Wednesday, March 31, 2010

The Actor Factor, Episode 1: 2004

One of the best thing about those fickle things called Oscars is when you bitch about them with like-minded people. Many have devoted time to critiquing the women, the pictures &etc, but what about the men? Best Actor is often an interesting thing to talk about, so last weekend Luke (of Journalistic Skepticism), Jose (of Movies Kick Ass) and I sat down and discussed the 2004 Best Actor Race. Here’s part
        
Andrew: Okay, so let's get down to it. 2004. Cheadle, Depp, DiCaprio, Eastwood and Foxx. On a purely superficial level is this one of the most diverse Best Actor lineups of the decade?
      
Luke: For this category, yes, it appears it's stepped away from its typical "old white guy" tendencies.
        
Jose: Not really, we've got four real people and Clint Eastwood. Ins't that what they always go for?
         
Luke: Yeah, except for Eastwood. Being a part of the "Best Actor" lineup seems a little off for him...
        
Jose: But they always stick him somewhere, whether it be director, producer or actor, I'm honestly surprised he's never won best score or song yet.
         
Andrew: Well in reality it's not that diverse. As you said Jose, four real people. Tis real heavy; but actor wise – we have the legend (Eastwood), the black comedian (Foxx), the black serious actor (Cheadle), the former teen heart throb (DiCaprio) and the international star (Depp)...
       
Jose: and four out of five were in Best Pic nominees, so it's rather uninspiring, especially in the face of the ones who were snubbed.
        
Luke: Very true - and what an utterly confusing lineup for Best Picture... but I guess that's another story, hm?
      
Andrew: That being said. I guess we'd all agree that Eastwood would be the first one we'd boot off of the nominee list?
         
Jose : actually not me. He’s my second fave from the nominees
          
Luke: Oh definitely - I mean, I just saw Don Cheadle's performance for the first time today actually, but I'd already say he was superior to Eastwood - or at least what I remember of Million Dollar Baby.
    
Andrew: Now you've got me interested, Jose. Who would you say is the worst of the five?
     
Jose: Worst? Foxx by all means
      
Andrew: Well to be honest, Eastwood and Foxx are battling it out, but even though I don't agree with the pick I can understand why they fall for Foxx...Eastwood does nothing for me.
      
Jose: It is such an unnatural performance, not that I've a problem with over the top acting, but he struck me as disrespectful in some aspects
       
Andrew: What do you think of Foxx in Ray, Luke?
         
Luke: I'm not a big fan of rewarding impressive impersonations, so Foxx isn't high on my list. I think with Ray I had to keep from letting myself get wrapped up in loving the music and remember that he's not truly giving a great performance. I thought the movie itself was better than he was - especially Regina King. Loved her.
         
Andrew: I'll agree on that. The thing is sometimes actors can pull off the imitative thing, but the thing with Foxx his comedic talents lay in his impersonations and he was obviously pretending to be Charles and never being him.
            
Jose: I agree, I rest my case by saying I love the fact that Cate won for playing Kate Hepburn that year looking nothing like the woman, while the praise for the whole clone thing Foxx had going on with Ray is still a mystery to me
             
Andrew: Foxx just isn't that talented to pull it off and make it work, I think.
          
Jose: Definitely! He was riding on a goodwill thing, I think he won the Oscar the day Ray Charles passed away.
          
Luke: Right - it really did just feel like an extended In Living Color sketch or something... it didn't seem like he was taking the "acting" part of the job entirely seriously.
Luke: So I take it we can all agree that Jamie Foxx left a little something to be desired?
                        
Jose: I mean the man won the Album of the year Grammy as well
                
Andrew: Duly noted, Jose. Eastwood and Foxx would be easily knocked off the list...but what are your thoughts on Depp, gentlemen? He's in the middle for me
.                      
Luke: I'm on the fence about it. I thought Finding Neverland was only okay, and this nomination was very clearly a part of the Academy's new love of him (which seems to have faded since Sweeney Todd). It definitely wasn't a good showcase of his talents.
            
Jose: He was OK, I think it's part of the sudden crush AMPAS and the world developed on him after Pirates. They’d have nominated him for anything to make up for the snubs throughout the 90's.
         
Andrew: I'm a little fool-hardy about Finding Neverland. I know it's faulty, but I'm still sucked in (like Chocolat, but that's another story).
               
Jose: Haha me too but it's more about Winslet and Christie than about Depp
                 
Luke: Yeah, that one was totally Winslet's show (and a little bit Freddie Highmore too).
                  
Jose: Right, too bad they screwed it all with that awful Charlie and the Chocolate Factory adaptation
            
Andrew: A reason I'm so willing to praise Depp is that he doesn't go over board with Barrie like he could. He seems almost willing to be a little on the sidelines.
   
Jose: You know what my problem with that was? That you could see Depp underacting. The man is all about extremes I think and weird and cooky works better for him than understated
                         
Andrew: On that note of being understated, what do you think of Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda. I have a feeling that AMPAS was trying to throw off their reputation for being anti black with Foxx and I think Don would have been a more deserving (black) winner.
         
Jose: He's great! But he rides a bit too much on the Sydney Poitier wave of political correctness for him to make too much of an impact
                    
Luke: Totally agree! I was definitely think about Sidney as I was watching it.
                   
Andrew: That didn't occur to me, but now that you mention it...
           
Jose: I felt like they were consciously trying to make him into a black Oskar Schindler
           
Luke: It was quite different than what I expected - it had sort of an early '90s filming vibe to it that I rather enjoyed. I think he would've made a far better choice than Foxx.
                       
Andrew: I was telling my sister recently that the thing with Cheadle is that unlike Foxx, Cheadle is not BLACK. He's African American (or whatever), and AMPAS has a way of liking to reward the extremes.
                     
Jose: But yeah I agree, if they were trying to make it about race, Cheadle was worthier than Foxx
              
Luke: I think that Cheadle's advantage was that he seemed to have the best in show act all wrapped up. I mean, Nick Nolte and Joaquin Phoenix just bugged me
           
Andrew: But I was impressed with Okenodo. Why doesn’t the woman get more roles?
                      
Jose: But there was Sophie too! I think the film suffered because it was so small
                            
Luke: Can I just voice my confusion about Hotel Rwanda's nomination for Best Cast at the SAGs? Why is it that Phoenix and Nolte were listed out of only four people when there were dozens of other worthy speaking parts in the film? Is it a requirement to be a famous thesp to get a nomination in that category?
                
Jose: Not if you're in Slumdog Millionaire...
              
Andrew: Well look at the situation with Precious, all those girls from class were left off and in An Education for some random reason Cara Seymour wasn't mentioned even though she had more lines than Thompson and Williams.
           
Luke: AND Seymour happened to be one of the best performances in the film!
                
Jose: But doesn't that depend on the studio submissions? Or is it SAG who chooses who's worthy or not?
                   
Andrew: Does it, Jose? I have no idea.
         
Jose: If it's the studios it makes much more sense they'd want Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie to be SAG winners over people like extra # 1 or guy who's famous in the Middle East
               
Andrew: How did Brangelina get into this coversation?
              
Jose: Well I remembered he won this year and she just came into the equation haha
          
Andrew: Back to 04. You probably know this already, but DiCaprio tops my list easily. I'm a HUGE Aviator fan. Am I over praising him?
                       
Jose: Not at all, he was robbed! And they did it again by snubbing him for Revolutionary Road!
                  
Luke: No, he tops my list too. I think The Aviator has lost some of its steam for me on future viewings, but of this group, he's easily my top choice. Sidenote - I'm watching Catch Me If You Can currently, another performance I thought he was wrongly overlooked for.
Andrew: I think the thing about Oscar, it seems they're willing to reward someone who comes out of nowhere and gives a good (or baity) performance eg, Brodey, Foxx but they won't reward people who've grown up in the business and steadily improved eg. DiCaprio, or even Pitt and Depp
       
Jose: AMPAS is such a bully that way. They love one hit wonders because they are less threatening to the establishment
         
Luke: Maybe these steady steam-gatherers are the ones who'll have to wait until they're in their 50s…
                
Jose: …or get an honorary one in that awful non-televised gala
                    
Andrew: I love how you make AMPAS some like some sinister big brother type, Jose.
          
Jose: isn't it though?
                
Luke: For some reason, I just don't see DiCaprio winning anytime soon. It seems like Aviator was that moment in time where it seemed possible. But now, people just don't get as excited about him anymore.
              
Jose: it's like they're setting him up to fail, like they did with Winslet til last year. when he makes The Departed they nominate him for the hideous Blood Diamond.
             
Andrew: If I had my way I'd immediately knock out Eastwood and Foxx for Jude, Jim or Javier.
          
Luke: I would definitely place Jim Carrey in my second spot for the year...
                   
Jose: Jim Carrey won that Oscar in my mind
                 
Luke: I'd throw in Jude and Gael as well
                
Jose: What about Paul, Andrew?
        
Andrew: I don't know what it is about Sideways, but I always feel as if it's a joke that I'm not in on. I just don't get it? Am I the only one?
             
Luke: Oh gosh no, I don't understand the appeal of Sideways, whatsoever.
                 
Jose: Perhaps not but I still think Paul was sublime. The movie I don't love as much anymore.
                 
Luke: I just remember being very meh over Virginia Madsen, who at the time I saw it was the frontrunner for the Oscar.
              
Andrew: People always talk about being moved by Paul and Virginia (of course Paul is more worthy than Eastwood and Foxx) but I find Haden Church and Sandra Oh to be much more convincing.
              
Jose: I think that had a lot to do with how all the old white guys wanted to screw her and thought "if Paul can..."
            
Luke: And Paul Giamatti is so uncomfortable to watch... maybe it's because of those trailers for Big Fat Liar where he's the big angry blue dude with equally angry blue goatee. And Sanrda Oh was my favorite in the movie, Andrew.
                              
Andrew: Paul really has gone to the dogs, but I still love him. I'd have chosen him for my 05 Supporting list (over Gylenhaal too)...but that's a whole other post...
              
Luke: So where are we at guys? It seems we’re not so enthused about, well, anyone in this category. Where do they rank #1-#5 for you?
       
Andrew: DiCaprio , Cheadle (A-), Depp (B, B+ when I'm happy), Eastwood (C), Foxx (C)... I'm a lenient grader when it comes to acting though, it's more difficult to grade performances than films
        
Luke: (1) DiCaprio ... (2) Cheadle ... (3) Depp ... (4) Foxx ... (5) Eastwood [fairly similar, there]
                
Jose: DiCaprio A, Eastwood B, Cheadle B-, Depp B-, Foxx C
                 
Luke: So does this make us bitter people that the nearly unanimous least favorite was the eventual winner?
                
Andrew: Damn, right. I'm bitter.
            
Jose: Nah, if you like the Oscars this is actually fairly common, I'm quite used to it by now
            
Luke: Especially in this past decade. Sheesh.
                
Andrew: I was so invested in 04 - it was the first Oscar ceremony I was actually predicting, and Cate's win was one of the FEW highlights.
                
Jose: They tend to reward mediocrity and feel good about it
                 
Andrew: Bening's loss, MDB winning. Aaargh.
          
Jose: I almost shed a tear when Marty lost
                          
Luke: Oh god - yeah it was a pretty bad waste of a ceremony in terms of winners.
                     
Jose: ...And damn Julia Roberts should never present anything! She's always so happy when the so-so people win
                 
Andrew: She's just a happy person who loves her life.
                
Jose: Then she should hand out the Globe for Musical or Comedy not Best director at the Oscars... but I forgive her because she was robbed of a nomination that year as well...
               
Luke: Yeah, is it time to be imaginary yet? To right the wrongs?
                   
Jose: I'm sensing it'll be more interesting than tearing apart the nominees
                     
Andrew: Oh, crap. I though we did that. Okay, throwing it out: my list: DiCaprio and Law, then Carey and Cheadle and the final spot goes to either Javier Bardem or Johnny Depp or Liam Neeson.
           
Luke: My picks: Leonardo DiCaprio (The Aviator), Jim Carrey (Eternal Sunshine), Jude Law (Closer), Gael Garcia Bernal (Bad Education), and Matt Damon (The Bourne Supremacy) ... I like a hodgepodge.
                 
Andrew: I need to see Bad Education, but Luke's list looks way more respectable than Oscar...
                  
Jose: I'm biased when it comes to Pedro but yes you should. What was Liam in, Andrew?
               
Andrew: Kinsey...are you serious?
            
Jose: oh true hahaha, I always forget him and Laura.
                   
Luke: Ah, yes. Bad Education is top-notch.
                   
Jose: Mine would be 1.Jim Carrey 2.Leonardo DiCaprio 3.Gael 4.Ethan Hawke 5.Clint Eastwood
               
Andrew: Jose...Clint over Jude. CLINT over JUDE (f***ing) LAW - I'm the definition of an obsessed Jude fan, by the way. Be warned.
            
Jose: I just don't feel like Jude was as good, I loved him in Cold Mountain but he wasn't a stand out in Closer... coming from someone who'd nominated Julia, Clive and Natalie
                    
Andrew: Bastard...I forgive you though.
                      
Jose: Thank you.
              
Andrew: I'd call this the second/third Actor lineup of the year - along with 02, 05, 06...and maybe even 09 when I think about it?
          
Jose: I agree, but I prefer 03 over 05
                        
Andrew: Ooops, I mean I’d call this the second/third WORST actor lineup. 2005 was just a baaaaaaaad year, all around.
                  
Jose: I know, 05 and 08 mostly made me want to tear my eyes out in terms of Oscars because they were stupendous movie years
         
Luke: Talking best lineups of the decade in this category? I'm definitely going to have to go with '03 and '08. Although '07 was also mostly good.
                     
Andrew: My favourite best actor lineup last decade is easily 00. I'd choose anyone from there; but 03 and 07 are close behind.
                   
Jose: I disagree. Depp and Lee Jones over McAvoy can not be good in any way
                 
Andrew: I pretend Tommy Lee Jones isn't there...I really do.

Luke: That's what I meant by "mostly good." I just couldn't get into Michael Clayton like everyone else. You might hate this, but I actually really liked Depp in Sweeney Todd. Sue me.
          
Andrew: Oh crap, Michael Clayton was 07...? Okay, 07 is out. Hated that year.
               
Okay dear reader. Do you like this new feature? Any tips? What are your thoughts on the discussion? What did you think of 2004's Actor's Race? Sound off below!

Monday, March 29, 2010

"Violence! Violence!"

American Beauty...Just About Americans?

It’s a fact that even when The Academy makes decisions that are ostensibly good they get flack for it. It happened with The Departed, The Lord of the Rings and with American Beauty. On the superficial level American Beauty (as the name suggests) is somewhat of an irreverent ode to America. Yet that doesn’t mitigate its relevance to the world’s populace. No other recent Best Picture winner (or nominee, even) has been as evocative of the times we live in. It sounds like a trite statement today, but as prosaic as Ball’s script it, it still exists an articulate representation of the changing values in our time, and yet American Beauty is more than that.
                
If memory serves me right, the moment that many remember most from American Beauty is the effusive image of the floating plastic bag. Excellent as it is, subtle is not the word I’d use to describe American Beauty. It is a pity that none of the cast members (save for Annette and Chris, to an extent) were able to follow up their performances here with better things. Wes Bentley’s performance as the intrepid loner, of sorts, gives the best performance that is not from Annette or Kevin. The blatancy of his artistic nature as indicated by his “movies” is a bit humouring, but it’s in keeping with the black comedic style of the entire film. American Beauty is so excellently obvious I’m never sure if it’s a farce or indicative of Greek Tragedy. To assess it from the ending I’m always surprised at how satisfying the ending is – even though we’ve lost our protagonist. I’m never sure if I should accuse the filmmakers of being too pat. What will happen to the living afterwards? Will Lester’s death really catapult an epiphany of sorts in Carolyn? I’m not sure, but Annette’s reaction to his death does cause me to wonder. She hasn’t been playing a stereotype throughout the film; she really does care for her family in that (perverse) way of hers.
                
I suppose, if I’m honest with myself, the entire film is working against her. Isn’t it? Spacey is excellent, and he has no trouble making us believe Lester because we see ourselves in each schmuck-like action he does. But few have as much self awareness to recognise the features of themselves in Carolyn. Take for example her line reading “There’s a lot about me that you don’t know, Mr. Smarty Pants.” It’s – in some ways where the metaphorical separation of Carolyn and Lester occurs. And as much as the script is working against her (do they have to make her seem like such a bitch? She just doesn’t want to destroy her couch.) she has no qualms about completely decimating Carolyn (even if the damage is only superficial). If any Annette scene sticks out in American Beauty (truthfully, they all do) it’s her manic monologue of sorts as she prepares to sell that house. In a film of obviously harrowing scenes this one sticks out as most disturbing. It’s more than the slaps, the faux cheerfulness or the repetitive monologue. The look in her eyes as she goes through it all is just scary.
            
I should try to avoid turning this piece into homage for Annette; she’s not the only radiance in the film. Although Kevin’s win is not completely loved, I’m a big fan. There’s an almost even split between Lester, the douche and Lester, the dick – and Kevin convinces me of both. One thing I always regret is that unlike Mendes’ Revolutionary Road, American Beauty is not as laced with prime episodes of rapport between the two leads. It’s when American Beauty reaches its peak for me. The two have such a splendid chemistry together. The thing with American Beauty is that it’s easy to miss its brilliance while we’re being caught up in the seeming triteness of it all. The machinations of the children are played so glibly we are almost fooled into believing it’s as mundane as they think. It’s the point of the film though, we’re supposed to know people like the Burnhams or Chris Cooper’s neurotic father. It’s a stereotype he takes and turns into something almost special.
      
I wouldn’t say that I’m biased towards American Beauty. I’m as aware of its faults as I am of its merits, but I adore it still. As aware as I am of its blunders I’ll still maintain that it’s almost perfect. Mendes has become underrated as the years have gone by, and so as the film, but I continue to be a fan. It’s #37 on my list of favourites.

Performances of the Decade (Female)

Comedy. It’s become a loaded word when we thing of critics, and award ceremonies and all that jazz. I’ll be honest, drama is my thing. Still, I do like a good comedy performance as much as the next guy. I just don’t like slapstick. For me, comedy constitutes more than the tritely humour we’ve become accustomed to, and in some ways I suppose there is little hilarity to be found in this entry. It is the final entry though, I’ve been covering the women who impressed me most this past decade and in many ways this was a no-brainer. I feel no sense of reluctance to call it my favourite of the last decade, and it is also my favourite comedic performance of the last decade.
                
#1 Joan Allen in The Upside of Anger (2005)
It’s one of those prosaic rules to film – when we see an actor drinking alone and watching television we know they’re a drunk. It’s the same with Terry Ann Wolfmeyer. Her husband has disappeared with his wallet and passport one morning; he was being released from his job in the near future and the Swedish secretary he’s been eyeballing just happened to have left the country at the same time he disappears. Terry knows she’s been left. She’s not whiner, and she’s not a softie. She is direct, abrasive, grounded…in fact – she’s a bit of a bitch. For better or worse. Sure, her daughter Popeye tells us that she used to be the nicest woman in the neighbourhood. We don’t care about that, because we can’t be certain that that’s true. Terry is a woman good and angry.
                          
Each time I watch this film I realise more and more how evenly spread the narrative is. The first time I watched my memory was of Joan only and it’s not until much later I realised that the film is not completely focused on her Terry as she would have you believed – but that’s to her credit. The film is diverting, but imperfect. Still, when the screen catches her Joan commands it and turns it into brilliance. There’s a scene in the middle of the film that’s not really as good as Joan makes it. Her daughter Hadley is graduating from college and breaks the news of her pregnancy and imminent wedding. Terry is – of course – aghast. She’s even more incensed that the groom’s parents have been ecstatic about the news for some time. “How long have they been ecstatic,” she asks her daughter who seeks to evade the question. “DAMN YOU, HADLEY! HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN ECSTATIC?” Off the top of my head, this is somewhere among my favourite line readings of the decade. Joan is completely in touch with the woman she plays and as Terry storms through an embarrassing engagement party of sorts we never miss the chance to empathise with this woman even when she’s at her most shrewish.
                    
It’s like the way she approaches the relationship with Denny. We can almost see Terry close up every time the stakes get high and Denny implies something more than just cheap, meaningless (drunken) sex. It’s one of the things that Joan is excellent at, actually. She is fully capable of giving us a fully nuanced performance even when she says nothing. I love her line readings to death, but she doesn’t need them to be excellent. There’s the scene where the camera pans around the dinner table in a circle and Terry imagines her daughter’s boyfriend’s head blowing up, her response is an eerie smile. It’s an excellent response for Terry from Joan, so true and yet so funny and she never milks it too much even when it seems a tad too ridiculous – the incoherent mutterings she utters as she sees her teenage daughter in bed with a man a few years her junior. Then, there’s the glibness of her expression and the coolness of her voice as she utter lines like – “I’ll be in the kitchen finishing dinner. Maybe you can come in and help me. Who knows? You may get there in time to pull my head out of the oven.”
            
I like The Upside of Anger way more than I should. It depends on a twist that really has no business being there, but yet I find that it works so well. I should take this moment to point out that the entire cast is excellent – Alicia Witt, Erika Christensen, Keri Russel, Evan Rachel Wood, Mike Bender (the writer and director) and an understated Kevin Costner. Joan plays off each of them excellently but even then, we don’t care because the film belongs to her and her alone. In fact – the entire decade does, as far as I’m concerned. It’s a performance like no other.
                
How surprised are you at my choice? But more importantly – did Joan impress you in The Upside of Anger?

Sunday, March 28, 2010

My Coming of Age Drama...

CS from Big Thoughts From a Small Mind has a feature over at LAMB - Pitch the LAMB.
            
This month, we're doing coming of age films.
          
Examples of the Genre: The Graduate, Zombieland, Almost Famous, The Goonies, Big, Heavenly Creatures, Rushmore, Sixteen Candles, Stand By Me, An Education, Ghost World, To Sir With Love, Y tu mamá también, But I'm A Cheerleader, Dazed and Confused
10 words/phrases to get you started:

10 words/phrases to get you started:

1. Working
2. He's going to kill you...
3. Loner
4. She does not know I am alive...
5. Hey Frankie...
6. Kissed
7. Do not tell Dad...
8. Virginity
9. You did what?
10. Grounded

Here’s my entry: Untitled – a melodrama
Here’s a plot synopsis:
It is sometime in the 1930s – England, a few years before the war. 17 year old orphan, Patrick Clifton is shipped off to the countryside (from the orphanage) to his aunt Jennifer. Jennifer has, for some time, been married to Geoffrey Alabster – a businessman of some sort. He and Jennifer live on their estate with his daughter Margaret (23), which sits just next to a railroad track. Margaret is being wooed by Ashley Crawford – a nobleman. Ashley makes a marriage proposition to Margaret. She coyly vows to respond at a later date. Ashley is displeased, but doesn’t show it. Patrick is drawn to Margaret, who uses his naïveté as a means of go-between her and Jonathan Adams – one of the servants. Patrick idealistically feels that there is mutuality in his affection towards Margaret; he fails to realise she doesn’t know (or care) that he’s alive 4, other than as an envoy. He inadvertently wanders in on Margaret losing her virginity 8 to Jonathan one evening. Aghast, Margaret urges him not to tell her father 7. He impetuously kisses her 6, which upsets her. She slaps him impulsively. He storms to his room. Certain that her father will soon learn of her indiscretion with Jonathan, she hurries to him and the two decide to leave the Alabaster home. Margaret hastens to her room to pack some things, Jennifer happens upon her in the process. She reluctantly confesses that she’s leaving. Jennifer attempts to stop her, warning her that her father will kill her 2. Unheeding Jennifer’s words she goes down to the grounds. As she exits the door her father and Ashley come from his library. Geoffrey has just granted Ashley permission to marry her. She is infuriated, questioning him furiously 9. She then turns on her heels (and scoffing) tells them of her plans. They follow her across the estate where she meets Jonathan. Despite the ensuing threats of her father she makes to leave with him. Ashley rashly reaches a gun in his pocket, shooting and killing Jonathan. Naturally, a train is coming down the tracks and Margaret leaps onto the tracks – and dies. We cut to the aghast face of Patrick as we fade to the credits.
              
CAST
Margaret / Keira Knightley
Jonathan / Dominic Cooper
Patrick / Freddy Highmore
Jennifer / Kristin Scott Thomas
Ashley / Rupert Friend
Geoffrey / Ralph Fiennes
   
NOTE: I'm not mad, I am completely aware that there is no titular coming of age in the film - but you know me...I'm weird like that. I'm stuck on a name for maudlin tragedy. Any suggestions, reader?

Performances of the Decade (Male)

I’m breathing sigh of release in a way as I come to the final two entries in this long feature. Surely, it’s all subjective because we all have different thoughts. The aughts have been regarded as the decade where many actors burst on to the scene – Depp, Hoffman, Ledger but for me the aughts were all about one man. If I decided to do a list of the greatest actors last decade he’s top it easily. It’s a performance that has not been celebrated enough as it should have been. But that’s what I’m here for, to remember the greatest male performance of the last ten years. This was an easy choice.
        
#1 Leonardo DiCaprio in Revolutionary Road (2008)
Revolutionary Road is difficult to watch as it is to pull off. It seems to begin at the crescendo and the actors need to harbour the interest of the audience for the next two hours. But it’s a trick really. Sure, Leo is good in those first few scenes but it’s nothing compared to what is to come as he gives the best performance of his career. The clichéd feeling of the fifties man dissatisfied with his life probably does not resonate as much as it did when the novel premiered, but Leo breathes new life into the cliché. It works because of the familiarity with him. We’ve watched him grow and that irrepressibility is still there in him even as we watch the life – literally – being sucked out of him. He manages to keep us feeling for him even as he cheats on his wife. His guilt is palpable, like in the shower was we can see him trying to scrub off the traces of the sordid affair.
                   
Like with his last performance cited what makes Leo’s Frank so memorable is the bits of vulnerability he is so willing to disclose. He tries to hide is fair and immaturity behind his audaciousness; but like his wife’s coldness it’s simply a mask that we can watch crumbling if we look closely at him. From the final appearance of John until the film’s end Leo is in excellent form. I cannot help but cringe as he confesses his affair to April. It’s the sort of impish, pathetic thing we expect from him. It is sad to see his reaction as he realises her (assumed) apathetic stance. The growing panic on his face is difficult to watch as you can see him literally clutching at straws. It’s a panic that turns Shanley’s visit into a disaster. It would seem over-the-top as Frank gets physical with his guest, but we need look closer. This is a man at breaking point.
That final dispute with April belongs to DiCaprio completely as he crumbles before our eyes and we see him for the child that he is. His reaction the next morning to April is excellent, his hesitance and uncertainty. I love his reading of the line “You don’t hate me; or anything…” Of course that final reaction to April’s death is a classic. The run through the streets – with no destination –it’s perhaps a theme of his life. It’s strange that the tagline for Mendes’ debut was ‘look closer’. We should probably do the same with DiCaprio’s work as Frank Wheeler.
      
I suppose this is a surprising pick, but Leo has never impressed me more. What are your thoughts on him in Revolutionary Road?

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Distinguished Ladies: A Look Ahead...

In the last decade we lost a number of esteemed movie stars, among them Katharine Hepburn. You probably know my feelings on Kate, and I always wished that she’d had a career resurgence before her death. Of course she was in her nineties. These few women aren’t exactly at death’s door (knock wood) but I’m getting a bit antsy for their prospects – cinematically speaking. It’s hard enough getting roles now, but before the next decade they’ll all be seventy. That’ll be even more difficult. Their counterparts (Dench, Streep, Mirren) continue to find success on films. I wish they’d be so lucky. Here are the nine  older gals I hope get a career resurrection this decade. The rule is they can’t have had a notable leading role recently, so even though I wish they’d both do better work Sissy Spaceck (In the Bedroom) Diane Keaton (Something’s Gotta Give) and Julie Christie (Away From Her) don’t make the top ten, even though they’re on the sidelines, not far from this nine.

Marsha Mason (67)
Oscar Nominations: Cinderella Liberty (1973), The Goodbye Girl (1977), Chapter Two (1979) Only When I Laugh (1981)
Last Notable Role: Only When I Laugh (1981)

Back in the days she was a constant Oscar nominee, but I suppose few even remember who she is. She was a formidable screen presence, and I don't think that's something that one can lose. She is particularly gifted in comedy and with so many comedic roles for older women up for grabs it's a pity she can't even land one of those. It's a longshot, I suppose, hoping she'll ever get another good role...
                       
Barbra Streisand (67)
Oscar Win: Funny Girl (1968), Oscar Nomination: The Way We Were (1972)
Last Notable Role: The Mirror Has Two Faces (1996)
You may scoff, but Barbra Streisand is actually a talented. She’s not done a real film role in some time and I wonder if she’s forgotten how to. More than being a talented actress, though, she’s an exceptional comedian and I would love to see her reawaken her comedic talents in a nice caustic role (a la Judi in Mrs. Henderson Presents). She has enough money to fund it for herself.
           
Sally Field (63)
Oscar Wins: Norma Rae 1979, Places in the Heart (1984
Last Notable Role: Mrs. Doubtfire (1993)
The lady is obviously talented. She is currently doing good work on Brothers & Sisters; but I want her back on the big screen. Sally has a knack for heavy drama and she deserves to get a nice juicy dramatic role. The role of a grieving mother sounds like the perfect type of schmaltzy drama she can make work. I mean, Places in the Heart shouldn’t work as well as it does, but it’s Sally’s talent that makes it succeed.
               
Julie Andrews (74)
Oscar Win: Mary Poppins (1964); Oscar Nominations: The Sound of Music (1965), Victor/Victoria (1982)
Last Notable Role: Duet For One (1985)
I don’t mind when I see actors I love slumming it in pop fare, but I got no satisfaction from seeing her in The Princess Diaries. It’s become a “given” now that Julie can’t act, but I think that’s an obvious untruth. Sure, she thrives when she sings but The Sound of Music and Mary Poppins don’t work any less she uses her acting skills alone. The woman has a skill with mannered comedy, I’m not sure if she’s given up on acting or acting has given up on her….
                               
Jessica Lange (60)
Oscar Wins: Tootsie (1982), Blue Sky (1994), Oscar Nominations: Frances, Country (1984) Sweet Dreams (1985) Music Box (1989)
Last Notable Role: Cousin Bette (1998)
I’m not sure why, but Jessica Lange doesn’t seem to have too many roles (or fans). For the life of me, I can’t see why. Plastic surgery or not she continues to be an excellent actress (see Grey Gardens, Big Fish) and when she spoke about the lack of roles she gets at the Emmy’s last year I felt a bit sad. The woman’s a double Oscar winner, beautiful and talented. Who doesn’t want to see her in a movie? She has a formidable range. I really want someone to give her the chance to use it.
             
Susan Sarandon (63)
Oscar Win: Dead Man Walking (1995), Oscar Nominations: Atlantic City (1981), Thelma & Louise (1991), Lorenzo’s Oil (1992), The Client (1994)
Last Notable Role: The Banger Sisters (2002)
In a way Susan is like Diane Keaton. She’s been doing work, but not deserving of her talent. She gave a valiant performance opposite Carey Mulligan in The Greatest this year, but the film is not worthy of either woman. She just needs to work with better talent; she’s obviously not lost her touch for turning stock roles into real people. I still recall how the stodgy Shall We Dance lighted up whenever she was on screen. I wonder if her separation from Tim will send her career up or down...
     
Vanessa Redgrave (73)
Oscar Win: Julia (1977), Oscar Nominations: Morgan 1966, Isadora (1968, Mary, Queen of Scots (1971)The Bostonians (1984)Howards End
Last Notable Role: Mrs. Dalloway (1997)
I suppose in some ways this is a bit of a cheat since Ms. Redgrave actually has two films slated for release this year. She has the Amanda Seyfried romance (Letters from Juliet) and the alleged Ralph Fiennes Shakespeare piece (Coriolanus). I’m not certain if they’ll reach fruition, and nonetheless, there’s nothing like too much Vanessa. She remains as one of the most resplendent actors on screen and has aged so gracefully. She was slated to play Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine in the Robin Hood flick this year, but the death of her daughter Natasha Richardson prevented it.
              
Maggie Smith (75)
Oscar Wins: The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (1969), California Suite (1978); Oscar Nominations: Othello (1965), Travels With My Aunt (1972) A Room With A View (1986) Gosford Park (2001)
Last Notable Role: Tea With Mussolini (1999)
Maggie has brightened the last decade with supporting roles (some prime) on screen. Her most notable was he part in Gosford Park – which earned an Oscar nod. Still, even that’s been a while. I do enjoy seeing her breathe life into McGonagall in the Harry Potter series, but surely she deserves a greater role to go out on. Maggie is one of those rare thespians who is equally skilled in comedy as she is in drama, so there’s any number of great roles that could be offered to her.

Glenn Close (63)
Oscar Nominations: The World According to Garp (1982); The Big Chill (1983), The Natural (1984); Fatal Attraction (1987), Dangerous Liaisons (1988)
Last Notable Role: Hamlet (1990)
Sometimes I forget that my darling Glenn is over sixty. She always seems so full of life. She’s experiencing a rebirth of sorts on TV impressing audiences with her audacious work on Damages, but I’m not satisfied. It’s not that I don’t like TV – I do. But the screen is where I'll always prefer to see her, and she is worthy of it. I’d love to see her bring that musical version of Sunset Boulevard to fruition - although I know the chances of that are slim at best. The thing is, she can play more than the caustic roles we've come to recognise (and love) her for. Why isn't anyone using her talents?
             
Which of these women deserves a plum role the most? Or is there someone I've missed?

Forgotten Characters 2:5

It's been quite some time since I've done one of these - over a month actually, so here goes.
          
2009’s Revolutionary Road was one of my favourite films of that year. For me it was a perfect blend of good writing, good acting and good direction featuring two outstanding performances from the two leads. The film was unfairly ignored by a majority of the Award ceremonies. So I’d like to shine a light on
     
Kathy Bates in Revolutionary
As Mrs. Givings
As Mrs. Givings, Kathy Bates gives what is arguably my favourite supporting performance from her. As a duplicitous realtor her thoughts are enigmatic at best, until the very end. We meet her right at the beginning after April’s travesty of a play. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that it wasn’t a hit. Her first few words to Frank are "I can’t tell you how much we enjoyed it. You have a very talented wife." It seems like just a few kind words, but Mrs. Givings profuse praise is just a tad bit unnerving, only setting the tone for what her character is like. Even when we feel something near sadness for her situation it’s never sympathy. When her son John makes his appearance and she is on the receiving end of his caustic words we never can feel sorry for her. It’s a good acting choice on Kathy’s part playing Mrs. Givings as a sort of Stepford Wife.
         
My favourite moment from her comes during John’s second visit to the Wheelers. There’s that moment when John hits at the core of the Wheeler’s façade and Frank picks up the chair in anger, the look of terror on Kathy’s face is so controlled and so real at the same time. It’s a good acting moment and I always remember that look on her face. Of course the revelation of her character in the final minutes of the film is proverbial punch in the gut. It severs any chance we had of liking this fickle woman. And it is that moment that we truly realise that she is as inconstant as the wind. As the film ends with her droning voice and her husband attempts to block out her voice, we too are only happy to be rid of her. Never before has Kathy Bates been so disagreeable.
     
Did Kathy have any effect on you?

1993: Beautiful Periods

Martin Scorsese is my favourite director so it’s no surprise that he makes quite a number of appearances on my list of 100 favourite films. People love Scorsese...even his films that don’t get all the love [King of Comedy, Mean Streets, Casino] are still widely loved...expect for this. I could be wrong. Maybe there are people out there who love this...but I’ve never met them. I think this is Scorsese’s most underrated film. It is not ostensibly about deception, anguish or war as Good Fellas, The Departed or Raging Bull. But The Age of Innocence is as profound as Scorsese’s other works. The story is adapted from Edith Wharton's novel of the same name. It tells the story of a Newland Archer, a wealthy New York Bachelor. He is engaged to May Whitfield – a pretty, rich and dim young lady who seems infatuated with Newland. Newland is ready to set down and all seems to be going well until the appearance of May’s cousin – Countess Olenska. Olenska is European and divorcing her husband – scandalous in New York. May encourages Newland to befriend Olenska – she a social pariah...and their friendship becomes something more...
I wasn’t around in the days when the phrase Merchant Ivory signified brilliance but I’m still appreciative of the great work they’ve done in adapting classic literature to classic film. Few have done it as excellently as they have. The Remains of the Day was their final juggernaut that triumphed with Oscar – and yet the film won none of the eight Oscars it was nominated – a pity really. Something The Remains of the Days shares The Age of Innocence is a relationship between two protagonists that doesn’t go too far; in some ways I suppose it’s even going far to call the relationship between Stevens and Miss Kenton a romantic one. But it is. Isn’t it? And like Scorsese’s flick The Remains of the Day is concerned with changing social norms.Stevens has a definitive connection to his home and it’s a bit tragic to watch as it’s auctioned off, bit by bit.
The Age of Innocence is a beautiful period piece...but above all else, it is an actors’ flick. Michelle Pfeiffer, Daniel Day Lewis and Winona Ryder give outstanding performances as the three leads. If I ruled the world Daniel Day Lewis would have won a second Oscar for either this or In the Name of the Father and Michelle Pfeiffer would have also been on the receiving end of a nomination and battling it out with Emma Thompson for the win. I always marvel at how these performances were ignored. Winona Ryder was the lone cast member to make it to the Oscar race. On first viewing I was smitten with the performance. It does not hold up as well, but it is still a good performance. It’s a difficult character. Is May really that bland or is it Winona’s characterisation? It’s a tough call...but I think that May is just an unremarkable young lady. But the ending of the film makes you reassess everything that you thought earlier. Is May in fact the least honest character in The Age of Innocence? It doesn’t seem outlandish to assume that perhaps May knew of Newland’s attraction to Ellen throughout, and that one assumption makes her character so much fuller. May just may be the most artful wife. It’s a typically Scorsese turn – even if the inclination is provided by Wharton.
And speaking of endings, who can forget the lovely departure Emma Thompson makes in The Remains of the Day. My allegiances do lie with that other Thompson/Hopkins/Merchant Ivory flick. But even I won’t deny that Emma and Anthony are quite excellent here. The Remains of the Day is Anthony’s story completely and nothing he has done before or since feels as profound, real and iconic as his Stevens. It’s a wondrous thing to watch him as he shields his emotion. In some ways his Stevens seems to be the perfect companion to Helen Mirren’s Mrs. Wilson. The two would have existed in perfect cohesion. The film is all Anthony’s, but this never prevents Emma from making her mark – and with so little time. Pragmatic and yet attractive Emma is excellent throughout, but it’s here tears at the end of the film that always get to me. Such skill.
             
I know everybody was going crazy in 1993 about Schindler’s List and The Piano – two great films. But my three favourites of that year were The Remains of the Day, In the Name of the Father, The Age of Innocence. Their ranking changes from year to year but these three films had the most profound impact on me – for different reasons. I already spoke of In the Name of the Father; The Age of Innocence appears at #47 on my list of favourites and The Remains of the Day at #33. Which do you prefer?

Friday, March 26, 2010

Performances of the Decade (Female)

It is a rare and beautiful thing when a role seems created for one actor alone. That combination of artist and subject when done right is scintillating and is a constant joy to watch. The decade has been filled with many actors performing in roles that they seemed meant to play and few were more satisfying than this treasure.
    
# 2 Annette Bening in Being Julia (2004)
Being Julia - adapted from Somerset Maugham’s “Theatre” – exists as one whimsical moment after another. In a favourite scene of mine the ever dependable Miriam Margolyes asks our eponymous heroine “Do you mean that, or are you acting? I’m never sure if you’re acting.” It’s a significant moment; not only because of Annette’s brilliant response but because of Dolly’s incidental but accurate supposition. Annette is not the first woman to play an actress, nor is she the only one to play it brilliantly. It’s a situation where Julia is always on the offensive. How do you play character that never seems to settle and exists – at least ostensibly – in her upper register throughout?
                 
Observe Annette in her first scene – not the one that rolls during the credits, the one after. She bursts into hers husband’s office for a monologue. “I’m tired, I’m utterly exhausted! I need a holiday.” Julia isn’t on stage anymore, but don’t tell that to Annette. She’s still very much ON. It’s not until she has accomplished her wish – Geoffrey’s acquiescence – that she really does lose her character and settle down to her real self, or at least what she hopes for us to perceive it to be. The thing is we notice in passing that Annette is giving a good performance but I’m never sure if we realise just how much of a double edged sword Julia Lambert is. Yes, the role exists in that tone where it’s easy to catch the audience, but on paper – delightful as it is – Julia exists not as a person, but as a character (albeit a marvellous one). Annette is forced to do twice the work.
          
It’s obviously a showcase for a woman her age; she makes those memories with Micahel Gambon work as well as she gets fed line after quotable line. Sometimes she seems to exist doing monologue after monologue as she tears through the scenes. We watch her come alive as she experiences the rebirth with Tom, but she doesn’t make it too serious because this is not a serious film. As the relationship heads downwards we are just as thrilled watching her at her low points. It’s one of the traits of an Annette performance isn’t it? She’s so willing to be a masochist – always willing to take her character through the unseemly at the expense of pride. The thing is we constantly get the feeling that she still is playing a part. It’s not that Annette is not acting sincerely, but she’s playing a woman with little sincerity…or is she?
We have to look closely for the moments when she’s caught unawares. For example, when Charles tells her he’s gay. That nervous laugh and then that slight twist of the head are unlike the Julia we’ve seen before. There is a natural easiness that is not forced. Still, if anyone brings out the easiness in Julia, it’s Roger – her son, played excellently by Tom Sturridge. In fact, Roger should be credited with the epiphany that changes the course of the film. As he tells her how unrealistic she is, the look of surprise on her face – authentic for once – is startling and unaffected. It’s as if at that moment I see the real Julia coming forth, more subtle than her histrionics imply. It leads of course to that delicious one woman show against that little “tart” Avis Creighton which will definitely be high on a list of scenes of the decade. It is unforgettable, no doubt. But that’s assured; we know Annette is capable of that. It’s the moments after when she laughs exuberantly with her assistant or when Geoffrey jovially calls her a monster. The delicious response of hers? “That’s how you love me!” And isn’t she correct? That is how we love her.
          
Annette thrives as Julia. It is a tour-de-force in my eyes. But what do you think? How does this rank on the continuum of brilliant Annette performances? Worthy of a decade end citation?

Thursday, March 25, 2010

A Walk in the Grass

So it's been solved, my banner is from Howards End...a movie that I adore. Every time I watch I see something new, and it's only now I realised how much Ivory uses nature to bring out his characters. Howards End features one of the most beauteous openings I can recall as Ms. Redgrave saunters through the grass looking resplendent as ever. Isn't she lovely?
       
What shots do you recall from Howards End?

Performances of the Decade (Male)

I’m nothing if not consistent. There are actors who continually work for me, regardless of the role they take or the film they star in. When you view an actor as the finest of his craft I suppose it’s a bit weird when you have to make lists like these. I do consider this man to be the best actor below sixty at the moment, even if my favourite performance of his last decade doesn’t top the list. I know everyone continues to praise his Plainview, which was excellent even if it was outside the top 15. The Day Lewis performance that really impressed me last decade was this – unfortunately snubbed – piece.
              
#2 Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York (2002)
If any actor can be referred to as a chameleon it’s Daniel Day Lewis. I’m uncertain who Daniel Day Lewis – the man – is. But he has the ability to become so many different characters that it’s thrilling even disconcerting at times. In Gangs of New York he plays Bill the Butcher – a man as charismatic as he is dangerous. In the thrilling prologue we watch as he kills the father of our protagonist. As I write the word protagonist I wonder if Amsterdam really is the central character of our story. Perhaps, a bit like The Departed dually centred piece Gangs of New York exists in the same realm. Bill is a thrilling character, and he’d probably show up high (higher than Plainview I think, even) on a list of iconic characters. But the iconicity of Bill doesn’t lie completely in the writing – it depends centrally on Day Lewis.
                 
I began my admiration of Day Lewis after this film, and this is actually the first searing memory of him I have. I remember when I first saw the man (out of character) I was uncertain if it really was him. It’s not just the makeup, because the use of cosmetics is slight in unearthing Bill’s character. But every movement from Day Lewis seems to be from someone completely different. His swaggering walk, his laconic manner of speaking and the little tics in his movement are all completely different from Daniel Day Lewis, as he appears normally. Gangs of New York is recalled as the last important Hollywood epic and though the film is not absolute perfection, like all of Scorsese’s films it’s well worth your time. Ostensibly Day Lewis is at his most exhilarating in the first third of the film. As he tears through the film, even though the cast (particularly DiCaprio, Diaz and Broadbent) do good work there’s no one that equals his excellence here. It’s a total immersion in character that’s almost frightening to behold. Even though the theatrics diminish as his character develops Daniel doesn’t become any less satisfying.
                 
Bill is a beast of a man, but it’s to Daniel’s credit that we never think of him as a monster. His devotion to Amsterdam is interesting to watch as is his reaction when Amsterdam’s identity is revealed. His barbaric swipe at DiCaprio is chilling as we watch the glint in Day Lewis’ eyes. He is never the hero of our story, but he continuously looms over the narrative like a bad dream of unnerving spectre that we cannot avoid. His final scene opposite DiCaprio is a poignant moment. We’ve spent the entire time waiting for this moment, and when it comes it’s not as satisfying as we hope it would be – no fault of Scorsese. It’s actually the point of it really. Bill is a terrifying creation, but he has his ethics and his reasons for why he lives. Even though the narrative never delves too deep, Daniel’s excellent performance always keeps us aware of this.
             
Gangs of New York isn’t remembered very fondly? But what do you think? Is Daniel Day Lewis as exceptional as I think he is?
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...