Showing posts with label Ben Foster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ben Foster. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

“In Search Of A Good Role” : A Top 5 list

Damn, this is overdue. What was it...months ago....that Univarn published this fine list of actors who never get the love they deserve (Castor and Ruth followed with lists of their own). If you’re a good debater you can make a case for any number of actors not getting their due, but sometimes it’s especially piercing when some actors just never get that single role that you could point to as encapsulating all the talent they have....or worse the role will come and no will see the film (or care about the performance) – something as incidental as timing could be their downfall. These five actors immediately come to mind when I think of actors who don’t get their due. Some have already given brilliant performances, but they still have not reached that level of fame that their peers have....who knows why? More importantly they’re all relatively young thespians who seem to have so much potential but never get recognised for it. This is my shout-out to them...
                                      
Romola Garai
I was fascinated by Garai’s work in Atonement, she topped my supporting actress list that year...and yet of the five principal players she earned the least buzz for her performance. I’m still not sure why, because I still can’t think of anything in particular that’s off-putting about her performance. Saoirse’s Briony’s strongpoint was her eyes, Vanessa’s was her eyes – what Romola has is a countenance that you can’t help but find sympathetic (which is why she’s the perfect person to encapsulate the imaginary Briony of the middle act). It’s the same sort of thing she does in I Capture A Castle – a film I’m not fond of, but a performance that soars despite confinements from the script.
A 2010 Role She Could Have Tackled: Florence in Greenberg; don’t get me wrong – Greta Gerwig was lovely in Greenberg but wouldn’t that role be lovely for Romola? Effusively charming, adult and yet innocent and altogether winsome without being too perfect. I suppose that if she ever has a chance of getting the fame she deserves she might need to leave the British roles behind (which is a shame, because I think the British are just awesome).
                                    
Ben Foster
I’m still absolutely flummoxed as to how Woody Harrelson swept through being nominated for every important precursor last year for The Messenger when Ben Foster turned up at nary a one. Where is the justice? The Messenger remains as one of my favourite films from the 2009, and much of that had to do with the quiet intensity of Foster’s protagonist. What makes him so special, though, is his ability to play quiet and brooding and switch instantly to loud and explosive. And he’s been at it so long, surely he deserves to catch a break.
A 2010 Role She Could Have Tackled: It’s too easy, but I’m calling him for Jem, the role Jeremy Renner originated in The Town. Renner WAS my favourite part of the film, but I’d have loved to see Foster that irrepressible showboating sidekick. If there was one thing I didn’t like about Renner’s Jem was how lacking in personality he was, he was officious enough but never charismatic which is something I think Ben could pull off.
                                 
Kerry Washington
I don’t believe that I’m the only one who’s been championing for dear Ms. Washington to get more recognition. Truth is, it’s especially difficult being a black actress in the business – but Kerry’s as adept at playing in the typical black picture as she is in something more generically prestigious. Acting has many facets – voice, body language, facial expressions, but I’m particularly fond of Kerry’s speaking voice. It’s especially crisp and expressive, and she always does well with large bits of dialogue.
A 2010 Role She Could Have Tackled: I wonder what it would have been like to see Kerry take the lead in Veronika Decides to Die. That’s a movie that went by unnoticed (shame) but the quiet passion of Veronika is something I think Kerry could handle beautifully – if given the chance.
             
Ben Whishaw
Ah, Ben Whishaw. I’m a fan and Bright Star turned me into a raving fanatic. Someone tell me again why that movie went by with so little notice? Actually, don’t tell me – there’s no good reason. It’s clichéd, but Whishaw is like the epitome of the sensitive artist which is perhaps why his Keats’ doesn’t seem like acting – but that deliberate poignancy he puts into his performances (re Brideshead Revisited) is something brilliant to watch.
 A 2010 Role She Could Have Tackled: With all that sensitivity, isn’t he an obvious choice for Tommy in Never Let Me Go? After being floored by he and Carey last year, I’ve put the hopes of seeing the two in a film of things I want to happen...and as fine as Garfield is, Whishaw opposite Carey would have just been incredible.

Rosamund Pike
Rosamund Pike seems sort of ageless to me, since seeing her in Die Another Day all the way through Pride & Prejudice and An Education she never seems to age, if anything she seems younger. It’s weird how her characters seem to be on a mental regression from the steely to the quite silly Helen. It’s her talent as an actor, though, and she doesn’t come off like any of these characters in interviews. She’s able to embody a wide array of supporting players on the sidelines, which proably accounts for her being forgotten.
A 2010 Role She Could Have Tackled: How old is Cattrall’s Amelia supposed to be in The Ghost Writer? I love her in it, but I wonder what someone younger like ROsamund would have done with the role. We know she can handle the ice-queen role well and though the thought of her against Brosnan is not particularly appealing (because Brosnan is terrible) I like the idea of her playing this role.
                  
Which of these five is most overdue for some appreciation? Any roles they should have gotten it for? Any role they could have played?

Sunday, December 27, 2009

The Messenger

As much as I am enamoured with the Oscars and the whole idea of prestige pictures, etc & etc the ‘season’ as it is really pisses me off sometimes. The biggest annoyance seems to be how precursors play a major role in who or what are deemed as worthy of nominations and the thing about precursors is that they only seem to see a stratified set of films. Or even if they do see a film, they only see one part of it. For example, they recognise Michael Shannon in Revolutionary Road and for some reason ignore the screenplay and Kate and Leo’s admirable performances. They see Closer but can’t discern Jude Law and Julia Roberts and it goes on and on. Excuse the preamble, but there’s a reason to it. Woody Harrelson has been showing up consistently at precursors for his supporting role in The Messenger, it’s the only prospective nomination for the film. In passing one would assume that it’s the only good thing about the film – and they wouldn’t be more wrong.
      
A year ago the average moviegoer would have bemoaned the state of modern war dramas in American cinemas. This year we’ve had The Hurt Locker and Brothers, two superior modern day war films and The Messenger is a third making it a holy Trinity. The goodness of The Messenger is almost ironic. By covering even less ground than the two it is even more affecting than them. It tells the story of a solider recently returned from Iraq [Ben Foster] who is hired by the army to deliver messages to the relatives of deceased soldiers along with Woody Harrelson. Both men have severe issues, although the film focuses more on Foster and two women in his life. Jena Malone plays his ex-girlfriend and Samantha Morton plays a potential love interest.

It’s been said before: movies are movies, they’re not real. It doesn’t take a genius to derive the truth in this, but The Messenger comes as close to reality [as I can imagine]. The humanness and the realism of the entire thing is so profound. Even stranger is the absence of any score in the film. Foster, Malone, Harrelson and Morton give mature and intense performances. The only one who can be charged with having a showy moment [a mere few minutes towards the end] is Harrelson and it’s ironic that he’s the only one getting any traction. Not to knock Harrelson, he’s phenomenal, but his performance is possibly the weakest of the four. That’s how good this film is.
                   
The Messenger doesn’t force the audience to make a choice about the war in Iraq or war in general. It’s a film about broken people, hurting people; it’s a telling character study and an incredibly mature film. It’s one not to be missed.
          
A- 
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...