Oscar Talk: Supporting Players

You sort of want to expect an upset to occur in some acting category, but you also don’t to circulate ridiculous predictions.

SUPPORTING ACTOR

 In all honesty, I’d love for some upset to happen in the supporting actor category (granted that upset comes in the form of Mark Ruffalo). Not because I don’t think Bale is fine, but I’m on Ruffalo’s side all the way. In fact, I wouldn’t mind an upset for Rush either, he and Bale go toe to toe for me.

NOMINEES: Christian Bale in The Fighter / John Hawkes in Winter’s Bone / Jeremy Renner in The Town / Mark Ruffalo in The Kids Are All Right / Geoffrey Rush in The King’s Speech Prediction: Christian Bale Alternate: Geoffrey Rush

I don’t see Bale losing this, though. Were there an upset, you’d sort of expect it to be Rush if only because he has the most likeable character of the five, and there’s nothing like goodwill behind a film. Add that to the fact that he was instrumental in bringing The King’s Speech to fruition and you have to anticipate some love...but I don’t see the upset happening here.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS

I can’t be too certain that this is where the upset is happening either. That being said, though, I think any of four persons could take this prize and I wouldn’t be surprised. There’s a bit of irony that the best performance of the lot (i.e. Ms. Weaver) has 0 chance of winning, and more and more persons seem to have an inkling that the least of the five (i.e. Steinfeld) could take the prize. It’s not that I think she’s awful, she’s more than serviceable – but I still find her nomination – in any category – somewhat vexing. I digress, though.

NOMINEES: Amy Adams in The Fighter / Helena Bonham Carter in The King’s Speech / Melissa Leo in The Fighter / Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit / Jacki Weaver in Animal Kingdom Prediction: Helena Bonham Carter Alternate: Melissa Leo

Am I crazy for predicting HBC? I don’t know, I just can’t see Melissa Leo winning the Oscar – I’d even be more willing to predict Amy – not only because I think she’s better, but I’m just not seeing it. I’m thinking back to instances of dual supporting nominees, and they rarely win. Didn’t Helen Mirren pick up more than a few nods (including the SAG) before losing to supporting wife Jennifer Connelly (who was horribly trite in A Beautiful Mind). I’d wager that not only is Helena much better than Jennifer, she’s also more in need of a nod – and Melissa is no Helen either, but I’m alone on that because almost everyone seems smitten with her Alice. It’s a tough game to decide what the voters would go for, and it would probably be more prudent to predict Melissa. I could see this prediction panning out, and then I could see it not. I’m going on a gut, here. Maybe, I’ll change my mind before Sunday....

What do you think will become of the supporting players?

Shakesparean Reunion

Oscar Talk: Dream Duos

I always like watching the road to the Oscars because it’s always cool seeing the nominees fraternising with each other; a bit like watching animals in their natural habitat or whatnot. Last year, I’d have given anything to see an eventual pair-up between Gabourey Sidibe and Carey Mulligan (they always seemed so chummy at events) or Helen Mirren and Meryl Streep. So, I made my own list – using the 20 nominees for the 2010 here are the five duos I’d most love to see.

          

Mark Ruffalo and Jeremy Renner

I’ve always wanted to see Mark Ruffalo play an ultimately badass (though it is fun watching him play the ultimate stoner). And, with Renner being in good form throughout The Town playing the aggressive role for all its worth, I’d be much interested in seeing them battle it out as criminals at war. My limited imagination is seeing too much of The Departed playing out, which probably wouldn’t work as well. But, they’re such opposing technical forces it’d be interesting watching them battle it out.

Jennifer Lawrence and James Franco

I hate to sound superficial, but Jennifer Lawrence is so pretty I want to see her actually use that beauty (for good or ill) in a movie. And who better to pair her opposite than James Franco? That’s a whole lot of hotness. I don’t know why, though, but I’m now immediately flashing back to Bright Star (I swear, I can’t get that movie out of my head since we started studying Keats this semester). I’m not sure if either has a good British accent, but I wouldn’t be averse to seeing them in a period piece, but – really – I’m not that picky. Their aestheticism may distract me...

        

Amy Adams and Natalie Portman

Perhaps it’s the red hair that I’ve seen them each sport before, but don’t they seem like an obvious duo to play a sister/sister pair. One reason I hate the Oscars’ is because in cheering on our favourites there’s that tendency to end up (ostensibly at least) disliking the competition, but though I’m not backing her I do like Natalie Portman. I find her general nature quite charming, and I’m even fonder of Amy Adams. I can’t see how any casting director could go wrong pairing the two women opposite each other in a nice drama.

          

Annette Bening and Geoffrey Rush

Both Annette and Geoffrey have a stringent theatrical nature to them that’s often mistaken for histrionics (see Quills, Being Julia) and they’re both actors who work well opposite their respective scene partners. This makes me keenly interested in the idea of seeing them play opposite each other in something decidedly theatrical. Honest truth, the first idea that popped into my head was seeing them play opposite each other in Macbeth, but even something deliberately whimsical or anachronistic like a play within a play (a la Shakespeare in Love, or once again – Being Julia). Just think of the glorious shouting matches the two would have.

                

Helena Bonham Carter and Nicole Kidman

I have no idea what I’d want them to star in together, but it’s possible that this much brilliance in one film could make me combust. They’re at such opposite sides of the spectrum as actors it would be especially interesting to see what they’d be like in close proximity to each other – Kidman could be a younger stand-in for the Margaret Schlegel type in Howards End, even if I’m not in love with her British accent. But, really, I can’t be the only one who’d like to see them play against each other – they both have underrated (albeit brilliant) comedic performances. Perhaps, frenemies at war?

        

Of the twenty nominees, which pairing would you like to see come to fruition? How about adding one of the five director nominees to each of my would-be films?

Encore Awards: Supporting Actors

The first acting category...last year this category was overflowing with brilliance, and truth be told my five nominees from last year would probably knock every single nominee of this year out, Schneider's work in Bright Star is sooooooo good (not better than Whishaw, of course, but still great). Still, the supporting men were good this year and I like each of these performances. They didn't all get that Oscar love I wish they could have, but that doesn't negate the goodness of their work.

(click on the pictures for reviews)

THE NOMINEES

Christian Bale in The Fighter (as Dickie)

Bale avoids the most obvious of pitfalls and avoids turning Dickie into one of those usual walking powder-keg drug addicts. Sure, he gets the physicality of a user down excellently – with every bodily twitch, but the performance has much more to offer. As riveting as he is in those moments, it’s the emotional bits where he shines. As good as he is with Mark his best moments are opposite Melissa Leo (a dynamic I’d have loved to see more of) and despite his overt lack of restraint his devotion to his family rings throughout the drama. (Highlight: “I Started A Joke”)

Andrew Garfield in The Social Network (as Eduardo Saverin)

I hate that his obvious “actor” scenes are the ones that people keep remembering because the reasons I like this performance so much comes to the smaller bits. He knows Mark is an asshole, but he also knows they’re both similar in that desire for kinship (even though Mark is adamantly against social contact). He responds to every action from Mark, but he doesn’t really respond to Mark – and I’m not sure if its Fincher’s direction or his sensibilities but with every wince (blink and you’ll miss them) or slight intake of breath he’s making Eduardo more than the just token wronged friend and into a real person, which sounds sort of clichéd but is true nonetheless. (Highlight: The Chicken incident, at the deposition and at Harvard)

Mark Ruffalo in The Kids Are All Right (as Paul)

I think I tweeted sometime towards the end of last year that Paul is probably the most sympathetic character in the narrative. They’re all moving in their way, but this bathetic man child becomes the most stirring because Ruffalo is doing so much with it. It’s not that he gives my favourite performance of the film (he doesn’t) but it’s a classic example of script and actor finding a perfect match. He doesn’t even seem aware of Paul’s insecurities because Paul isn’t even aware of his insecurities, and those lingering glances and bits of stilted conversation only underscore the sort of wandering soul he is. And he does it all without EVER going over-the-top with it. (Highlight: First Meeting with Moms)

Geoffrey Rush in The King’s Speech (as Lionel Logue)

Rush avoids his usual theatricality (which I’m actually fond of) for a surprisingly tender portrayal of Logue here. Even though a significant portion of the narrative examines his relationship with the King, Seidler doesn’t explain his arc fully which leaves Logue as something of an enigma at times and Rush has no problem doing that. Sometimes it seems as if he’s usual tricks but that soft empathy with which he approaches Bertie is significant allowing him to dig deeper. One of the lasting things about the film is that you get the feeling there’s more to the man – but neither he (nor the film) is interested in going there. He’s willing to step aside.

(Highlight: First Meeting with “Mrs. Johnson”)

Sullivan Stapleton in Animal Kingdom (as Craig)

He has the sort of “open” face that makes it distressing to watch him, especially when you take into consideration how much he underplays the addiction arc – saving all that pent-up desperation only to completely destroy you when he unhinges in that final scene – well more than he was before. He’s already unhinged, not in the same manner as Mendehlson’s Pope, but just as much. His entire final scene played on a loop after coming out of the movie and it’s startling how with the absence of dialogue and even without the very overt facial tics that you’d expect, he manages to convey that nadir of despair that’s responsible for thrusting the narrative in a new destroy. (Highlight: his death)

                           

FINALISTS: Joel Edgerton leaves Animal Kingdom early on but that doesn’t prevent his Baz from having a lasting effect. ; Rhys Ifans gives a performance to rival the already good cast in Greenberg; Miles Teller functions as well as Eckhart, Wiest and Blanchard as a scene partner for Kidman in Rabbit Hole. He’s fortunate because Becca’s breakthrough moments come opposite him, and he plays excellently off her offering up a not clichéd example of how more than the grieving parties are victims of accidents.

SEMI-FINALISTS: Don Cheadle plays on the angry policemen in Brooklyn’s Finest to excellent results, showing again why he’s one of the best underrated actors at the moment; Kieran Culkin ends up stealing the show from everyone in Scott Pilgrim vs the World because even if his acerbic sidekick is a stereotype his line readings are hilarious; Andrew Garfield in Never Let Me Go; with just a few scenes to work with in The King’s Speech I finally get what people are talking about with Guy Pearce. He’s the right amount of EVERYTHING in the film and works so perfectly against Firth; Jonathan Tucker’s introverted psychiatric patient is one of the saving graces of Veronika Decides to Die. It’s more than his remarkable chemistry with Gellar – his attention to detail (which the script demands in those scenes where he has no dialogue) is impressive.

        

What do you think of my nominees? Who would you toss out? Who would you bring in?

The King’s Speech

Sitting down to review The King’s Speech is a chore in itself – and I’ve been putting it off for such days. It’s difficult to separate the film from the currently (somewhat vague) antagonism that’s surrounding it in the face of its recent PGA win and Oscar nominations and, more so when I think about how long I’ve been waiting to see it. Hooper, often interested in touching on big names in history, turns to King George VI for his latest monarch’s relationship with his speech therapist – the Australian Lionel Logue. As Lionel and Bertie continue through the slog of familial issues and their effects on speech the King is faced with alternating pressures on the home front, a caring – if vaguely detached wife, a seemingly disappointed father and a caddish brother. The King’s Speech is a film that’s unconventional in its conventionality. True, the tale has little to suggest that it’s anything daring or brash but screenwriter David Seidler decides to root the film in a placidness where plotpoints develop not in the usual cinematic spurts but expand sedately – even lethargically – easing along, bit by bit.

It’s an approach that’s necessary because Hooper and company are interested in assessing Bertie not in relation to anyone else but in relation to himself, which renders The King’s Speech extraneous political affairs well, umm, extraneous. It sets itself up as a psychiatric drama, because you’d more likely have reason to measure this against The Prince of Tides (the middle portion at least) where a pleasant doctor aids someone with a troubled past than The Madness of King George an ostensibly similar story of a monarch at odds with himself and those around him. There’s no evidence to suggest that Hooper IS interested in making a prototypical monarch piece but his vision reeks of being indistinctly insular at portions at times because the staunchness with which the focus appears on Bertie and Logue gives the film a feeling of limitedness. Sort of like a dance with two players, but a host of superfluous – if diverting – participants meandering around; reminding me a bit of O. Russell and his occasional inclination to forget that The Fighter should be an ensemble drama.

It’s not that Hooper’s vision is dissonant in discerning what his film is about, but the supporting players around are on their own interesting enough to demand pertinent bits of storyline that their sorely lacking. One of the scene that plays out best in the film has George’s wife (a very serene Helena Bonham Carter) having a chat with Mr. Logue – Rush’s first appearance on screen. This meeting suggests things in both parties that you think would be addressed, but aren’t. Bonham Carter plays with just the right winsome air where she’s the standard Queen with just a tinge of snob about her (tea at the Logue’s) that’s not off-putting but part of her attraction. As interested as she is in ridding Bertie of his issues she’s not exactly driven by devotion, it’s an arc – their entire relationship – that seems especially perplexing when you’d expect his marriage to play as important a role in his speech as his family history. Measure that against Pearce’s cavalier older brother (probably the best work I’ve seen from him) who’s the right amount of cheeky and sanctimonious – without ever being despicable. Firth thrives against them both, so it seems a bit of a disservice to the narrative to have emotional peaks of the story develop behind closed doors – even if the metaphor there is amusing.

And, it’s not to say that the story that we’re actually given is poor – because the alacrity of the screenplay is one of the most charming things about the film. It avoids the most simplistic of traps by stopping the narrative just before George (with Elizabeth) experience seismic popularity. It’s a sort of representation of what Hooper and his company does best – he’s always able to prevent over-saturation. There’s something a bit too on-the-nose about the adage “less is more” but Hooper knows it well. He knows when to cut scenes and moreover when to END the story because as much as The King’s Speech has potential to tell us more it also has obvious potential to be overwrought which The King’s Speech avoids – it’s too classy for that. The thing is, it’s that sort of classiness that wafts over you after perusal, and though I’m not especially prone to the more obvious but sometimes Hooper’s penchant for subtlety descends into innocuousness. And, yes, in the end the payoff works because of – and not in spite of – that opting for a conclusion that’s enduring in its smoothness that I can appreciate for being so well done. It's a bit like Hooper was internalising the DESIDERATA and it's famous advice, go placidly amidst the noise and haste and it does do placid beautifully. It's not a discredit to the film that's it's more interested in the introspective than the extrospective, and yes it errs when it comes to examining those around Bertie. Sure, I'll admit I wanted better, but that's not really a judgement on the film itself - what was served up was perfectly fine, circumscribed on occasion  - but laudable.

B/B+

Oscar Talk: Supporting Actor, Revisited

True to form, after the general summer appreciation for The Kids Are All Right passed Mark Ruffalo’s performance has failed to “stick its landing”. After hearing a tetchy commenter accuse him of playing the same hackneyed stoner in all his films I realised just how much of a pipedream it was for me to consider him a contender for the Supporting Actor trophy six months ago. It’s probably a tad supercilious of me because I like the performance, but everything that works for Ruffalo’s Paul depends on keen perusal something that’s not explicitly needed to appreciate the performance of the current frontrunner in the race – Christian Bale’s scenery-chewing brother in The Fighter. Reserving judgement on the veritable worth of either performance, one can appreciate how Bale’s Dicky has an edge. The Fighter is altogether more interested in forwarding Dicky’s agenda than Choledenko and Blumberg are with establishing Paul as any sort of fallen hero. And though Ruffalo, like Bale, is the type of actor yet to earn a nomination but constantly turning in films Bale’s is more peppered with the obvious and easily recognisable (which is not inherently bad). In theory Ruffalo is the only potential nominee I can see winning the statue, but for the fact its low-key nature makes it an unlikely contender.

                                                       

If The King’s Speech were still holding onto its former frontrunner status I’d have entertained the idea of a Rush upset. There’s no one who has seen The King’s Speech that doesn’t seem to appreciate his charismatic turn. But it’s not the sort of fussy supporting turn that demands attention and Rush already has a statue. If The Town were a better film, or if more were smitten with it, Renner could have emerged as another candidate for an upset. He’s fresh off a best picture winner, he’s still at that age where he’s finally getting his dues but still young enough to be considered fresh and he’s easily the best thing in his film. But, even though The Town may be heading to a Picture nomination with a ten-wide field that isn’t that much of an accolade and maybe I’m underestimating the ability but I still don’t see it being indiscriminately embraced by all. Considering the year he had Andrew Garfield seems like someone to keep your eyes on – but I think not. A number have praised him effusively, and he is excellent in The Social Network but that one seems to be all Eisenberg’s show. And I don’t know if it’s mob psychology and all voters do it, but there’s a tendency for supporting actor front runners to be less “supporting” and more of a type of a stealth co-lead. That makes Bale resurface as the obvious one to beat here, and the critics seem to agree. Those five actors seem like a good bet for the eventual nominees, although I have an inkling feeling that there could be an upset nomination here. Perhaps John Hawkes who made an appearace at the SAG – I don’t know. I’m predicting these five, though.

Predicted 5

Christian Bale in The Fighter

Andrew Garfield in The Social Network

Jeremy Renner in The Town

Mark Ruffalo in The Kids Are All Right

Geoffrey Rush in The King’s Speech

                                              

All things considered it doesn’t seem like a particularly bad roundup of nominees – especially considering the clunkers that often get nominated here. But, like with most things this season I’m particularly enthused. I can immediately think of three performances that I’d have loved seeing considered but the entire male ensemble of Animal Kingdom have gotten no love, and the same goes for everyone but Nicole Kidman in Rabbit Hole – so Miles Teller’s name has gotten no consideration. It's one of the things that you can count on - especially in this category. This is always the category where I'm nonplussed about the decisions that all the usual precursors go running with, but even though there are some contenders I could get behind that are getting no love, I’ll still maintain that the four performances of the lot I’ve seen are worthy of consideration – and Rush is always golden, so I’ll put my faith in that. It's a better batch of potential nominees than years gone by.

                            

So Bale seems headed to glory, but who could you see pulling an upset?