 2007
2007 was definitely one of the best years for film in a long time. All 5 of these nominees are great and should absolutely be watched and studied for years to come. As is usual with the Best Picture category, I've seen most - if not all - nominees while doing the 4 other categories, so I've already got my mind made up as to how my rankings will play out. Read on and find out!
2007 Best Picture
No Country for Old Men
In a year that brought back the Western, it's fitting that a film like this would win. Obviously it's not a typical Western film, but the vibe is there and it's amazing that 2007 produced so many great Western movies. No Country for Old Men is an instant classic. The Coen Brothers adapted Cormac McCarthy's indelible novel into a film that latches onto your brain and burrows itself deep into your psyche. It strikes the perfect balance between being too simple and too complicated. The writing is exceptional and there are many scenes that I wish would go on forever because they are absolutely brilliant. The writing never panders and is whip smart, and the dialogue is measured so that none of it feels too fake. The casting as well is perfect. Javier Bardem turns in one of the greatest villain characters of all time. His Anton Chigurh is memorable and incomparable. Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones both make their characters and the rest of the cast does a terrific job - from the stars like Woody Harrelson to the no-names who play hotel owners. When I saw this film for the first time, the one thing that immediately stood out for me was the beautiful cinematography. Roger Deakins captures the tone of the movie so very well. His photography is all at once foreboding, bleak, independent, and jarring. The slow, building tension throughout keeps the viewer engaged and on the edge of their seat and tightens it's grip as it moves along. For me, there were no dull parts. I was hooked from the beginning and it only got progressively more interesting as time went along. It's unrelenting and uncompromising in its depiction of the story and the treatment of the characters. No one is safe, which is one of the main reasons I like this film so much. When I first saw the ending in theaters, I turned to my Army buddies I went with and we all had an expression of "what do we make of that?!" but in less vulgar terms. I can see how the ending might turn some people off, but for me it worked. And it kept us talking for literally two or three days as we made sense of it. Truly the sign of a great ending and a great movie.
Atonement
I love that you see two different sides to what really happens. As both are real but tell two different stories to different people. It shows that we can sometimes see what we want and the lasting effects it can cause - the main point of Atonement. The movie creeps along at times, even with the flashbacks and mystery elements involved, but director Joe Wright has crafted a period piece that feels fresh and exciting. The first act has constant simmering sexual undertones that, coupled with some extraordinary acting, defies the usual stuffy English estate fluff we see from most period pieces. The second act Dunkirk scenes are especially brutal to watch and the long one shot tracking scene is utterly amazing and gorgeous to look at. It's a scene that would make Alfonso Cuaron and Emmanuel Lubezki proud. The third act loses some steam and the "twist" at the end comes off a little hokey to me even though I understand the moral questions it's trying to ask us. Can art atone for moral inequities? It's an interesting question that ultimately feels tacked on at the end of a film that was already asking interesting moral questions. I personally would have done without that as the ending. James McAvoy was exceptional and dynamic as Robbie and added a sincerity and honestness to his role that was refreshing to see. He deftly portrayed the complex character with the perfect amount of nuance and he really was the highlight for me. The film itself had such a quiet, understated seriousness to it that it never felt like you were watching period film or a British film and kept me involved as a viewer despite it's slow parts. Especially when you read the description and think "oh no - another boring, critically hyped film that will take a few viewings to get through," it was far from the film I was initially expecting. It was beautifully shot and the score that seemed to live just underneath every scene was quite remarkable (it won Best Original Score) and lent itself to a Mad Men-esque opening credits sense of movement and foreboding. Atonement helped add to an incredibly strong year for film in 2007 and would have been a leading contender in almost any other year.
Juno
I'll admit that the first time I saw this when it came out, I loved it. It was very much a movie for the younger generation and it hit all the right notes for me at that time. Watching it again....it's apparent that Diablo Cody just tries way too hard with her writing and there are way too many cringe worthy moments for me to truly call this a great film. Some of the dialogue is so affected that it grates the ears since no kid ever talks in that way (and I wasn't all that far removed from high school when this came out). Sometimes it skates by on its assuredly unique premise but gets bogged down in being too hip and cute and independent. The somewhat decent script falters at points where the witty, fast paced dialogue of teenagers dealing with a life changing event becomes the all too unbelievable mouthpiece of an adult writer. Time and again this would take me out of the movie but I'd get sucked back in because the characters are fun to watch interact with each other. It has both the comedic and poignant moments that make this film transcend the laughable dialogue and take on a frighteningly real moment in life that happens to many teenagers with a sense of understanding and care. You feel for Juno and when she lets her guard down we can see she really is just a scared kid on the inside despite her casual demeanor. The film never really probes too deep into the societal and personal ramifications of teen pregnancy and misses it's chances to deliver some truly dramatic moments in favor of trying to make the audience happy with jokes and a feel good ending. Despite the great music selection and the ever present charm Ellen Page exudes, Juno is a bit too neat in appealing to movie goers and not pushing the boundaries it thinks it has set up. It is still a film worth watching and it's not as terrible as I've made it seem, but there were other more deserving films that should have taken its place.
Michael Clayton
This film is the one I always forget about when trying to remember the Best Picture nominees for 2007. That's due mostly to it flying under the radar for me when it actually came out - I'd never heard of it and I wasn't really paying attention to movies much back then, preparing for a deployment and all that. So when I first watched this one in 2009, it was like finding a $20 in your jacket pocket from last year. That is to say a real hidden gem. Michael Clayton is a tad bit complicated, one you have to watch intently to figure out the different converging stories but it pays off in the end. What I liked about it was how grown-up it felt. It's a smart movie that never panders to the audience, it has such an adult feel to it that it's like a breath of fresh air for Oscar type films. Sure, 2007 has quite a few nominees that fit this standard, too, but you'd expect that from the Coen Brothers and Paul Thomas Anderson. You don't get the hand holding that a lot of other corporate thrillers use to make the story more easy to digest and it makes watching this film a rewarding experience. The cast does an amazing job and rightly deserved their acting nominations for it. Those characters all seem plausible and real and are never dumbed down to their basest one note qualities. The story is suspenseful and exciting from the very beginning (even though I wish it wouldn't have shown the ending at the start, but it still works) and builds to a satisfying end even if everything isn't completely spelled out for the viewer. This is how Best Picture nominees should look.
There Will Be Blood
This is simply a modern masterpiece. One that I think will probably recognized as one of the greatest films of all time from the 2000s. Try as I might to find a flaw worth writing about, there's just nothing that stands out to me in that regard. The cinematography is breathtakingly brilliant, the score is so unique and doesn't hand hold the viewer through the film and tell them exactly what to feel, and there are so many iconic images that can be taken from this film that it's really hard to pick just one.Daniel Day-Lewis gives what I believe to be his best performance ever and one that should surely go down in history as an incredible achievement in acting. Paul Dano shines in his breakout role and makes the interaction between his character and DDL's such a rewarding battle of wills to watch. Eli and Plainview are very similar and I really enjoy how Paul Thomas Anderson connect the two as people. The first time Plainview beats Eli, Eli then goes home and acts the exact same way to his father that Plainview acted towards him. It's remarkable stuff and PTA deserves most of the credit for keeping the script from sounding too hokey, which is a problem for most period pieces. The slow building of the film to it's final scene with the milkshake discussion in the bowling alley (my favorite part) never felt labored and it always felt important from the very beginning which helped keep me hooked for 2 and a half hours, quite the achievement. PTA's direction as well was phenomenal, so many brilliant angles and interesting set ups. There are so many classic scenes and moments that will no doubt be cribbed from ad nauseum for decades to come. My one gripe would be that the end feels like a few different vignettes stuck together at times. However, those "vignettes" are masterfully done and don't detract from the overall story or tone -- I just wish they were connected a little better. Love how it's somewhat of a mystery.The film never feels too one note, either, and has elements of mystery, Westerns, horror, dramatic period piece - all kinds of different influences that create a distinctively American Classic.
I feel as if this group is the best out of the 5 years I've done so far. Every film is great even though I would probably bump Juno for one of Zodiac, Gone Baby Gone, or The Assassination of Jesse James. It would have made for a very intense bunch of nominees, though. I definitely wish that 2007 was a year of 10 nominees because there were tons of other films that had a legitimate shot at making an 8-10 slot. I really can't say enough about how great this year was for film. I waffle between giving my top spot to No Country or TWBB and I'd probably give it to whichever movie I've seen last. A very slight edge to TWBB for now since I believe it'll be the film that shows up on the Sight & Sound poll in the future. I really liked how Atonement wasn't what I was expecting the first time I watched it and it completely shattered my expectations. Michael Clayton is close behind that one with Juno bringing up the rear. Juno really had no chance in a year where 4 serious films knocked it out of the park unfortunately for it. All in all my favorite year so far.
Oscar Winner: No Country for Old Men
My Winner: There Will Be Blood
No Country for Old Men
Atonement
Michael Clayton
Juno
2007 Best Picture
No Country for Old Men
In a year that brought back the Western, it's fitting that a film like this would win. Obviously it's not a typical Western film, but the vibe is there and it's amazing that 2007 produced so many great Western movies. No Country for Old Men is an instant classic. The Coen Brothers adapted Cormac McCarthy's indelible novel into a film that latches onto your brain and burrows itself deep into your psyche. It strikes the perfect balance between being too simple and too complicated. The writing is exceptional and there are many scenes that I wish would go on forever because they are absolutely brilliant. The writing never panders and is whip smart, and the dialogue is measured so that none of it feels too fake. The casting as well is perfect. Javier Bardem turns in one of the greatest villain characters of all time. His Anton Chigurh is memorable and incomparable. Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones both make their characters and the rest of the cast does a terrific job - from the stars like Woody Harrelson to the no-names who play hotel owners. When I saw this film for the first time, the one thing that immediately stood out for me was the beautiful cinematography. Roger Deakins captures the tone of the movie so very well. His photography is all at once foreboding, bleak, independent, and jarring. The slow, building tension throughout keeps the viewer engaged and on the edge of their seat and tightens it's grip as it moves along. For me, there were no dull parts. I was hooked from the beginning and it only got progressively more interesting as time went along. It's unrelenting and uncompromising in its depiction of the story and the treatment of the characters. No one is safe, which is one of the main reasons I like this film so much. When I first saw the ending in theaters, I turned to my Army buddies I went with and we all had an expression of "what do we make of that?!" but in less vulgar terms. I can see how the ending might turn some people off, but for me it worked. And it kept us talking for literally two or three days as we made sense of it. Truly the sign of a great ending and a great movie.
Atonement
I love that you see two different sides to what really happens. As both are real but tell two different stories to different people. It shows that we can sometimes see what we want and the lasting effects it can cause - the main point of Atonement. The movie creeps along at times, even with the flashbacks and mystery elements involved, but director Joe Wright has crafted a period piece that feels fresh and exciting. The first act has constant simmering sexual undertones that, coupled with some extraordinary acting, defies the usual stuffy English estate fluff we see from most period pieces. The second act Dunkirk scenes are especially brutal to watch and the long one shot tracking scene is utterly amazing and gorgeous to look at. It's a scene that would make Alfonso Cuaron and Emmanuel Lubezki proud. The third act loses some steam and the "twist" at the end comes off a little hokey to me even though I understand the moral questions it's trying to ask us. Can art atone for moral inequities? It's an interesting question that ultimately feels tacked on at the end of a film that was already asking interesting moral questions. I personally would have done without that as the ending. James McAvoy was exceptional and dynamic as Robbie and added a sincerity and honestness to his role that was refreshing to see. He deftly portrayed the complex character with the perfect amount of nuance and he really was the highlight for me. The film itself had such a quiet, understated seriousness to it that it never felt like you were watching period film or a British film and kept me involved as a viewer despite it's slow parts. Especially when you read the description and think "oh no - another boring, critically hyped film that will take a few viewings to get through," it was far from the film I was initially expecting. It was beautifully shot and the score that seemed to live just underneath every scene was quite remarkable (it won Best Original Score) and lent itself to a Mad Men-esque opening credits sense of movement and foreboding. Atonement helped add to an incredibly strong year for film in 2007 and would have been a leading contender in almost any other year.
Juno
I'll admit that the first time I saw this when it came out, I loved it. It was very much a movie for the younger generation and it hit all the right notes for me at that time. Watching it again....it's apparent that Diablo Cody just tries way too hard with her writing and there are way too many cringe worthy moments for me to truly call this a great film. Some of the dialogue is so affected that it grates the ears since no kid ever talks in that way (and I wasn't all that far removed from high school when this came out). Sometimes it skates by on its assuredly unique premise but gets bogged down in being too hip and cute and independent. The somewhat decent script falters at points where the witty, fast paced dialogue of teenagers dealing with a life changing event becomes the all too unbelievable mouthpiece of an adult writer. Time and again this would take me out of the movie but I'd get sucked back in because the characters are fun to watch interact with each other. It has both the comedic and poignant moments that make this film transcend the laughable dialogue and take on a frighteningly real moment in life that happens to many teenagers with a sense of understanding and care. You feel for Juno and when she lets her guard down we can see she really is just a scared kid on the inside despite her casual demeanor. The film never really probes too deep into the societal and personal ramifications of teen pregnancy and misses it's chances to deliver some truly dramatic moments in favor of trying to make the audience happy with jokes and a feel good ending. Despite the great music selection and the ever present charm Ellen Page exudes, Juno is a bit too neat in appealing to movie goers and not pushing the boundaries it thinks it has set up. It is still a film worth watching and it's not as terrible as I've made it seem, but there were other more deserving films that should have taken its place.
Michael Clayton
This film is the one I always forget about when trying to remember the Best Picture nominees for 2007. That's due mostly to it flying under the radar for me when it actually came out - I'd never heard of it and I wasn't really paying attention to movies much back then, preparing for a deployment and all that. So when I first watched this one in 2009, it was like finding a $20 in your jacket pocket from last year. That is to say a real hidden gem. Michael Clayton is a tad bit complicated, one you have to watch intently to figure out the different converging stories but it pays off in the end. What I liked about it was how grown-up it felt. It's a smart movie that never panders to the audience, it has such an adult feel to it that it's like a breath of fresh air for Oscar type films. Sure, 2007 has quite a few nominees that fit this standard, too, but you'd expect that from the Coen Brothers and Paul Thomas Anderson. You don't get the hand holding that a lot of other corporate thrillers use to make the story more easy to digest and it makes watching this film a rewarding experience. The cast does an amazing job and rightly deserved their acting nominations for it. Those characters all seem plausible and real and are never dumbed down to their basest one note qualities. The story is suspenseful and exciting from the very beginning (even though I wish it wouldn't have shown the ending at the start, but it still works) and builds to a satisfying end even if everything isn't completely spelled out for the viewer. This is how Best Picture nominees should look.
There Will Be Blood
This is simply a modern masterpiece. One that I think will probably recognized as one of the greatest films of all time from the 2000s. Try as I might to find a flaw worth writing about, there's just nothing that stands out to me in that regard. The cinematography is breathtakingly brilliant, the score is so unique and doesn't hand hold the viewer through the film and tell them exactly what to feel, and there are so many iconic images that can be taken from this film that it's really hard to pick just one.Daniel Day-Lewis gives what I believe to be his best performance ever and one that should surely go down in history as an incredible achievement in acting. Paul Dano shines in his breakout role and makes the interaction between his character and DDL's such a rewarding battle of wills to watch. Eli and Plainview are very similar and I really enjoy how Paul Thomas Anderson connect the two as people. The first time Plainview beats Eli, Eli then goes home and acts the exact same way to his father that Plainview acted towards him. It's remarkable stuff and PTA deserves most of the credit for keeping the script from sounding too hokey, which is a problem for most period pieces. The slow building of the film to it's final scene with the milkshake discussion in the bowling alley (my favorite part) never felt labored and it always felt important from the very beginning which helped keep me hooked for 2 and a half hours, quite the achievement. PTA's direction as well was phenomenal, so many brilliant angles and interesting set ups. There are so many classic scenes and moments that will no doubt be cribbed from ad nauseum for decades to come. My one gripe would be that the end feels like a few different vignettes stuck together at times. However, those "vignettes" are masterfully done and don't detract from the overall story or tone -- I just wish they were connected a little better. Love how it's somewhat of a mystery.The film never feels too one note, either, and has elements of mystery, Westerns, horror, dramatic period piece - all kinds of different influences that create a distinctively American Classic.
I feel as if this group is the best out of the 5 years I've done so far. Every film is great even though I would probably bump Juno for one of Zodiac, Gone Baby Gone, or The Assassination of Jesse James. It would have made for a very intense bunch of nominees, though. I definitely wish that 2007 was a year of 10 nominees because there were tons of other films that had a legitimate shot at making an 8-10 slot. I really can't say enough about how great this year was for film. I waffle between giving my top spot to No Country or TWBB and I'd probably give it to whichever movie I've seen last. A very slight edge to TWBB for now since I believe it'll be the film that shows up on the Sight & Sound poll in the future. I really liked how Atonement wasn't what I was expecting the first time I watched it and it completely shattered my expectations. Michael Clayton is close behind that one with Juno bringing up the rear. Juno really had no chance in a year where 4 serious films knocked it out of the park unfortunately for it. All in all my favorite year so far.
Oscar Winner: No Country for Old Men
My Winner: There Will Be Blood
No Country for Old Men
Atonement
Michael Clayton
Juno
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Leading Actor 2007
My favorite category is here again! I've had the pleasure of already watching all of these performances prior to this project and by name alone this is one hell of a group. With 3 previous Oscar winners in Day-Lewis, Clooney and Jones and a previous multiple nominee in Depp, it's almost surprising that this is Mortensen's first nomination. So needless to say I will enjoy writing about these since all of them are great with the exception of Tommy Lee Jones' film, which I'm interested in watching again.
2007 Best Actor
Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
What else can be said about Daniel Day-Lewis besides that he is probably the greatest living actor we have today. He is known for diving headfirst into his roles and staying in character even off set and it shows in all of the films he does, even those that aren't as good. This is no different for his Daniel Plainview, an oil-man looking to strike it rich. Day-Lewis' character starts out strong while digging for gold and silver deep in a hole in the middle of nowhere. There is no dialogue for over 15 minutes in the beginning, yet DDL carries the action so well that one hardly realizes not one word has been spoken. Everything that makes Daniel Plainview work perfectly is in all those tics, hunched over looks, sideways glances, the intense bouts of violence that come out of nowhere, the sounds he makes with his mouth. There's a lot of thought and effort put into Plainview that fully enriches the experience for the viewer. He can easily slip between the seductively persuasive and the intensely terrifying in order to get his way. He's ruthless and relentless and it can be hard to discern if he's a decent man infatuated with making it rich at the expense of everything else or an evil man that uses any means at his disposal to get what he wants. It's an incredibly fascinating character that is wholly iconic due to the utterly amazing talents of Daniel Day-Lewis.
George Clooney - Michael Clayton
Watching Clooney over the years, two different types of character have emerged that best describe to me the bulk of his roles. There's the serious, sullen, straight to the point so we can get things done kinda guy who is trying to work through the problems in his messy life. And then there's the smooth talking, uber charming, good-natured, funny man that you can't help but like regardless of the situation. Both of which are Classic Clooney. Clooney is mostly the former in Michael Clayton as the eponymous "fixer" from the law firm representing an agrochemical company whose tainted product has killed many and are now bogged down in legal battles. His job is to come in to help make legal messes more manageable which is ironic since his own life is in turmoil as a divorced father with a son he can't relate to and money problems stemming from bad investments and a gambling addiction. He's great at being able to switch between his roles as the fixer who can walk into a room, command authority and begin mitigating damage almost immediately usually over the the protestations of whoever he is helping and then become the man whose worn and tired face betrays the confidence the other man possesses. He's a man whose current place in life has left him unhappy, dissatisfied, and depressed. And once he stumbles on the secret Tom Wilkinson's character did and becomes embroiled in the situation as well, Clooney seizes on his chance for a way out. There is nothing smarmy, slick, or GQ about this performance. Unlike his last 2 nominations, this one feels more like it was well earned off the strength of the acting alone, instead of his name. This is Classic Clooney.
Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
This is a perfect role for Depp. Sure he could be a serious leading man and do Oscar-y dramas year in and year out but I'm glad that Depp has decided to forgo all that and make movies that are risky and fun and entertaining at the same time. Depp just looks good in dark pictures, whether it's Edward Scissorhands or Dark Shadows, and he excels at these quirky roles that other actors would no doubt have trouble with. The realistic singing is a nice touch as well. Not Broadway, belt-it-out quality but real and visceral and full of the same emotion found on stage. Depp expertly plays a man consumed by revenge and watching him slowly descend into madness is great fun. He has a superb supporting cast to work with and they all match each other step-for-step, effectively grounding Todd into a somewhat humanistic character and never letting him rise to be the garish and overblown character he could be in lesser hands. Tim Burton does a great job tempering the volatile moments with the lighthearted and thus gives the audience hope that Todd may exact his revenge and be absolved of his hatred. Depp never betrays his director's vision which most likely comes from their years of working together. Depp is the perfect Sweeney Todd and a welcomed oddity in the Best Actor pantheon.
Tommy Lee Jones - In the Valley of Elah
So this was not the movie I was thinking about when I wrote the introduction. I must have mixed it up with one of the other Iraq war movies. This film plays out more like a detective movie with military undertones than anything else and Tommy Lee Jones delivers a solid performance. Jones definitely portrays his character, a father searching for his missing Army son, as very straight and proper. Jones comes off a little too good and no nonsense in a way, as if he's the quintessential father and veteran combo. This comes off slightly aggravating but it's done no doubt to establish that Jones' character is a worrisome dad out to seek justice and find truth even through the military bullshit - something he was once a part of. It's a solid performance because Jones is wholly believable in his role, unafraid to ask questions others might shy away from and steadfast in his devotion to finding out what has happened with his son. He does at times seem to be too good at figuring out things others have missed in the investigation, obviously done to move the plot along, but it's done in a way to not take the viewer out of the film. Jones just has that harsh paternal air to him that works wonders in roles like these. This is almost like a forebear to Jones' role in No Country for Old Men, as their are definite similarities between the two. He's convincing and natural and definitely worthy of his 3rd nomination.
Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises
What a quietly strong performance. Mortensen delivers a rich yet subtle take on a Russian mobster. He's a very calculated man of very few words but Mortensen can convey so much with his facial expressions and the way he delivers his lines - even those in Russian. His character, Nikolai, is a driver working for the London based Russian mob and is being groomed to take on more responsibilities by the family. Mortensen gives a calming and heartfelt performance of what is naturally a violent and cold-blooded profession. We see Nikolai's benevolent, humanistic qualities peek through his mobster facade now and again and are forced as the audience to reconcile the two extreme sides. Can we like a man who doesn't seem to fit our ideal of someone who may be a crazed, psychotic killer even though we know he works for such a violent and dangerous criminal organization? Mortensen makes that an easy yes, which is a tremendous accomplishment of his acting ability. The twist at the end seemed a bit obvious, but you were never quite sure of the real Nikolai until this point. He could have easily been one or the other and would have definitely convinced the audience this was true. The fight scene in the bath house is remarkable and makes both Viggo and his characters come off as absolute badasses. Probably one of the best fight scenes in film in recent years and one that is neither flashy or gimmicky; just straightforward, plausible real world violence. It amazes me that this is only Viggo's first nomination because he has turned in some incredible performances in the past and I'm glad to see him recognized here.
Another year, another amazing group of Best Actor nominees. I would say that 2007 was a watershed year for film and this group of men really hammer home how truly great it was. There were tons of great films, some of which will be thought of as classics years from now. And great individual performances, some of which will be held aloft as some of the best work ever put on film. These 5 men all help contribute to that and I'd say that Daniel Day-Lewis' is one that will be remembered for all time. He's had many incredible performances and this is just the feather in that cap. As for who would be my second choice one might as well flip a coin because they are all worthy of that distinction. I'd say the order below is fine for now but I could change my mind if I wrote this 5 minutes from now. Viggo should be more recognized by the Academy so I'm putting him as my second but Clooney gave an intense performance that I really liked and Depp was perfectly cast in a role he was obviously meant to play and Jones delivered an earnest character that may have had just a few faults. This was a really fun category to watch and write about.
Oscar Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
My Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
Viggo Mortensen
George Clooney
Johnny Depp
Tommy Lee Jones
2007 Best Actor
Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
What else can be said about Daniel Day-Lewis besides that he is probably the greatest living actor we have today. He is known for diving headfirst into his roles and staying in character even off set and it shows in all of the films he does, even those that aren't as good. This is no different for his Daniel Plainview, an oil-man looking to strike it rich. Day-Lewis' character starts out strong while digging for gold and silver deep in a hole in the middle of nowhere. There is no dialogue for over 15 minutes in the beginning, yet DDL carries the action so well that one hardly realizes not one word has been spoken. Everything that makes Daniel Plainview work perfectly is in all those tics, hunched over looks, sideways glances, the intense bouts of violence that come out of nowhere, the sounds he makes with his mouth. There's a lot of thought and effort put into Plainview that fully enriches the experience for the viewer. He can easily slip between the seductively persuasive and the intensely terrifying in order to get his way. He's ruthless and relentless and it can be hard to discern if he's a decent man infatuated with making it rich at the expense of everything else or an evil man that uses any means at his disposal to get what he wants. It's an incredibly fascinating character that is wholly iconic due to the utterly amazing talents of Daniel Day-Lewis.
George Clooney - Michael Clayton
Watching Clooney over the years, two different types of character have emerged that best describe to me the bulk of his roles. There's the serious, sullen, straight to the point so we can get things done kinda guy who is trying to work through the problems in his messy life. And then there's the smooth talking, uber charming, good-natured, funny man that you can't help but like regardless of the situation. Both of which are Classic Clooney. Clooney is mostly the former in Michael Clayton as the eponymous "fixer" from the law firm representing an agrochemical company whose tainted product has killed many and are now bogged down in legal battles. His job is to come in to help make legal messes more manageable which is ironic since his own life is in turmoil as a divorced father with a son he can't relate to and money problems stemming from bad investments and a gambling addiction. He's great at being able to switch between his roles as the fixer who can walk into a room, command authority and begin mitigating damage almost immediately usually over the the protestations of whoever he is helping and then become the man whose worn and tired face betrays the confidence the other man possesses. He's a man whose current place in life has left him unhappy, dissatisfied, and depressed. And once he stumbles on the secret Tom Wilkinson's character did and becomes embroiled in the situation as well, Clooney seizes on his chance for a way out. There is nothing smarmy, slick, or GQ about this performance. Unlike his last 2 nominations, this one feels more like it was well earned off the strength of the acting alone, instead of his name. This is Classic Clooney.
Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
This is a perfect role for Depp. Sure he could be a serious leading man and do Oscar-y dramas year in and year out but I'm glad that Depp has decided to forgo all that and make movies that are risky and fun and entertaining at the same time. Depp just looks good in dark pictures, whether it's Edward Scissorhands or Dark Shadows, and he excels at these quirky roles that other actors would no doubt have trouble with. The realistic singing is a nice touch as well. Not Broadway, belt-it-out quality but real and visceral and full of the same emotion found on stage. Depp expertly plays a man consumed by revenge and watching him slowly descend into madness is great fun. He has a superb supporting cast to work with and they all match each other step-for-step, effectively grounding Todd into a somewhat humanistic character and never letting him rise to be the garish and overblown character he could be in lesser hands. Tim Burton does a great job tempering the volatile moments with the lighthearted and thus gives the audience hope that Todd may exact his revenge and be absolved of his hatred. Depp never betrays his director's vision which most likely comes from their years of working together. Depp is the perfect Sweeney Todd and a welcomed oddity in the Best Actor pantheon.
Tommy Lee Jones - In the Valley of Elah
So this was not the movie I was thinking about when I wrote the introduction. I must have mixed it up with one of the other Iraq war movies. This film plays out more like a detective movie with military undertones than anything else and Tommy Lee Jones delivers a solid performance. Jones definitely portrays his character, a father searching for his missing Army son, as very straight and proper. Jones comes off a little too good and no nonsense in a way, as if he's the quintessential father and veteran combo. This comes off slightly aggravating but it's done no doubt to establish that Jones' character is a worrisome dad out to seek justice and find truth even through the military bullshit - something he was once a part of. It's a solid performance because Jones is wholly believable in his role, unafraid to ask questions others might shy away from and steadfast in his devotion to finding out what has happened with his son. He does at times seem to be too good at figuring out things others have missed in the investigation, obviously done to move the plot along, but it's done in a way to not take the viewer out of the film. Jones just has that harsh paternal air to him that works wonders in roles like these. This is almost like a forebear to Jones' role in No Country for Old Men, as their are definite similarities between the two. He's convincing and natural and definitely worthy of his 3rd nomination.
Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises
What a quietly strong performance. Mortensen delivers a rich yet subtle take on a Russian mobster. He's a very calculated man of very few words but Mortensen can convey so much with his facial expressions and the way he delivers his lines - even those in Russian. His character, Nikolai, is a driver working for the London based Russian mob and is being groomed to take on more responsibilities by the family. Mortensen gives a calming and heartfelt performance of what is naturally a violent and cold-blooded profession. We see Nikolai's benevolent, humanistic qualities peek through his mobster facade now and again and are forced as the audience to reconcile the two extreme sides. Can we like a man who doesn't seem to fit our ideal of someone who may be a crazed, psychotic killer even though we know he works for such a violent and dangerous criminal organization? Mortensen makes that an easy yes, which is a tremendous accomplishment of his acting ability. The twist at the end seemed a bit obvious, but you were never quite sure of the real Nikolai until this point. He could have easily been one or the other and would have definitely convinced the audience this was true. The fight scene in the bath house is remarkable and makes both Viggo and his characters come off as absolute badasses. Probably one of the best fight scenes in film in recent years and one that is neither flashy or gimmicky; just straightforward, plausible real world violence. It amazes me that this is only Viggo's first nomination because he has turned in some incredible performances in the past and I'm glad to see him recognized here.
Another year, another amazing group of Best Actor nominees. I would say that 2007 was a watershed year for film and this group of men really hammer home how truly great it was. There were tons of great films, some of which will be thought of as classics years from now. And great individual performances, some of which will be held aloft as some of the best work ever put on film. These 5 men all help contribute to that and I'd say that Daniel Day-Lewis' is one that will be remembered for all time. He's had many incredible performances and this is just the feather in that cap. As for who would be my second choice one might as well flip a coin because they are all worthy of that distinction. I'd say the order below is fine for now but I could change my mind if I wrote this 5 minutes from now. Viggo should be more recognized by the Academy so I'm putting him as my second but Clooney gave an intense performance that I really liked and Depp was perfectly cast in a role he was obviously meant to play and Jones delivered an earnest character that may have had just a few faults. This was a really fun category to watch and write about.
Oscar Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
My Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
Viggo Mortensen
George Clooney
Johnny Depp
Tommy Lee Jones
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Leading Actress 2007
Even though I haven't seen 3 of these performances yet, I'm not all that excited by the choices. Hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised and enjoy a banner year like the rest of the categories. However, I am worried that this category might drag on if the films themselves turn out to be boring - which I know isn't very fair to say - but none of these stand out like in the other categories. I will keep an open mind, though, since that's what this project is all about!
2007 Best Actress
Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
I'll start off by saying that I knew nothing of Edith Piaf coming into this film other than she was a French chanteuse. Watching Cotillard's intense, passionate, feverish, and technically virtuosic performance made it clear even without ever seeing Piaf in action that this was not just simple mimicry. Cotillard inhabits Piaf's soul and wraps herself up in Piaf's tragic and heartbreaking life to a degree that is rarely seen in film today. It's apparent the skill with which Cotillard can act and what's great about her turn here is that it doesn't look or feel like acting. Most actresses would have overdone this role but Cotillard strikes all the right notes. It's certainly a powerful and emotionally resonant performance, one that looks effortless. Impressive, too, is that Cotillard plays a few different roles of Piaf throughout her life and changes to fit each one into her own style. I wish that I could compare Cotillard's version to the actual Edith Piaf, so for me this is just another character to judge, which I think works out better than a compare and contrast anyway since I don't get stuck on minor details. This is easily one of the best female performances I've had the pleasure of seeing so far in this project and that gives me hope as I go back in time that not every actress category will let me down. This was a tremendous performance and one that was probably not appreciated enough by the general public since it was a French speaking role of a singer most people know nothing about. Cotillard was brilliant and I'm glad I was able to watch this film.
Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
The second of Blanchett's TWO nominations this year which really showcases her acting ability, going from Queen Elizabeth to playing Bob Dylan is no easy feat! Unfortunately, Elizabeth thinks it is more important than it really is, but it's simply a puff period piece, peppered with faux seriousness. Blanchett doesn't have much to do but look good as Queen Elizabeth I, though she does a good job of that. It's not her fault that the material doesn't allow her to flex her acting muscles that are clearly evident in I'm Not There. It's unfortunate, too, because she could have easily given a very memorable performance as Elizabeth if the film would have taken itself seriously and not been an excuse to play dress up. Even the serious moments ring hollow because they don't seem to fit with the tone of the film and thus are wildly out of place. Interestingly, Blanchett was nominated for the same role back in 1998 for the first Elizabeth film, which helped bring her into worldwide prominence. By all accounts that role dwarfs this one and that's disheartening because the original showed how much better Blanchett's Queen could be, especially after a second go around.
Julie Christie - Away from Her
One of the things I like about going backwards in time with this blog is that I don't always have the history of an actor to influence me. By that I mean, Christie is regarded as a great actress and has a few nominations and a win under her belt already but this is my first time watching her in a leading role. All the reviews of this film I read begin with how good she was in the past which almost seems to explain why some people liked this performance, instead of just liking the performance and not the name attached to it. Christie plays a woman dealing with Alzheimer's and is put into a nursing home which strains the relationship with her husband as her memory fades. The film itself can be a little treacly at times which causes the performance to teeter on the edge of melodramatic. Christie is capable in the role, however, I did feel the portrayal was rather light, for lack of a better adjective. Though she is firmly in the grips of Alzheimer', I felt a lot of her acting was merely mugging for the camera and trying to keep the stately and sophisticated demeanor going. Once in her depressive and forgetful state, there seems to be little depth and it doesn't feel like an accurate representation of an Alzheimer's patient to me. It's built up for the dramatic effect and that leaves me wanting a whole lot more. It's obvious Christie has the talent, but I don't think it is put to the best use here.
Laura Linney - The Savages
It's interesting that the Best Actress group would have two performances from films dealing with Alzheimer's/dementia. To me, this is the better and more realistic of the two and a much better performance as well. Linney plays a woman dealing with her father suffering from dementia and the effect it has on her and her brother (Philip Seymour Hoffman - a big year for him). Linney's neurotic character was really believable. She portrayed the anxious, worrisome daughter that desperately craves her dad's affection after a lifetime of emotional neglect and abuse perfectly. Her character is a scarred person that is trying to find the right path in life to set a course to and you can see those levels easily in Linney's performance. She wants to please and be loved but is easily annoyed and still somewhat guarded and these multi-layers is what makes watching Linney so much fun. She and Hoffman have great brother-sister chemistry and the two make the message that coping with a loved one with dementia can be tough more relatable than Away From Her's take on this subject. Linney does a tremendous job and is quite deserving of her nomination.
Ellen Page - Juno
There is no doubt that Ellen Page owns this role and this film. She delivers a mesmerizing, extremely likable performance as Juno MacGuff, a pregnant 16 year old who has decided to give her baby up for adoption. Page is believable in the role and infuses the character with a bit of heart and soul, even when the script tries to let her down. In the beginning, Juno comes off as obnoxious and it's hard to become emotionally invested in her life. However, Page does a remarkable job reigning in that blase attitude and acerbic wit by injecting some realism and honesty into the character. There's always an underlying juvenile vulnerability evident in the cracks of Juno's tough, cool exterior and Page does a great job in balancing the two sides. Juno is a strong girl by nature and the character really shines when Page is able to show that she is not just a small adult, but a young kid dealing with a life changing event. This is where the writing sometimes fails Page and her character but she is able to rescue Juno from becoming too much of a one dimensional, movie caricature of an adult's idea of an independent young woman. The scenes where Juno realizes her love for Paulie, even if they are force fed to the audience to elicit a tear jerker reaction, are layered with such an honesty and hopefulness thanks to Page. Where Page succeeds for me is in not letting the character take over and become the sole focus of every scene she's in. Page does well to allow the supporting cast equal time to shine instead of giving a loud, overstated performance which the script surely allows (and maybe even wants). Page's delicately nuanced performance really stood out in a strong way, it really and easily deserved the nomination.
Marion Cotillard's win was the first time a French language role had won an Oscar. Quite impressive. She was my clear favorite because her performance really was all the superlatives you can throw at it. And to think that her win was considered a semi-upset as many wanted/expected Julie Christie to win. I didn't much care for Christie's performance and thought that Linney's film had a more realistic take on caring for a loved one afflicted with Alzheimer's/dementia. Linney was a sort of surprise for me as I wasn't sure what to expect, but her earnest performance was absolutely deserving of a nomination. Ellen Page was probably hamstrung from the start for being young and acting in a comedy of sorts but was my second favorite by far. If not for Hollywood's obsession with its older actors, Page may have won in a year where Cotillard wasn't in the mix. And Blanchett was basically just there, not terrible but not given anything great from which to work with. I'd take her Supporting nom over this one any day, though. Overall a decent year for Best Actress.
Oscar Winner: Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
My Winner: Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
Ellen Page
Laura Linney
Cate Blanchett
Julie Christie
2007 Best Actress
Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
I'll start off by saying that I knew nothing of Edith Piaf coming into this film other than she was a French chanteuse. Watching Cotillard's intense, passionate, feverish, and technically virtuosic performance made it clear even without ever seeing Piaf in action that this was not just simple mimicry. Cotillard inhabits Piaf's soul and wraps herself up in Piaf's tragic and heartbreaking life to a degree that is rarely seen in film today. It's apparent the skill with which Cotillard can act and what's great about her turn here is that it doesn't look or feel like acting. Most actresses would have overdone this role but Cotillard strikes all the right notes. It's certainly a powerful and emotionally resonant performance, one that looks effortless. Impressive, too, is that Cotillard plays a few different roles of Piaf throughout her life and changes to fit each one into her own style. I wish that I could compare Cotillard's version to the actual Edith Piaf, so for me this is just another character to judge, which I think works out better than a compare and contrast anyway since I don't get stuck on minor details. This is easily one of the best female performances I've had the pleasure of seeing so far in this project and that gives me hope as I go back in time that not every actress category will let me down. This was a tremendous performance and one that was probably not appreciated enough by the general public since it was a French speaking role of a singer most people know nothing about. Cotillard was brilliant and I'm glad I was able to watch this film.
Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
The second of Blanchett's TWO nominations this year which really showcases her acting ability, going from Queen Elizabeth to playing Bob Dylan is no easy feat! Unfortunately, Elizabeth thinks it is more important than it really is, but it's simply a puff period piece, peppered with faux seriousness. Blanchett doesn't have much to do but look good as Queen Elizabeth I, though she does a good job of that. It's not her fault that the material doesn't allow her to flex her acting muscles that are clearly evident in I'm Not There. It's unfortunate, too, because she could have easily given a very memorable performance as Elizabeth if the film would have taken itself seriously and not been an excuse to play dress up. Even the serious moments ring hollow because they don't seem to fit with the tone of the film and thus are wildly out of place. Interestingly, Blanchett was nominated for the same role back in 1998 for the first Elizabeth film, which helped bring her into worldwide prominence. By all accounts that role dwarfs this one and that's disheartening because the original showed how much better Blanchett's Queen could be, especially after a second go around.
Julie Christie - Away from Her
One of the things I like about going backwards in time with this blog is that I don't always have the history of an actor to influence me. By that I mean, Christie is regarded as a great actress and has a few nominations and a win under her belt already but this is my first time watching her in a leading role. All the reviews of this film I read begin with how good she was in the past which almost seems to explain why some people liked this performance, instead of just liking the performance and not the name attached to it. Christie plays a woman dealing with Alzheimer's and is put into a nursing home which strains the relationship with her husband as her memory fades. The film itself can be a little treacly at times which causes the performance to teeter on the edge of melodramatic. Christie is capable in the role, however, I did feel the portrayal was rather light, for lack of a better adjective. Though she is firmly in the grips of Alzheimer', I felt a lot of her acting was merely mugging for the camera and trying to keep the stately and sophisticated demeanor going. Once in her depressive and forgetful state, there seems to be little depth and it doesn't feel like an accurate representation of an Alzheimer's patient to me. It's built up for the dramatic effect and that leaves me wanting a whole lot more. It's obvious Christie has the talent, but I don't think it is put to the best use here.
Laura Linney - The Savages
It's interesting that the Best Actress group would have two performances from films dealing with Alzheimer's/dementia. To me, this is the better and more realistic of the two and a much better performance as well. Linney plays a woman dealing with her father suffering from dementia and the effect it has on her and her brother (Philip Seymour Hoffman - a big year for him). Linney's neurotic character was really believable. She portrayed the anxious, worrisome daughter that desperately craves her dad's affection after a lifetime of emotional neglect and abuse perfectly. Her character is a scarred person that is trying to find the right path in life to set a course to and you can see those levels easily in Linney's performance. She wants to please and be loved but is easily annoyed and still somewhat guarded and these multi-layers is what makes watching Linney so much fun. She and Hoffman have great brother-sister chemistry and the two make the message that coping with a loved one with dementia can be tough more relatable than Away From Her's take on this subject. Linney does a tremendous job and is quite deserving of her nomination.
Ellen Page - Juno
There is no doubt that Ellen Page owns this role and this film. She delivers a mesmerizing, extremely likable performance as Juno MacGuff, a pregnant 16 year old who has decided to give her baby up for adoption. Page is believable in the role and infuses the character with a bit of heart and soul, even when the script tries to let her down. In the beginning, Juno comes off as obnoxious and it's hard to become emotionally invested in her life. However, Page does a remarkable job reigning in that blase attitude and acerbic wit by injecting some realism and honesty into the character. There's always an underlying juvenile vulnerability evident in the cracks of Juno's tough, cool exterior and Page does a great job in balancing the two sides. Juno is a strong girl by nature and the character really shines when Page is able to show that she is not just a small adult, but a young kid dealing with a life changing event. This is where the writing sometimes fails Page and her character but she is able to rescue Juno from becoming too much of a one dimensional, movie caricature of an adult's idea of an independent young woman. The scenes where Juno realizes her love for Paulie, even if they are force fed to the audience to elicit a tear jerker reaction, are layered with such an honesty and hopefulness thanks to Page. Where Page succeeds for me is in not letting the character take over and become the sole focus of every scene she's in. Page does well to allow the supporting cast equal time to shine instead of giving a loud, overstated performance which the script surely allows (and maybe even wants). Page's delicately nuanced performance really stood out in a strong way, it really and easily deserved the nomination.
Marion Cotillard's win was the first time a French language role had won an Oscar. Quite impressive. She was my clear favorite because her performance really was all the superlatives you can throw at it. And to think that her win was considered a semi-upset as many wanted/expected Julie Christie to win. I didn't much care for Christie's performance and thought that Linney's film had a more realistic take on caring for a loved one afflicted with Alzheimer's/dementia. Linney was a sort of surprise for me as I wasn't sure what to expect, but her earnest performance was absolutely deserving of a nomination. Ellen Page was probably hamstrung from the start for being young and acting in a comedy of sorts but was my second favorite by far. If not for Hollywood's obsession with its older actors, Page may have won in a year where Cotillard wasn't in the mix. And Blanchett was basically just there, not terrible but not given anything great from which to work with. I'd take her Supporting nom over this one any day, though. Overall a decent year for Best Actress.
Oscar Winner: Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
My Winner: Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
Ellen Page
Laura Linney
Cate Blanchett
Julie Christie
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Supporting Actor 2007
Only one of these (Casey Affleck) I've never actually seen, so I basically already know that this group is going to be a really wonderful year to review. I love when I know that all the nominees are going to be fun to watch again for one reason or another. I'm excited for Affleck's performance and can't wait to see how it ranks among the other 4!
2007 Best Supporting Actor
Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Javier Bardem's portrayal of Anton Chigurh is one of the greatest instances of a "villain" being portrayed onscreen in the history of film. I truly feel that is an accurate statement. It's an absolute instant classic in the same vein as Chistoph Waltzs' Hans Landa from Inglourious Basterds (to name a contemporary comparison). It's an instantly memorable character from the voice, to the haircut, to the cattle stungun with which he kills some of his victims. We remember his scenes the most out of this film, like when he flips a coin to decide the fate of a gas station owner and calls him 'friendo,' all of which leave a mark on the viewer. The tension throughout the movie is so taut that we don't root for anyone to succeed - not Llewellyn or Chigurh. We only wait to see what happens next and that usually means what Chigurh does next, as he is the catalyst for moving this film forward. Bardem transcends and breaks down what is a typical villain role because he sets his own new standard. He is evil and bad but also somewhat funny. He acts without conscience or hesitation and calmly does his job at a plodding, but sincere, pace. Bardem forces you to admire his character, whether you want to or not, due to his workman-like attitude. There is no doubt that Bardem's character will be looked at as a paragon for villains for years, and maybe even decades, to come.
Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
I will admit that this movie is my most anticipated one since I began this blog. I've heard great things about this movie and know the cast is really incredible and that the cinematography is excellent. I just wanted to say that I was really excited about this one going into it. Having now finally watched it, I'm not sure why this wasn't a Best Picture nominee. That's how much I liked it. The acting was brilliant and Affleck absolutely deserved this nomination even if you throw out his other good performance of the year in Gone Baby Gone. Affleck conveys so much emotion just by moving his eyes and it was incredible to watch. He could show us embarrassment, absolute hatred, child-like glee and wonder, and apprehension among what was seemingly an endless display of human emotions without saying a word. And even though we know what happens in the end with him killing Jesse James, Affleck is able to resonate with the viewer and gain some understanding of his action, if not a little sympathy or pity. I can understand what it must be like to meet a childhood idol only to have them not live up to expectations and, ultimately, end up hating them because they are not the idealized version you had dreamed up. Affleck is terrific at maneuvering through the complexities of portraying a desperate and needy fan boy who only wants to fit in and be somebody while still dealing with being tormented, sometimes by James himself, and reconciling with his lofty ambitions he so desperately clings to. It's a unique and in depth look at how people strive for and deal with fame that is truly magnified by Affleck's great performance.
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Charlie Wilson's War
After wondering why the Academy would nominate Hoffman for this role I came to two conclusions: they like going back to the well with their darlings (past winners/nominees) and Hoffman was being rewarded for an incredible 2007. To take nothing away from his role in this film, he had a few good performances a la Jessica Chastain in 2011 that may have secured this one for him. He plays a CIA agent who helps a hard partying, embattled Congressman from Texas fund the mujahadeen in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. You can tell Aaron Sorkin's hands are all over this because at times it feels like a TV series, and Hoffman's dialogue is whip fast and too perfect. Hoffman himself plays the role ideally, with a gravitas you'd expect from an Oscar winner. However, you can't help but feel like you've already seen this type of character from Hoffman before. It reminded me of a mix of Along Came Polly, Punch-Drunk Love, and The Ides of March characters all rolled into one. Which I admit is a bit unfair since the latter film only just came out last year (2011). So I can't knock him too hard for that. He's a kind of director of the action and he is excellent at moving a scene along or shouldering the tough bits without letting us down. It's a treat to watch Hoffman do his thing - even in a film like this.
Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild
This is a very inspired performance from Hal Holbrook. I don't see it as inspiring, however, but I can certainly appreciate and respect the effort. It's incredibly obvious to me that Holbrook was so thrilled and elated to have a final shot at turning out a memorable movie role that he put his all into this one. Or at least that's what I think every time he's onscreen. His joy is palpable and his ease with which he inhabits his character speaks to an actor that has totally fused himself to the role. I liked watching his scenes because he really injected some life into a film that went long stretches of being too serious and inward. You can tell he cherished his time onscreen and the audience was definitely better for it. I do think this nomination has a bit of the usual Academy rewarding a career type sheen to it but I can see half the voters really loving the performance because it's easy to become infatuated with. Though Holbrook's character becomes a sort of father figure to the main character, Chris, it's mostly forced and seems like a dull tool with which to humanize him. This is no fault of Holbrook as the script and directing do their best to neuter him. It's unfortunate that the film did his energized performance no favors as it could have truly shined in better company.
Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton
Wilkinson's initial intro monologue is full of force and power and is a capsule of his whole performance. It's almost fun to watch him during this film because everyone else is so serious. He's had a mental breakdown and is able to have fun with his character since it means acting like a child at times. He's a man who's guilt has eaten at his insides and taken over his body and possibly made him go off his manic-depressive meds leading to his break. When Wilkinson is onscreen, the breakdown feels like an excuse for him to atone for his 6 years of defending the agrochemical company even though his law firm has no plans of settling or going to trial in order to make more money.Wilkinson is at the top of his acting game here and in fine form. He's like a man possessed, he inhabits his character and fully owns his performance. Wilkinson is the catalyst for Clooney's character questioning his role as a "fixer" and Wilkinson's litigator makes the audience question the tactics of U North and the firms they hire. Wilkinson does a great job of instantly getting the audience on his side despite the fact that we don't really know the particulars of the case. It's fascinating to watch because he's come undone just as he's found his conscience which I think is the main point of the film -- the truth will set you free, but at what price? It's great acting in a wonderfully cerebral film.
The Supporting Actor category continues to be an amazing group of men and one that I enjoy watching for this blog. No one here is undeserving of their nomination and each role was a lot of fun to watch. Bardem's role was easily the best and it stood about 100 times better than the rest. It was a classic character that blew the rest out of the water, though Affleck did give him a run for his money. I really, really like Affleck and I feel that in most any other year he would have won. It was that good to me and my clear second. Wilkinson was also really good and really helped elevate this year's Supporting into a stronger category. Hoffman and Holbrook bring up the rear but not because they were terrible. Both made their respective films that much better because they were in them. All in all, 2007 was a great year not only for film but for individual acting as well.
Oscar Winner: Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
My Winner: Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Casey Affleck
Tom Wilkinson
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Hal Holbrook
2007 Best Supporting Actor
Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Javier Bardem's portrayal of Anton Chigurh is one of the greatest instances of a "villain" being portrayed onscreen in the history of film. I truly feel that is an accurate statement. It's an absolute instant classic in the same vein as Chistoph Waltzs' Hans Landa from Inglourious Basterds (to name a contemporary comparison). It's an instantly memorable character from the voice, to the haircut, to the cattle stungun with which he kills some of his victims. We remember his scenes the most out of this film, like when he flips a coin to decide the fate of a gas station owner and calls him 'friendo,' all of which leave a mark on the viewer. The tension throughout the movie is so taut that we don't root for anyone to succeed - not Llewellyn or Chigurh. We only wait to see what happens next and that usually means what Chigurh does next, as he is the catalyst for moving this film forward. Bardem transcends and breaks down what is a typical villain role because he sets his own new standard. He is evil and bad but also somewhat funny. He acts without conscience or hesitation and calmly does his job at a plodding, but sincere, pace. Bardem forces you to admire his character, whether you want to or not, due to his workman-like attitude. There is no doubt that Bardem's character will be looked at as a paragon for villains for years, and maybe even decades, to come.
Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
I will admit that this movie is my most anticipated one since I began this blog. I've heard great things about this movie and know the cast is really incredible and that the cinematography is excellent. I just wanted to say that I was really excited about this one going into it. Having now finally watched it, I'm not sure why this wasn't a Best Picture nominee. That's how much I liked it. The acting was brilliant and Affleck absolutely deserved this nomination even if you throw out his other good performance of the year in Gone Baby Gone. Affleck conveys so much emotion just by moving his eyes and it was incredible to watch. He could show us embarrassment, absolute hatred, child-like glee and wonder, and apprehension among what was seemingly an endless display of human emotions without saying a word. And even though we know what happens in the end with him killing Jesse James, Affleck is able to resonate with the viewer and gain some understanding of his action, if not a little sympathy or pity. I can understand what it must be like to meet a childhood idol only to have them not live up to expectations and, ultimately, end up hating them because they are not the idealized version you had dreamed up. Affleck is terrific at maneuvering through the complexities of portraying a desperate and needy fan boy who only wants to fit in and be somebody while still dealing with being tormented, sometimes by James himself, and reconciling with his lofty ambitions he so desperately clings to. It's a unique and in depth look at how people strive for and deal with fame that is truly magnified by Affleck's great performance.
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Charlie Wilson's War
After wondering why the Academy would nominate Hoffman for this role I came to two conclusions: they like going back to the well with their darlings (past winners/nominees) and Hoffman was being rewarded for an incredible 2007. To take nothing away from his role in this film, he had a few good performances a la Jessica Chastain in 2011 that may have secured this one for him. He plays a CIA agent who helps a hard partying, embattled Congressman from Texas fund the mujahadeen in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. You can tell Aaron Sorkin's hands are all over this because at times it feels like a TV series, and Hoffman's dialogue is whip fast and too perfect. Hoffman himself plays the role ideally, with a gravitas you'd expect from an Oscar winner. However, you can't help but feel like you've already seen this type of character from Hoffman before. It reminded me of a mix of Along Came Polly, Punch-Drunk Love, and The Ides of March characters all rolled into one. Which I admit is a bit unfair since the latter film only just came out last year (2011). So I can't knock him too hard for that. He's a kind of director of the action and he is excellent at moving a scene along or shouldering the tough bits without letting us down. It's a treat to watch Hoffman do his thing - even in a film like this.
Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild
This is a very inspired performance from Hal Holbrook. I don't see it as inspiring, however, but I can certainly appreciate and respect the effort. It's incredibly obvious to me that Holbrook was so thrilled and elated to have a final shot at turning out a memorable movie role that he put his all into this one. Or at least that's what I think every time he's onscreen. His joy is palpable and his ease with which he inhabits his character speaks to an actor that has totally fused himself to the role. I liked watching his scenes because he really injected some life into a film that went long stretches of being too serious and inward. You can tell he cherished his time onscreen and the audience was definitely better for it. I do think this nomination has a bit of the usual Academy rewarding a career type sheen to it but I can see half the voters really loving the performance because it's easy to become infatuated with. Though Holbrook's character becomes a sort of father figure to the main character, Chris, it's mostly forced and seems like a dull tool with which to humanize him. This is no fault of Holbrook as the script and directing do their best to neuter him. It's unfortunate that the film did his energized performance no favors as it could have truly shined in better company.
Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton
Wilkinson's initial intro monologue is full of force and power and is a capsule of his whole performance. It's almost fun to watch him during this film because everyone else is so serious. He's had a mental breakdown and is able to have fun with his character since it means acting like a child at times. He's a man who's guilt has eaten at his insides and taken over his body and possibly made him go off his manic-depressive meds leading to his break. When Wilkinson is onscreen, the breakdown feels like an excuse for him to atone for his 6 years of defending the agrochemical company even though his law firm has no plans of settling or going to trial in order to make more money.Wilkinson is at the top of his acting game here and in fine form. He's like a man possessed, he inhabits his character and fully owns his performance. Wilkinson is the catalyst for Clooney's character questioning his role as a "fixer" and Wilkinson's litigator makes the audience question the tactics of U North and the firms they hire. Wilkinson does a great job of instantly getting the audience on his side despite the fact that we don't really know the particulars of the case. It's fascinating to watch because he's come undone just as he's found his conscience which I think is the main point of the film -- the truth will set you free, but at what price? It's great acting in a wonderfully cerebral film.
The Supporting Actor category continues to be an amazing group of men and one that I enjoy watching for this blog. No one here is undeserving of their nomination and each role was a lot of fun to watch. Bardem's role was easily the best and it stood about 100 times better than the rest. It was a classic character that blew the rest out of the water, though Affleck did give him a run for his money. I really, really like Affleck and I feel that in most any other year he would have won. It was that good to me and my clear second. Wilkinson was also really good and really helped elevate this year's Supporting into a stronger category. Hoffman and Holbrook bring up the rear but not because they were terrible. Both made their respective films that much better because they were in them. All in all, 2007 was a great year not only for film but for individual acting as well.
Oscar Winner: Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
My Winner: Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Casey Affleck
Tom Wilkinson
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Hal Holbrook
Monday, June 11, 2012
Supporting Actress 2007
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)