I swear Julianne slays me in Magnolia, if you love it (or even if you don’t) head over here and recast it.

Encore Awards: Actresses

I’m a bit unexcited about the showing of actresses this year, which is weird because I’m willing to admit that collectively it’s been quite a good year. Communally there’s a wealth of performances in comparison to last year when my top 5 (Mulligan, Cornish, Pfeiffer, Ronan, Wright Penn) was easily decided. I don’t know if, perhaps, the ensemble nature of the films this year accounts for an effusive lack of enthusiasm, even though I’m fond of each member of the top 5. And even the Oscar nominees are collectively good, easily one of the better line-ups in recent memories. Ah well, let’s see what I chose.

     

THE NOMINEES

Annette Bening in The Kids Are All Right (as Nic)

& Annette Bening in Mother & Child (as Karen)

The term banner year seems so splotchy, implicitly suggesting that all previous years hold little worth – but it’s been a banner year for Bening for me. I sort of thought her one-two punch in 2006 (Running With Scissors, Mrs. Harris) was unbeatable but watching her play Karen and Nic almost like extensions of the same person – but then at times completely opposite makes me even more impressed by her talent. It seems like way too much of a disservice to Bening’s talent to lump Nic – or Karen – together with all the strong women she’s played (Julia, Deidre, Carolyn). Their strength doesn’t make them identical, and it’s strange – both women have trouble being emotive, but Annette decides to establish them by decidedly different character tics. Karen develops in uneven bursts goaded by her insecurities whereas Nic’s security becomes her crutch as she finds that it’s not as impenetrable as it seems. Even the manner in which they break is not identical, Karen for all her faux-coldness yearns for the ability to be completely emotive and when she cries it’s with complete surrender. Nic is uncomfortable with that loss of control, and even her tears exist as a sort of reluctant emotion. True, I do prefer her work as Nic (if only because the character is so much richer), but it’s a double helping of brilliance that I think is laudable. (Highlight: “So Blue” and Breakdown with Sofia)

Nicole Kidman in Rabbit Hole (as Becca)

I’ve always thought of Nicole in the same way that I think of Cate Blanchett – actors most discernable because of the emotion they put into their voice, but Becca is significant not because of the line readings but because of all the expressions that she has. She reacts to everything that happens on screen – her eye-rolls, her steely gazes, her silent scoffs – she’s never “off” and Nicole never loses sight of that always reacting, however subtly, to everything occurring around her. It’s difficult to play favourites and hold up someone as her best scene partner – she’s so go$od with them all. The understated tension opposite Aaron, the filial spats with Tammy, the brilliant chemistry with Wiest and her tentativeness opposite Teller is lovely to watch. She gives as much as she gets and though her career is so littered with goodies I can’t decide if it’s my favourite or not, its goodness is undeniable. (Highlight: Bowling Alley Birthday)

Julianne Moore in The Kids Are All Right (as Jules)

Every actor has precepts that work for them, and though Jules is nowhere near as morose as the prototypical Jules character her constant interest in pronounced facial expressions is the ultimate reason why I’m so impressed with her here. I hate judging her against Annette since the performances are ultimately so symbiotic and sometimes even in tandem with the other. They play well off each other, but more than Annette Julianne plays well off actual scenes. Because Nic is so controlled Annette isn’t always given the opportunity to respond immediately (facially) to situations – so Julianne must, and that sort of naked physicality is something she delivers with and because Jules and Nic are so affected by each other these expressions are most pronounced when Nic is at the forefront of the scene. Thus, when she’s actually presented with the opportunity to “lead” a scene – her twitchiness is manifested, it’s not necessarily a twitchiness borne of being discomfited but one of being disaccustomed. (Highlight: “Marriage is hard.”)

Rachel Weisz in Agora (as Hypatia)

The role of Hypatia seems to be the sort of exemplary woman that seems perfect for Rachel Weisz. Weisz plays Hypatia with a consistent disregard for her personal appearance, as beautiful as she is – and there’s that subtle hint that perhaps that plays a role in her power over everyone – she never plays Hypatia as a “beautiful” woman. Moreover, she brings that sort of resonance to the dialogue where you’re moved to think that her every word is something seismic. Amenabar is fortunate that she plays the role so effectively, because it’s her devotion to the character that allows (with the slightest of physical inclinations) us to believe that things like ellipses are capable of being as astonishing as Hypatia believes. (Highlight: sketchy...each time she speaks, perhaps?)

FINALISTS: Halle Berry is tasked with a conventionally baity role of three persons in one in Frankie & Alice but at her best she’s always able to bring the right touch of compassion to her work that’s put to good use here; Patricia Clarkson is luminous in Cairo Time balancing Juliet's vague dissatisfaction with life against the wealth of experiences she experiences on holiday and always – ALWAYS – so entrancing even with the slightest of movements; Kerry Washington is all aglimmer (is that even a word?) in Night Catches Us. I’ve rarely seen her so mature, and it’s the sort of role that while fitting her perfectly isn’t too deliberate in its; Michelle Williams dives into the difficult persona she plays in Blue Valentine – ensuring that the tenets that comprise her character do not become murky as she develops, and moreover ascertaining that even when we don’t understand the “why” we understand the “how”.

     

SEMI-FINALISTS: the way that Kirsten Dunst lights up the screen whenever she appears in All Good Things make me even sadder about her absence from the screen. It’s more than her doing the best work in the film, her constant attention to detail with a character that’s quite vague is admirable; Dakota Fanning has always seemed much too mannered for me to take her seriously, but in The Runaways despite her occasional off-putting tics she’s so resolute in carving Cherry’s inclinations that she manages to give the best performance of her career – thus far; Greta Gerwig’s congenial way in Greenberg might be easy to ignore, which is unfortunate because she has a more difficult task than Stiller. She’s playing this affable woman who’s difficult to understand but not at all mysterious – even if her inclinations seem ridiculous and she does it all with aplomb and that cheery winsome nature to her that’s irresistible; Jennifer Lawrence must carry the entirety of Winter’s Bone, and Granik is lucky enough that she’s able to take that kind of weight on her shoulders , she's good at playing the tough as nails country girl, but she's just as capable of establishing the girlish innocence in Ree, too which is the real treat; there are some times when Carey Mulligan seems a little too literal in Never Let Me Go, though that’s as much the fault of the film itself. When the film is at its weakest in that final act, though, she provides the stability realising how important it is that the audience identifies with Cathy managing to produce a seemingly full character in the wake of what really is just nothingness; I’ll probably always prefer Natalie Portman in small doses, or better yet in specific modes. I’m still wowed by that phone call she makes to her mother Black Swan even if she impresses, but doesn’t wow me in other scenes. Most importantly, though, she’s thoroughly aware of how essential her inflections are to the plot and delivers on that even if I’m not completely sold on it at all times.

                   

Which leading lady ruled the year for you?

Oscar Talk: “I Love Lesbians”

Before their romantic liaison in The Kids Are All Right Julianne Moore and Annette Bening were already women that you thought of (at least tangentially) similar. They’re both from the same age bracket, both Oscar-less but celebrated and both with that certain tenacity that’s made them able to be just as luminous at fifty as they were at thirty. I don’t think anyone can be blamed for hoping that The Kids Are All Right would signal Oscar glory for at least one of the two because even if I’m aware of the general unimportance of Oscar today I’ll admit that I love it when someone I care for wins. The Oscar race is always one bit of strangeness after another now and they’re really no telling if either of the two could hope for success come February.

There’s the most obvious issue of category placement, I’m a bit too quick to think of The Kids Are All Right in the same way that I do think of Thelma & Louise. They’re the same in the sense of having two leading ladies, but The Kids Are All Right and its ensemble nature makes the division more difficult to make and Julianne Moore is probably going to end up being tossed back and forth between the supporting and leading category ultimately ending up with no nomination (a la Leonardo DiCaprio in The Departed). Obviously she should be in the leading category, but though I do love Julianne there’s not that sense of urgency when we consider her quest for Oscar. Julianne has lost the prize four times, and the last two times she was nominated the eventual winners were worthy. I’m not going to enter the Swank/Bening argument again – but there’s the distinct sense that Bening should have been feted by now (let’s not even think of the terrible snub in 2006).

Julianne and Annette have both made it onto the list of Golden Satellites nominees, but that doesn’t say much when they’ve nominated in excess of 15 women in their two Actress categories. Annette's up for a Spirit Award , Julianne freakishly is not. I like the NBR, even though I don’t put much credence in them as far as Oscar prognostics go. I still respect them for giving Bening their actress award in 2004 and HBC in 1997. I haven’t seen Another Year yet, so I can’t comment on Lesley Manville’s win but it’s weird that The Kids Are All Right didn’t even the top ten. There really is no telling at this point what the Actress race will end up looking like. Thus far Annette and Julianne are would be somewhere at the top for me. It’s difficult to think of them as individual performances because Nic and Jules work so well as a single unit, I’ve no idea if Oscar is going to remember them as a duo or split them up. I’m wondering now if they’ll even give The Kids Are All Right any of the love it deserves...we’ll see, I suppose.

        

Does either trump the other? Who do you hope gets nominated?

The Kids Are All Right (or is it The Kids Are Alright?

I’m neurotic, you know that already. So it’s only natural that I spend an unwieldy amount of time pondering on the name of Lisa Cholodenko’s latest feature. Somewhere during the loss of translation the title’s been qualified to The Kids Are Alright which suggests something all together different from the actual All Right. It’s not unwarranted to assume that Josh Hutcherson and Mia Wasikowska aren’t the only “kids” it refers, but it’s more of a stretch to consider just what the so-called kids are right about. Laser and Joni are the two children of Nic and Jules – a lesbian couple. The two have both been artificially inseminated, Laser is Jules and Joni is Nic and to make their unconventional a little more tightly knit they used the same sperm donor. Laser seems to be the epitome of the antsy teenager which is not so much an indicator of Cholodenko conforming to stereotype as it is her smart attempt at showing just how “normal” this family is. In the typical sense antsy Laser convinces Joni – bound for college – to contact their donor, enter Paul our donor – and the beginning of the film, but not quite.

The Kids Are All Right is not really about Paul and it might even be overreaching to say that it’s about the family dealing with him. Cholodenko is meticulous in the way she decides to frame the story that no one comes off as the star even if we’d inadvertently consider Nic and Jules as the leads. The Kids Are All Right is the sort of fleeting glimpse into the lives of a suburban family that’s almost bordering on voyeurism because it’s not the big moments like their first meeting with Mark or Jules and Nic’s argument about a particular liaison that matter most. It’s the smaller things like arguments over something like a new truck or Nic’s performance of a Joni Mitchell song that reveal the most about the characters. Cholodenko isn’t satisfied with staying in suburbia and she expands her palette with surprisingly accurate results. Yaya DaCosta as an on-and-off lover of Paul with hair from the eighties manages to deliver a surprisingly delicate performance. Cholodenko’s agenda – if we can call it that – is simple. She’s interested in examining the chink in the armour of normalcy that each of these characters has around them.

That’s what’s makes the performances – all of them – that much more interesting to watch. I don’t think I’m alone when I say that the first thing that got me interested in seeing The Kids Are All Right was the promise of seeing two brilliant actors – Annette Bening and Julianne Moore – opposite each other. And they are acting even though it seems they’re just existing in tandem. It seems to be an obvious direction from Cholodenko who frames the entire film in this manner of existing that makes it that much more real. It’s because Cholodenko decides to submerge the narrative in this very normalcy of life that the film’s conclusion seems discordant in its mundanity. She’s not inventing the wheel, it’s been done before but there only seems to be a standard plot movement. In actuality, though a certain revelation seems to function as a climax it’s not really and Laser’s final words aren’t really a conclusion. When the credits roll there’s a strident sense of something more to come, and that seems to be precisely what Cholodenko seems to be going for. The kids aren’t alright, but they’re all right – whatever they do. Superficially the way that Paul exits the film makes him look like a monster, but though she falters a bit in the execution Cholodenko is never setting him – or anyone – up to be the villain. I wonder if an alternate title couldn’t have been “Whatever Works”. They’re all going about their lives bumping into each other, and they’re probably going about it all wrong but their all doing what’s working for them. So, despite their differing perspectives perhaps the kids – all of them – are all right, even if they’re...wrong. Right?

A-

Chloe

When Chloe opens with those shots of Amanda Seyfried as she ensues in her monologue of sorts, Atom Egoyan gives us the impression that what follows will be an exposé (of sorts) on this woman and her life. Chloe is not such a film, I can’t pretend that any apprehensions I have about the film derive from the opening, but in assessing why Chloe left me somewhat cold I couldn’t help but revert to the beginning which had me anticipating something completely different from what ensues. In fact, at the end the first thing I wondered was – How did the beginning enhance the film?

Despite its name, Chloe is the study of a marriage. Catherine and David, played credibly by Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson are a marriage couple. She’s getting old and worried about her age, he’s getting old and more flirtatious (but still chaste, we can assume). A provocative image on his phone when he misses a party leads Catherine to hire the eponymous Chloe to seduce her husband and report the results. It’s a fairly simple story, a pedestrian one even. This can only end one way for us to have a movie – he sleeps with her and tragedy ensues (I’m well aware of the deception in this statement). In this way Chloe depends on a twist that’s not really a twist, but my issue is not even with the twist. Egoyar crafts a film that’s beautifully shot, the writing is fair even though it’s unexceptional and it’s not so much that the denouement of it falls flat, but the viewer is left with the question – so what? This is, essentially, my issue with Chloe. I’ve never seen the original, and cannot comment on if Chloe is a misrepresentation of it. I remember chuckling to myself when I heard the name of the director, how could I take such a name seriously? It’s the same issue I have with Chloe. At face value it’s the study of a marriage that ultimately is saved, but with cracks in it (that final shot of Julianne). Nothing more, nothing less. But the story is one devoid of any individuality, and the very title (and that telling opening) has me rethinking it.

SPOILERS: Be warned!!!

The film opens as we watch Seyfried in moments of undress as she narrates over the film. It’s a poor opening, I think, in context at least. It’s significant that this is the only narration in the film, opening or otherwise. What’s more, Chloe is obviously not the main character of the film, so why begin with her in a state of pseudo-omniscient. Is the opening even chronologically related to the film? A crazy thought occurs to me, is Chloe even dead? Obviously she is; the maimed body alone is proof. But Chloe being alive is the only way that the film’s beginning makes sense. And since it’s obvious that she is dead Egoyan’s Chloe falls flat. Or if not, I was waiting for a moment of absolution when we’d realise that Liam’s David was just the consummate actor and did have an affair with Chloe. But alas, no such twist. It’s fine to look at and completely diverting but as I gain a little distance I also gain some perspective. It’s been a full week now and Chloe’s significance seems stark. Technically, it’s adequate but Egoyan seems to have no argument to put forward behind the pretty shots…or if he does, it completely eludes me.

        

C+

Performances of the Decade (Female)

By now you’ve probably heard me mention internal acting quite often. Sometimes it doesn’t work, but you’d have realises I tend to get all hot and bothered when an actor shows talent in keeping their emotions at bay but still relaying their feelings to the audience. Mirren in Gosford Park and Whishaw in Bright Star were noticeable for this trait as was this particularly exceptional performance.

        

#7 Julianne Moore in The Hours (2002)

 Julianne stars as Laura Brown, the protagonist of the middle story of The Hours. While Virginia writes about Mrs. Dalloway and Clarissa lives it Laura reads about the women. It’s a symbolic action because Laura Brown is a spectator who yearns to be on the inside. Still, it would be a disservice to The Hours and to Julianne to call her the clichéd dissatisfied housewife of the era. We catch only a day in the life of Laura and in many ways it’s not as obvious a pivotal day as Clarissa and Virginia but Julianne convinces us. From the very first shot of Julianne I know something is off about Laura. Look into those eyes and they’re completely empty. It’s an emptiness that becomes more pronounced as the day goes on.

It would seem that Laura is the least sympathetic of the three, but I never can judge them against each other, and she's not bad just misunderstood. I always see her as a woman more worthy of our pity that hate. It’s like the story of the mother in Lawrence’s “The Rocking Horse Winner”. We can palpably notice Julianne’s attempt at loving her child. The kisses, terms of endearment but there are those moments (blink and you’ll miss them) where her discomfort is obvious and unnerving. It’s there in her enunciation too. It’s as if she’s speaking as slowly as possible to buy time, she’s not sure how to communicate with this person. I spoke about Clarissa’s defining moment with her visitor and Laura has hers too – Kitty. Next to Kitty’s almost violently bubbly behaviour (a superficial one) Laura seems even more dour. I like the moment, for example, when Kitty inquires as to the plot of Laura’s novel. I love Laura’s response “It’s about this woman...well, she's a hostess, and she's incredibly confident, everyone thinks she's fine - bu she isn't." It’s such a strange summation of the novel and Julianne’s intonation always chills me, even though I’m not sure why.

Julianne is forced to act in vignettes because Laura really is the least defined of the three women, she is more of a plot point than a character on her own. So Julianne must act with her eyes. For example, the tortured look of conflict as she leaves Richie at the babysitter. She already knows what she plans to do, and a favourite moment of mine is when she decides (or is Virginia who decides…) that suicide is not the option. The gasp and the teary eyes are terrifying and a complete conveyance of emotion even though, really, we haven’t been given that much information. The ending of her portion as she cries in the bathroom is always a punch in the gut and though I’ve not quite understood Laura – as yet – I still feel profound sympathy for her.

…Of course, she returns. She is the only woman to exist in more than one chapter, and she nails it. Her line to Meryl “It was death, I chose life” is one in many excellent line readings in the film and as she accepts her life – and her son’s lack thereof – I always applaud Julianne for crafting brilliance where few could have succeeded as well.
           
This remains as the peak of my appreciation of Julianne and I will continue to praise her subtlety here. But what do you think of her Laura Brown?

Performances of the Decade (Male)

Julianne Moore is often singled out as an unfortunate actress. The woman has been nominated four times and lost each. What's interesting though is that on each occasion Moore was probably not even the top 3 when it came to the voters. I'd have easily voted for her in 1997 and probably 2002 and she was a close runner up in 1999. The reason I mention Julianne, is that if I had to think about a male counterpart to Julianne the person that I'd immediately refer to is Ed Harris. Like Julianne, he too has had four losing nominations with never a chance at winning; and like Julianne he gave a performance of a lifetime - as far as I'm concerned anyway - in 2002. This performance is often regarded as the ultimate hambone, but I don't agree. Obviously. It's a performance I persist should have won an Oscar.

            

#12 Ed Harris in The Hours (2003)

The Hours is a woman's story, we know that: yet I really love it. The men never really get the chance to shine as the ought - even though John C. Reilly is fine and Stephen Dillane is subtly moving. Still, with all the crutches thrown his way Ed Harris carves an outstanding performance, in my opinion at least. Richard is Clarissa's friend - though I hesitate at the connotations of the word. They once had a relationship - a tenuous one by the looks of it - and though he has changed his preference the two remain friends, lovers even (without sex). The time of the film is indeterminate, mid nineties we can assume; and Richard is an AIDS victim collecting a prestigious award. 

It's difficult to write about Ed without mentioning Meryl because his performance is in some ways a subset of hers, which I've mentioned recently. I mentioned that each segment has its similarities, but it's all really pronounced - saturated almost - in Clarissa's arc. Richard represents the husband figure the two previous woman share, but Harris' Richard is just a bit smarter the rest. Perhaps it's his illness, but the strange clairvoyance he possesses never fails to unnerve me. It is he after all who gave Clarissa her title of Mrs. Dalloway. Richard loves to tease Clarissa, it's obvious, and in that first scene it's difficult to feel any sympathy for Ed - despite his plight. But no one can do line readings like Ed. I love when Clarissa asks him if he's eaten: Well can you see it? Is it here? Do you see any breakfast lying around? I must have eaten it, mustn't I? Ed is appropriately macabre, almost comical as Richard.

                

But then, I think about how difficult a role to pull of this is - which makes me love it even more. It's not difficult to write this off as the typical histrionic diva-esque role. Richard exists almost as a character in a Greek tragedy, and in some ways he's similar to Kidman's Virginia. He just doesn't fit in his surroundings, and it's obvious. He's almost ridiculous opposite the subtlety of Meryl's Clarissa, but that's why I respect Ed so much. He makes it work. That clairvoyance is a key to Clarissa and to the entire film, since The Hours really is all about diving Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway over and over. He has the power lines and he doesn't undersell them, but he doesn't over sell them either. Oh, Mrs. Dalloway...always giving parties...to cover the silence... It's not a line to take for granted.

             

Ed has it hard because he's an important character with little screen time and he needs to make the little screen time work for him. That longing look as he looks at a photo of his mother is pathetic...as is his suicide. Isn't it strange that he and Streep shine in reading a line that's almost the same. She tells Louis Don't touch me. He tells her Don't come near me. We know what's coming, but we can't look away. But I still have to face the hours... It's not my favourite arc, but that moment is one of the most striking for me. Streep's harrowed face and Ed's expressionless one. Absolute perfection.

                 

But what do you think? Yay or nay for Harris' Richard?

Performances of the Decade (Female)

Not to rehash the obvious, but my thoughts on Meryl Streep are not a secret to you. Still, it’s not like I hate the woman and I do appreciate those moments when she impresses me. She has always had a knack for showing the utmost vulnerability and I do like her when her voice is unaccented. This performance marks my favourite of hers since her 1985 Karen in Out of Africa.

       

#13 Meryl Streep in The Hours (2003)

It’s no coincidence that her character’s name is Clarissa Vaughn; the similarities to Virginia Woolf’s Mrs (Clarissa) Dalloway are not accidental. With the exception of the resplendent Redgrave, Streep seems to be the perfect person to illustrate Clarissa (Vaughn’s and Dalloway’s) sereneness and composure even if that shot of her in front of the mirror is anything but serene. One of Streep’s selling points has always been the astute way she uses her face and I love that meeting she has with Eileen Atkins in the flower shop. She twists her face into an almost imperceptible scowl as Atkins speaks of Richard’s book. Subtlety at its best. But of course she really starts “acting” when she meets Richard’s flat. Strange that I say “acting” though, because the very reason I am so enamoured with this performance is because of Meryl’s fluidity here. When I look at her, I don’t see Streep in makeup or with an accent “acting” – I see Clarissa Vaughn – a real woman, through and through. From the most subtle of looks – like that look as she travels up the elevator, Clarissa is an enigma but still completely real.

Streep and Harris really do shine opposite each. It’s easy to write off the chemistry that the two share; a bit too much like the gay man and the straight woman (Will & Grace) but it’s not a cliché and seeing as thus ruins the beauteous rapport between the two. Like the entire ensemble, none are just saying lines to the other. Each word from Richard elicits a response – sometimes palpable, sometimes downplayed – from Streep and it’s all completely real. Clarissa’s motives do cause me to wonder though. What is the drive behind her devotion to him? Guilt? Love? Friendship? What makes the film so good is that the drive behind it is unimportant because whatever *it* is, it’s absolutely moving.

As autonomous as each story is, The Hours thrives on the similarities between each segment and the commonality of the visitor is potent in each. Virginia has Vanessa, Laura has Kitty and Clarissa is thrown by Louis. It’s hard to judge a performance so saturated with emotion, but this meeting is one of Streep’s strongest. She is so thrown by Jeff that we can’t help but sympathise with her, that moment of extreme vulnerability – uncommon for someone so composed – is especially moving. I love her reading of the line “Don't touch me.”. It’s this moment that throws her portion of the narrative in a different direction. The scars from this meeting are almost visible as she returns to Richard’s for that fateful final visit: which my favourite moment of hers and she sells it, completely.

         

She is already frazzled as she enters the room, and it’s difficult to remain indifferent to the obvious change in Richard. This doesn’t even seem to be the same man we saw earlier and Clarissa knows this. Her pleas with Richard are so profound and watching Harris’ gaunt figure at the window is all too ominous and the subsequent fall never fails to throw me. As I said, Streep’s Clarissa depends on reactions and Streep’s reaction is key here. Simply sublime. It is (of course) the peak of her performance, not in the literal sense but emotionally. She’s broken afterwards and continues the rest of the film dejectedly; only her portion has a twist the others don’t. She has a second visitor. It is Julianne’s moment but Meryl never takes the bait to be non responsive (but she never goes out of the way to make it too much) and that’s why her Clarissa works.

         

I can’t share the general love for Streep, though I continue to respect her for continued productivity and even though it’s rare that I adore a performance of hers, the one rare Clarissa Vaughn makes up for the Julia Childs and Sister Aloysius.

      

What were your thoughts on Meryl here? Is it a favourite of yours or do your prefer her other work?

A Crazy Heart, A Single Man and a Ridiculously Bright Star

 DON'T FORGET TO PLAY THE GAME!
          
I’ve seen the last three films I needed to before I began my year end awards. I’ve not written reviews for Away We Go or The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus – chances are I won’t, in fact the three films identified in the title won’t exactly be properly here, even though two of them deserve mellifluous words. Still, it would be remiss of me not to at least mention them even though they are quite different. Crazy Heart gives us the second coming of Jeff Bridges, or so I’ve heard. It’s the third significant time that an actor is going all musical on us. Jamie Foxx won his Oscar for it and Bridges will probably follow suit, but my favourite of the lot is the unsung Joaquin Phoenix for his real blooded Johnny Cash. It’s strange since Bridges’ has the chance here to create something new, his character is his creation after all. He’s fine, good even, but I wondered why I felt unmoved for so much of his journey since he has the most chance to move me, unlike Whishaw and Firth who must play vignettes.

          

The chemistry exists between Bridges and Gyllenhaal but they seem so comfortable I don’t even feel that they’re trying. Crazy Heart is passable; it doesn’t do anything exceptional, even though I felt it wanted to. In the end it just all felt a bit too artificial, this strikes me as ironic since of the three films it’s the one that tries to be the grungiest, from the costumes to the drawls and the script. Much has been said about the bauble like qualities of Ford’s A Single Man. It’s not perfect, that I will say, and I didn’t fall (completely) in love with it. Nonetheless, it’s a good film with a fine performance from Colin Firth. Still, A Single Man reaches its most poignant when Julianne Moore comes on screen. It’s one of the best performances of the best performances of the last year even though it’s easy to ignore it. It seems like standard Julianne, though it’s not. Her Charley’s wild abandonment with George is only sadder when we see the longing in her eyes that we need not question. She doesn’t get served up a plum role like so many women did last year. Her performance depends on her eyes as does Ben Whishaw’s John Keats. It’s an atypical male performance that unfortunately has gone unnoticed, but I’m not surprised. Audiences often fall into the trap of ignoring reactionary performances like this. But Whishaw's Keats is a revelation abd absolutely perfect. Cornish’s active Fanny Brawne is a thing of beauty, I can’t ignore her striking facial similarities to Nicole Kidman and her quiet line readings are so wonderful when juxtaposed with the moving amber in her eyes. This is her story, and not Keats and she gets the most emotional moment as she finds out Keats death. It is arguably the saddest moment of the last film year and Cornish shines, but she shines brightest when she blushes and smiles imperceptible with Whishaw.

           

It’s interesting that of the three Crazy Heart is the one most remembered in this time of awards praise. But then, it has the most typical female role – the woman behind the man, confident but never assertive. She is not Moore’s nonconforming Charley or Cornish’s modern Fanny. Crazy Heart, forgive me, plays up to the usual thematic elements that some audiences find it so easy to revert to. No surprise that Maggie Gyllenhaal’s turn has gained laurels, it being one of her lesser performances.

      

It’s obvious that Campion’s piece is my favourite then Ford’s stylistic narrative and the Bridges’ star vehicle as my least favourite. Strangely, grading isn’t even that difficult because it’s easy as A, B, C, in that order.

           

PS. See my Best Supporting Actor lineup, a star of the brightest is represented.

Supporting Actress Blog-a-thon: Bello, Belluci, Knight, Lively, Moore & Ryder,

This post is part of StinkyLulu’s Supporting Actress Blog-a-thon. Head over and feast on the posts.
             

The Private Lives of Pippa Lee has turned into something of a guilty pleasure for me. It’s not an exceptionally good film but with all its faults and missteps I still find it enjoyable. Of course most of that depends on the performance of the luminous Robin Wright Penn in the eponymous lead role, but she is supported by a host of Women, big and small that make her performance all the more beautiful. It’s a true Supporting Actress bevy even though many are just playing short roles. So I decided to single them all out in their lovely performances.

  

Blake Lively, Julianne Moore, Shirley Knight, Winona Ryder, Maria Bello & Monica Bellucci as an ingenue, a lesbian, a friend, an adulteress, a bipolar mother and a woman scorned

             

I’d add Zoe Kazan to the list, but her non acting disgusts me, so I’ll pretend that she was not there.

                  

Blake Lively has the toughest job of the lot. I’ve never found her coasting on Gossip Girl to be particularly noteworthy, but as a younger version of Ms. Penn I must admit that she does a admirable job. Her performance is most lovely when measured against that of her mother, Suky,  played by Maria Bello. Bello bursts into the film for a few short scenes to play the bipolar mother of our main character. We don’t usually see her like this; her most notable roles are often those of reticence, but she is an actress and acting is what she does here. As good as Wright Penn is [and she really is good] I just wished that the film could have focused more on the dynamic of the Bello/Lively relationship. She chews the scenery, of course, but I’m damned if it’s not the best performance of the film, next to Wright Penn. But comparing the supporting women would do them an injustice, because they’re all fine, very fine.

Take Winona Ryder, for example, as Sandra. She is a friend of Pippa, who is sleeping with Pippa’s husband [Alan Arkin]. Sandra is so distraught when Pippa finds her in Herb's office she attempts to slit her wrist – with a disposable blade of all things – and ends up in the hospital alongside  Herb who’s had a heartattack. My favourite moment of Winona comes when she begs Pippa for forgiveness. On her knees in an unflattering hospital gown, she grovels at Pippa’s feet. It’s an uncomfortable moment for the character, but Winona has never been afraid of the uncomfortable and it’s the lack of inhibition that makes her Sandra completely real.and also delciously funny. She is an Oscar nominee, after all. Julianne Moore, another Oscar gal, shot her scenes in three days. She plays Kat the lesbian lover of Pippa’s aunt who seems hell-bent on turning Pippa into a soft-core porn star. Julianne’s comedic timing is vastly underrated and as she delivers her lines dryly her prowess can’t be denied. In her two scenes she outsdoes Lively, but Lively - good as she is- is still a rookie.

Monica Belluci’s scorned woman [Herb's original wife] is not as contrived as it could have been in lesser hands. As she invites a young Pippa and Herb for lunch as they discuss a divorce you can't help but smile at this woman's charm. Her subsequent actions may not be as comic inducing,  but Monica carries it off with grace - gun toting and all. And then, there's Shirley Knight. She is Pippa's solitary friend in the retirement home and though role is relegated to a mere plot point she manages to make her final disappointment in Pippa real, even if we don’t care. I often wonder why Ms. Knight, a double Oscar nominee, has been virtually shunned from substantial cinema in her old age. But I digress.

The Private Lives of Pippa Lee is not perfect, not remotely. Depending on your propensity your thoughts may range from tedious to passable. Perhaps, it’s the presence of all these glorious women but I can’t be mad at it. Rebecca Miller makes a few mistakes in her narrative, but when it comes to getting the goods from her women [Kazan aside]. She succeeds. Undoubtedly. 

Anticipating 2010: Part 4

So after Parts One, Two and Three I'm finally read to unveil the ten films I'm anticipating the most for 2010. I suppose many weren't all too pleased with 2009. I've not decided as yet, though they were not the decade's worst. But with a new decade beginning I hope 2010 impresses more than it disappoints. These are the ten films that have had be salivating for quite some time.

                               

#10 Inception

I’ll admit that I’m not the biggest Nolan fan although the sheer bravura of The Prestige, as imperfect as it was, left me convinced that he could do great things. Sure this has Leonardo DiCaprio and Marion Cotillard [in what's probably a small role]; but I'm not certain if this is going to be that film that makes me love him. I really don't know much about this film, other than it's scientifically charged plotwise, and involves a ton of blackmail. That's not much to go on, but I'll see how it goes.

                

#9 The Kids Are Alright

Julianne Moore and Annette Bening star as lesbian lovers with two children. When the sperm donor father enters the picture, drama ensues, naturally. Seeing Julianne and Annette play off each other could be something especial. I’ve been wanting Mark Ruffalo to get some love for some time now. After his eclectic turn in You Can Count On Me he’s showed up doing underrated work in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Zodiac and Reservation Road. Hopefully this doesn’t become too generic. I have high hopes.

                                    

#8 Never Let Me Go

Carey Mulligan and Keira Knightley [two of the Bennett sisters] star is this supernatural drama, based on a somewhat acclaimed novel. The story centres on a group of English friends who find out that the exclusive private school which they attend is simply a front for harvesting organs. It does sound a bit like The Island, but I'm still expecting this to be good. It will be nice to see Keira and Carey team up again with Sally Hawkins in a small role.

                          

# 7 Mother & Child

Here it is, another Annette Bening piece. Naomi Watts, Kerry Washington and Samuel Jackson. The drama surrounds a woman [Bening] searching for the daughter she gave up for adoptions decades ago. Washington co-stars as a woman searching for a child to adopt. This was screened to good reviews last year and though I don’t want to jinx her [again] notices predicted an Oscar showing for Ms. Warren Beatty herself. I’ll see what happens. Still, regardless of whether or not Oscar recognises this. I’m keeping my eye on it.

                       

#6 Death Hallows I

This is pure fanboy. I tried to adjust and adjust, but it ends up in my top ten because regardless of the quality I am dying to see this. I’ve read the book so much that my hardcover copy is becoming tattered. I mean, I hate to sound like a nerd, but I’m just way too excited for this. I hope that they finally give Rupert Grint something notable to do than just act as some sort of inane form of comic relief.

               

#5 Alice In Wonderland

Alice in Wonderland is one of the most original, entreating but simultaneously thought provoking. I have to admit that the previous live action version was a guilty pleasure, and with all his broodiness and his macabre self I can’t resist Tim Burton. Sure, I love him more when he’s toned down [Big Fish] but I love him any way. Helena Bonham Carter as The Red Queen is the type of wonderful casting that’s just scintillating. This looks like it’s going to be the most entertaining movie experience of the year to come.

          

#4 Robin Hood

Cate Blanchett and Russell Crow are a duo I would pay good money to see. The Aussies. Ridley Scott is an underrated director who has yet to win an Oscar. I warrant it won’t be for this, but I’m all ready to see a new incarnation of Robin Hood. It’s anyone’s guess if it’ll be able to combat with Errol Flynn/Olivia de Havilland, but visually thus far it look satisfying and my anticipating will remain untempered until I see it.

          

#3 Rabbit Hole

This film is important because it marks the return of Nicole Kidman to cinema. Not that Nine wasn’t cinema, but it wasn’t a lead role. Aaron Eckhart and Nicole Kidman star as a husband and wife who cope with the death of her child. Perhaps, that alone sounds generic – but adapted from a Award winning play [which earned Cynthia Nixon a Tony]: I don't think so. Diane Wiest costars as her mother with Sandra Oh and Tammy Blanchard in supporting roles.

                 

#2 Shutter Island

This was actually coasting along as my number one for some time until…My reasons for anticipating this are multitudinous. Scorsese and DiCaprio have impressed me three times in the last decade, add that to Michelle Williams – whom I like, though I didn’t like her Brokeback turn, Emily Mortimer [underrated in Match Point], Mark Ruffalo [underrated in everything he does], the wonderful Patricia Clarkson and Ben Kingsley and you have what looks like one hell of cast. Scorsese is one of those directors that just work for me, and the chances are that I’m going to like what he does. I’m just not sure if I’m going to love it or worship it.

       

#1 The King’s Speech

Helena Bonham Carter and Colin Firth star as the parents of Queen Elizabeth II, Michael Gambon, Geoffrey Rush, Timothy Spall and Guy Pearce costar. The film centres on George VI, who in the 1940’s has developed a nervous stutter. With the help of unorthodox speech therapist [Rush] who helps to work on the “king’s speech’, George eventually loses the stutter leading his country through the horrid 1940s. It’s a weird premise, duly noted. But the film’s cast is top notch – Helena Bonham Carter in particular needs a good role. And the director Tom Hooper won an Emmy for his adaptation of the first Elizabeth’s life. It’s being distributed by the Weinstein Company who are probably hoping for Oscar love, which I am too actually. I suppose it’s a weird choice for my number one, but I have really high hopes for this – obviously.

                               

So were there any surprises? I'll be back with the performances I'm looking forward to.

2002: Women in Film

The two acting categories were quite uneven. The Supporting Actress race was overstuffed with big and small [but good] performances from women, but the leading race was devoid of any exceptional work other than from a few constant few women. Here’s a rundown of my favourites that year.

       

Supporting Actress

Runners Up: Lisa Meryl Streep in Adaptation, Claire Danes in The Hours, Miranda Otto in The Two Towers

Tier Two

Patricia Clarkson in Far From Heaven

Toni Collette in The Hours

Cameron Diaz in Gangs of New York

Alison Janey in The Hours

Michelle Pfeiffer in White Oleander

Obviously, I was no fan of Meryl in Adaptation, but that wasn’t really her fault. I was not a fan of the film. Cameron Diaz earned a Golden Globe and SAG nod and still turned up empty handed at the Oscars. Sucks to be her. Patricia Clarkson and Michelle Pfeiffer gave strong performances that went unnoticed by most that year. Collette and Janey couldn’t make it with all the good work done in The Hours; but I was a fan.

        

The Nominees

Queen Latifah in Chicago

Julianne Moore in The Hours

Samantha Morton in Minority Report

Miranda Richardson in The Hours

Catherine Zeta-Jones in Chicago

It was only this year that Julianne equated with Catherine’s Velma. I won’t choose between the two women. I am a big fan of both great performances, no matter what many seem to think of the latter. Miranda Richardson gave the best performance [minus the trinity] in The Hours and I was really impressed by her Vanessa Bell. Samantha Morton was outstanding in Minority Report in an understated performance. Spielberg directed her to greatness. And Queen Latifah was just right as the Matron in Chicago. Altogether, each of these women impressed me much.

           

Leading Actress

Tier Two

Jennifer Aniston in The Good Girl

Jodie Foster in Panic Room

Goldie Hawn in The Banger Sisters

Salma Hayek in Frida

Alison Lohman in White Oleander

I’m sorry that Hayek had to miss my top five. She’s head and shoulders above her peers in Tier Two, not that Alison Lohman’s turn in White Oleander didn’t impress me much.

          

The Nominees

Nicole Kidman in The Hours

Diane Lane in Unfaithful

Julianne Moore in The Hours

Meryl Streep in The Hours

Renee Zellweger in Chicago

It’s an exceptional bunch of women, it’s almost difficult to choose. Almost. Lane is fifth, but her good performance is not to be underrated. I’m all the more happy that such an atypical performance saw Oscar love. The remaining four are real head-scratchers and I’m tempted to make it all a tie. But no. Julianne comes in at fourth, it’s not my favourite of hers. But it’s still outstanding. As is Zellweger’s Roxie Hart – which is my favourite of hers. It’s a good performance, regardless of what you think of her singing. That leaves Streep and Kidman who are almost equal in their goodness. It’s my favourite Streep performance of the decade [and maybe the last one, too]. I wouldn’t have minded if they went all fraudulent and put her in Supporting for this, but it’s just my luck that the performance I like is the one they ignore. Eventually Kidman wins it, just for the chemistry she has with Richardson AND that pivotal train station scene. Still, I’ll say it, Meryl is golden here.

The Best Supporting Actress Nominees: Favourites

I’ve been tinkering with this list for a while, so finally I’ve completed it., which marks the final category, Check out the others, if you missed.

Favourite Actor Nominees

Favourite Actress Nominees

Favourite Supporting Actor Nominees

                 

Favourite Actor Winners

Favourite Actress Winners

Favourite Supporting Actor Winners

Favourite Supporting Actress Winners

                 

Here is the list of the thirty supporting nominees that have had the most profound effect on me. These are the women that I think are best, well not quite the best...I'm not sure I understand what that word means anymore. Here are the women that I like the most. Enough.

                 

TIER THREE

30 – Glenn Close in The World According to Garp

29 – Maggie Smith in Othello

28 – Julianne Moore in Boogie Nights

27 – Natalie Portman in Closer

26 – Meg Tilly in Agnes of God

25 – Angela Lansbury in The Manchurian Candidate

24 – Kate Winslet in Iris

23 – Ruth Hussey in The Philadelphia Story

                          

TIER TWO

22 – Judi Dench in Chocolat

21 – Margaret Avery in The Color Purple

20 – Marianne Jean-Baptise in Secrets & Lies

19 – Marisa Tomei in In the Bedroom

18 – Julia Roberts in Steel Magnolias

17 – Cate Blanchett in Notes On A Scandal

16 – Oliva De Havilland in Gone With the Wind

                 

THE FINALISTS

15 – Shirley Knight in Sweet Bird of Youth

Along with Angela Lansbury above, Knight lost her chance at Oscar to Patty Duke in The Miracle Worker. All three performances were good so I can’t say that Duke’s was underserved. Knight’s performance, though in Tennessee Williams’ play is quite good. As the estranged girl friend of hero [Paul Newman] she plays a young girl Heavenly – as tongue-in-cheek as Tennessee can get, and her role though quite important to the film; is not excessively large; but she plays it well. With a team of future Oscar winners, she holds her own quite nicely. Her ‘big’ scene comes when she faces off with Ed Begley in his Oscar winning role as her father. It’s a nice, strong moment and she does well with what she’s given.

                

14 – Celeste Holm in All About Eve

This performance is often regarded as inferior, especially in comparison to the ostensibly better performances of Davis, Baxter and Sanders. However, I love this performance from Celeste Holm. She’s the first person we see in the narrative, and her expressive face is what leads us back to the memory of Eve Harrington so long ago. Celeste’s part is for the most part reactive. She watches while Margo goes crazy, while Eve changes her behaviour and as her husband dallies with the actress. And it is with that expressive face that she sells it. I love that scene in the bathroom with her and Eve, and it’s exceptionally well played. Never, do we doubt her love for Margo even though her actions could have suggested otherwise.

               

13 – Maggie Smith in Gosford Park

Maggie Smith is exceptional. That much we know. Even with those one-liners in Harry Potter she still excels. In Gosford Park she is given the perfect role for an aging actress. Her performance is hinged into the beginning and the end of the film. At the start, the absurdity of having her maid stand in the rain is sad and humorous at once; and her narcissism in shown again at the end where she laments how trying being a witness at court would be for her. And in between that he spot-on delivery of her lines is enviable; in particular those few scenes with Kristin Scott Thomas [with whom she shared an uncanny chemistry] where she changed the course of the narrative were done well. A beautiful job from her.

                 

12 – Patricia Clarkson in Pieces of April

For an actress that seems to be as ubiquitous as Patty I’m always a little bewildered at times when I realise that this is her only nomination. But then this performance is not as frivolous as it seems. The movie is enjoyable, if a bit trite but Patricia elevates her character to such a height that it’s amazing. There’s a scene that always sticks with me. It’s where she vomits in a bathroom on the road and replaces what we realise is a wig on her head. Then looking at her reflection in her mirror she gives her visage a knowing, deceptive smile. It’s a nice acting moment from her, and it’s little touches like that that make turn this character into a realistic character.

                   

11 – Helen Mirren in The Madness of King George

1994 in retrospect was quite a good year in this category. Although I was not enamoured with all the performances, it was a definite step up for the Academy from 1993. Helen Mirren’s Queen Charlotte is a Cannes’ winning performance and with reason. It is a bit of co-lead I suppose; she and Nigel Hawthorne are the driving force behind the film and she handles her role wonderfully. It’s a pity that this performance is not as remembered as it should me.

                 

10 – Judy Garland in Judgment at Nuremberg

I know that everybody in the world loves Rita Moreno’s vivacious Anita in West Side Story; but as much as I like the film and enjoy her performance I really was not gunning for her to win. I suppose that somewhere hidden there is an irony that when Judy went straight up drama she lost her Oscar to a straight up musical performance. Of course Judy has always and will always be remembered as an omnipresent musical star but this is my favourite acting performance of hers. As a pivotal witness in the Nuremberg trials there is an alarming weakness that she brings to the role which is unlike much we’ve seen her do before. Stanley Kramer handles her scenes very well and it comes off a deservedly nominated performance.

                   

9 – Dianne Wiest in Parenthood

There is something that just charms me about this movie; but more importantly there’s something that just charms me about Diane Wiest in the movie. As a single mother, who may be just a little crazy she imbues the character with so much good nature that she’s wonderful to watch. Never does it seem off, and never does it seem as if she’s trying too hard. Even in those silly moments with her daughter – it’s all done in good taste, so funny and yet so poignant. There’s just, as I said a charm about her that I can’t resist. She is a wonderful actress.

                       

8 – Joan Allen in The Crucible

As a fan of Arthur Miller I can’t say that The Crucible is my favourite play of his; but there is something amazing about the play nonetheless and the adaptation of it is able to capture the beauty of it. As Elizabeth Proctor Joan Allen towers above the cast [yes, even the talented Daniel Day Lewis]. Of course the effusiveness of her performance is owed to Miller’s original work; but there is just something outstanding about her performance that I just cannot put my hand on. It’s a pity that she had to go against my darling Binoche in 1996, a year earlier or later I could have seen her easily winning the populist fare that Oscar rewarded. And it doesn’t look as if he’ll ever get the recognition that she deserves.

                       

7 – Vanessa Redgrave in Howards End

Ruth Wilcox, more than any other character in Howards End, hovers over the film. It’s not the obvious type of hovering where a character’s death must be solved. But eventually we realise what it is, Ruth Wilcox is Howards End. At the end when Meg Schlegel finally gets the house, we can almost see the figure of Ruth smiling in heaven…and seeing that her character disappeared from screen almost two hours earlier, this is no mean feat. And that is because Vanessa Redgrave is so talented. I wonder if Merchant Ivory meant for this character to seem important. Even if he didn’t Vanessa certainly made it seem so. Her rapport with especially Emma Thompson is beautiful to watch and hers few scenes are just so well acted that there’s no doubt that her Oscar nomination was deserved.

                     

6 – Glenn Close in The Big Chill

I know that many are not as fond of this performance as I would like; but then many are not as fond of the film either. Glenn plays Sarah; one of a group of friend who meet for a weekend after the suicide of one of their friends. The group went to college and have met again after a parting of ways. The Big Chill is their story. You can click on the link to see more of what I thought of the performance; but with every thing she’s given and what is an ensemble film Glenn still manages to make Sarah seem more important. It’s a well deserved Oscar nomination.

                   

5 – Kate Winslet in Sense & Sensibility

I always felt that Kate’s first nomination [more than her most recent, obviously] was always the easiest; or should have been the easiest actually. With Jane Austen as her guide Kate played Marianne Dashwood, the eponymous ‘sensibility’ of the film’s title. She is the excitable middle Dashwood girls, who is Elizabeth Bennett of Pride & Prejduice – but with less morals. It’s a sweet performance from Kate, and a thoroughly English one. She plays well alongside Emma Thompson and even seems to make a convincing romantic connection with Alan Rickman, which ostensibly seems strange.

              

INTERNAL STRUGGLING: The Respected Women

4 – Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Liaisons

Mme Tourvelle. Michelle earned her first nomination in Frear’s Dangerous Liaisons, a nomination I wish had substantiated into a win. What I love about this performance is Michelle’s use of body language, but more importantly the use of her face. The internal struggle of Tourvelle is difficult to present cinematically, and wordiness would not be true to the character, but yet we are able to understand. Clichéd perhaps, but goodness is not something that we can hear and believe, it comes from inside and just happens to shine through. Michelle’s Tourvelle lets her goodness shine through.

                   

3 – Helen Mirren in Gosford Park

I watched this movie thrice one day. Just because, I knew on each viewing I’d pick up something new. When you know what’s going on, it’s amazing how everything falls into perspective. There’s a scene early, it’s actually the first time we meet Mrs. Wilson, she’s directing Clive Owen where he should be sleeping. He tells her his name and you see the slightest trace of surprise on her face that is immediately cast off. It’s both the genius of Altman and Mirren that make me love that part. It’s so subtle, and yet so telling. Mrs Wilson’s internal struggle in this role is so palpable, and that last scene where she breaks down her in her sister’s arm is never superfluous, but as tender and poignant as it should be. Only Helen Mirren.

                         

2 – Marcia Gay Harden in Mystic River

When Celeste goes to Jimmy we are to believe that this woman loves her husband. We must think that this is not a betrayal, no soliloquy is written for her to explain, we just have the actor there. And when that actor is Marcia Gay Harden, you can be assured that we’ll understand what she’s feeling – because she’s that talented. I won’t be covetous. Two Oscars in four years might have been too much, but it wouldn’t have been unseemly. No matter how much Clint Eastwood annoys me every now and again, I will forever respect him for directing this wonderful performance. Marcia Gay Harden in what could have been nothing but turned into what’s my favourite performance of her and of the entire film.

                 

1 – Julianne Moore in The Hours

I always find it strange that I love this performance so much. Because I never question that I wanted Catherine Zeta Jones to win her Oscar, I still don’t agree with Sage and Twister when the rail about her. But still, I cannot disagree that Julianne Moore is astounding in this film. It’s the sort of performance that only gets better with age. It’s the type of performance that so many of the supporting women must do – forced to keep their feelings inside. For a film so simple, there’s that one surreal moment where Laura is about to attempt suicide and we see her bed surrounded by a murky swamp. Laura awakes with a start – a newfound intelligence. It’s a moment that shouldn’t work, in the same way that crying in the bathroom or confessing to Clarissa shouldn’t. And yet…it does work. Is it Daldry, is it Julianne? I don’t know, but it is beautiful.

                     

Whew! That was a lot of writing. Thoughts?