Cinematic Shakespeare, Part Two: The Ladies

I meant to post this yesterday, but alas - I was without internet (horrors). Well, today is the birthday of the Bard so moving on to the excellent women who have done brilliant things because of him.
    
Glenn Close as Queen Gertrude (Hamlet)

Coming off the one-two punch of Alex Fisher and Isabel de Merteuil, I suppose the idea of Close as Gertrude seems liked some outlandish casting from Zeffreli she still emerges as the finest characterisation of the Queen I’ve seen on film. It’s probably her theatrical roots coming to the surface. Gertrude, I suppose, emerges as one of the more ambiguous mothers from Shakespeare. Close manages to retain that ambiguity without making the character too sinister. At her best she manages to sustain that chemistry with Gibson while creating the same with Bates – without making Gertrude seem insincere.

Olivia Hussey as Juliet (Romeo & Juliet)

Olivia looks even younger than Leonardo, which makes her seem to even more of a wise choice for Juliet. As young as the characters are in the play, we often think of them as older and Olivia manages to juxtapose the generally adult desires of Juliet with the more fanciful, youthful portion. It’s an amalgamation that works, especially in the final moments of the film where she’s astounding. As with Whiting, it’s a real shame she never did something as special again.

Helena Bonham Carter as Lady Olivia (Twelfth Night)

On the most obvious levels Helena doesn’t seem like the obvious fit for Olivia, but the entire film is sort of ironic adaptation of the entire film. It’s somewhere between Helen Schlegel and Kate Croy but not anywhere as domineering and she’s easily the best in show – even if she’s not the traditional heroine of the play. To call her comedic skills subtle would be an understatement and despite the more obvious incongruities that exist between her and the character it’s the unobtrusive comedic gifts she uses to define a character who’s not quite funny but is at the centre of comedy.

Elizabeth Taylor as Katherina (The Taming of the Shrew)

I said before, I always think of the Shrew when I hear about Elizabeth Taylor. True, it’s not her best performance but it’s such a fine example of her at her most tenacious – which is what I remember her most for, as an actor and a person. She’s beautiful and terrible and performs with an astounding comedic timing – it’s as if the role was written with her in mind.

Emma Thompson as Beatrice (Much Ado About Nothing)

It only makes sense that the finest female Shakespearean performance comes from a thoroughly British actor. I can’t think of any actor, of her generation, who so seems to so easily encapsulate the spirit of the Shakespearean era. Shakespeare, at its heart, is about its words and Emma Thompson wins easy points for her excellent enunciation. She’s just perfect here.

Later in the afternoon I'll have the closing with a special top 5.
                  

Which of these ladies impresses you most?

March Bloodstones: Helen and Margaret Schlegel in Howards End

The bloodstone is the stone of March, and March is women's history month. Hence this post, (first entry HERE).

                 

Jhabvala and Ivory don’t have the comfort of Forster’s lush narrative to wallow in, so they’re prevented from establishing – immediately – the radical ways of the Schlegel sisters, and yet from that very first visit Mr. Bast pays to their flats one is swayed to believe that there’s something peculiar about them. There’s already something eccentric in the on-and-off engagement between Helen and Paul and as Mr. Bast raps at the door – to retrieve his stolen umbrella – there’s something even odder about Margaret’s, “Not again, Helen. She is an incorrigible thief.” It’s not exactly courage, as yet, but it’s an essential bit about organic everything in Howards Ends unfolds – it’s never uncinematic but it always retains a definite literariness.

 

Helen seems like the more obvious candidate, but the quietness with which Margaret approaches her tentative relationship with Mrs. Wilcox seems decidedly gracious in its way. It’s the sort of selfless nobleness that we come to define her character by, and though it’s pointless to see the character through any sort of feministic lens it’s notable that both she and Helen define their bravery in relation to the men about them. But, I’m getting ahead of myself. Again I come to this quandary of defining courage, and like Deanie Loomis (but, perhaps, not so difficultly) finding overt acts of courage is rare. Yet, the fact that they’re so erudite and well-meaning, even in their middle-class naïveté. The Edwardian era isn’t as symbolic as repressed women as, say, the Victorian era but considering how the upper-class Mrs. Wilcox feels about women’s education I can’t help but feel some commendation is worthy of them – although Aunt Jules’ aside “…but their father was German, and that is why they care for literature and art” seems (like everything about her character) superfluous and ridiculous.

Because it’s the moment where the two storylines finally interact, the wedding emerges as that obvious moment for watching different types of “courage”. Taking Forster and putting him to screen seems to be such a dubious task, and I have added admiration that Helena Bonham Carter manages to toe that line between histrionic and passionate so finely. The same goes for Thompson, in opposite form; even when Margaret is at her most dubious it’s difficult not to identify with her. True, her knee-jerk embarrassment to Helen’s theatrics seems to subvert any significant act of courage and if you’re sinister and think that if, perhaps, Helen’s pleas for equality (for the Basts) is driven by romantic inclinations then it does the same. Still, as much as the narrative (and in lieu, the film) have that utilitarian function of showing us a “new” England the nice thing about Howards End is how complex the characters.

I hate to think of it as some sort of misguided penance, but it’s to Helen’s credit that she bears her pregnancy alone – even if there’s something vaguely repressive about her intended plan to spend the duration of her pregnancy. For all her excitability, Helen is defined by childishness where Margaret – as the older one – emerges as, arguably, the braver of the two. Emma is a powerhouse opposite Antony towards the end as she prepares to leave him, and it’d be an injustice to her (Forster, Jhabvala, Ivory and the film) to see her reneging of that decision as evidence of her lack of courage. It’s the very thing that defines Margaret, her gentle grace in spite of the obvious and there’s that looming sense of justice as the camera pans over to Helen and her child and Margaret and Henry walking the plains. Howards End is not a women’s novel (thematically, or audience wise) but Forster’s characters and the interpretations of Thompson and Bonham Carter are fine evidence of courageous women – their excessive chatter is confirmation.

                       

As Mr. Bast says, “The more a lady has to say, the better. Ladies brighten every conversation.”

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?

“Dear Miss Schlegel…”

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: Body of Work

Though she didn’t end up with any love from the top awards’ bodies last year was all about Marion Cotillard for me. Her general brilliance turned Public Enemies into something much better than it could have been, and her brilliantly performed Luisa Contini was a beacon in the already good cast of Nine (she made my supporting actress shortlist for both performances). Anyone can star in a slew of performances in a given year, but it’s something better when an actor can deliver two (or more) performances in a year that have something good to see in them and assume different sensibilities*.

THE NOMINEES

Annette Bening (in The Kids Are All Right; Mother & Child)

It might be easy to mistake them for extensions of the same character, but whereas Nic quietness is indicative of the uncertainty she wishes to hide, Karen’s quietness is more of a conscious decision to observe those around her. Both performances stand somewhere at the top half of her career, making her one of those indelible proofs of actresses getting better as they age.

               

Helena Bonham Carter (in Alice in Wonderland; Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows; The King’s Speech)

In a way, it annoys me that she’s turned into a sort of ultimate supporting actor implying that her natural personality is best taken in small doses and even though she supports in a period piece in The King’s Speech it’s neither reminiscent of her early Merchant Ivory work nor suggestive of her recent kooky characters. Each character she played this way, in their own way, is a woman before her time but she doesn’t make that define them. There is a palpable sense that she’s being served up too little on each occasion, but it’s the sort of acting from the sidelines that does not define the picture but still augments it significantly.

             

Patricia Clarkson (in Cairo Time; Easy A; Shutter Island)

Her supporting turn in Shutter Island is a bit of a blink and you’ll miss it one – and yet, along with Williams and DiCaprio, she leaves the biggest impact on you. You rarely ever seeing Patty being loud and obnoxious, always opting for a quiet sincerity which is her ace-in-hole when it comes to Cairo Time which she makes so much more important than you expect her to be. And then opposite Tucci she offers up one of the best screen-mothers of the year in Easy A. Truly, a great body of work.

                

Aaron Johnson (in The Greatest; Kick-Ass; Nowhere Boy)

It’s been a while since I had this much interest in watching a young male star’s star rise. It’s been a stratospheric year for Johnson and more than turning out three performances this year, it’s impressive how the running thread between them is so thin. There’s little to find that’s palpably similar between his Lennon, his  John and his Dave. True, acting doesn’t necessarily mean mastering accents, but I’ll give him credit for pulling off the American one so well, nonetheless.

Kerry Washington (in For Colored Girls; Night Catches Us; Mother & Child)

I don’t know – the fact that each film has landed with almost no sound makes me rethink the sentiment – but, perhaps, Kerry is on her way to stardom, opting for the slower path. She pulls out three performances that rests on internalising grief and pain and performs each brilliant. Sure, she thrives best in Mother & Child, but even in the huge cast of For Colored Girls with the storyline that seems least important she carves something special. (And story issues aside she and Mackie are beautiful to watch in Night Catches Us.)

               

FINALISTS: Michelle Williams for offering up a brilliant supporting turn in Shutter Island and a haunting lead performance in Blue Valentine; Andrew Garfield for offering up two good (if similar) turns in The Social Network and Never Let Me Go and James Franco for being a beacon in two lead roles in Howl and 127 Hours.

                 

Which actor ruled 2010 with their ability to jump from performance to performance?

* Just in case you're wondering, Johnny Depp would win the alternative award here. He's easily the worst thing in The Tourist and Alice in Wonderland (yep, even worse than the Wasikowska's bland work in the latter.) He sinks Angelina's attempts to be at least interesting in the former, and other than a glimmer of goodness opposite HBC he's terribly vile in the latter. I hope it's not the beginning of a trend for him...

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 (FINAL PREDICTIONS): Supporting Players

Oh yes, the acting categories. I'll submit my own ballot soon, inevitably after Oscar because I am LAZY, but what will Oscar go for?

        

SUPPORTING ACTOR

If there’s one thing I can congratulate the general unoriginality of the current awards’ season for it’s for their good choices in the supporting actor category. I’ve long been less than a fan of this category that’s always smattered with co-leads, life-time achievement awards and downright terrible performances. And even though there’s only a slight crossover between my own list and the potential Oscar shortlist, I’m not too mad at them. I’ll admit, it’s more than a little boring seeing Christian Bale sweep through the entire race when there’s a wide variety of great performances – but it’s difficult to deny the goodness of his performance. More than just being a baity performance, it’s actually a good performance – and it’s difficult to deny the goodwill of the very convivial Fighter family. They always seem so welcoming of awards’ attention. I’ve given up on expecting Ruffalo or Rush to pull an upset, and though the Foreign Press Association stupidly ignored him – along with Bale are the holy trimester of this category.

             

I just have this weird feeling that there’s going to be a shakeup in this category – it’s the most susceptible to shakeup I think because it’s really the only category that seems ironclad (more so than Best Actor). Sure, Renner and Garfield have turned up places but I can see them both getting snubbed. Garfield, because he’s young as good as he is The Social Network is not his film – and Oscar always has this tendency to make the young supporting actors wait for nomination love (case in point Mortensen and Astin in The Two Towers and The Return of the King). But, then, if love for The Social Network is strong then he could be swept in on the coattails. Renner’s a bigger puzzle for me because I still don’t see what’s propelling this apparent widespread love for The Town. And good as Renner is, there just seems to be something precarious about his nomination pool. What of Hawkins? Hmmm. I know that the SAG nod made him seem like a plausible candidate, and he can be a spoiler but love for the Winter’s Bone seems really tapered – he is still a potential candidate

Predictions (alpha): 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 Alternates (by probability): John Hawkes in Winter’s Bone / Bill Murray in Get Low

SUPPORTING ACTRESS

So, is Melissa Leo still going to take this thing? I suppose we can be assured that Melissa, Helena and Amy are heading to nominations and – irrespective of actual performances – I’m happy to see those three getting nominated. It’s impossible to not like Amy and it’s nice seeing not-so-old gals like Melissa and Helena enjoying second nominations in Best Picture candidates. I’m just predicting nominees, so I’ll think about potential winners when I actually have a definitive group to pick from. It’s weird, though, but it’s also normal that the supporting actress race has a gamut of performances to choose some and yet they’re not all getting love. In theory, Jacki Weaver is an obvious nominee – sure, Animal Kingdom hasn’t got the widespread love it would have gotten had it been an American piece, but she’s popped up at enough critics’ awards and has even won a few so despite the SAG snub (stupid) and the BAFTA won (even more) I don’t see her getting snubbed at the AMPAs. But then, it makes me wonder – does she have a better chance of a nomination than Mila Kunis who’s riding the wave of Black Swan? Honestly, that’s the biggest scare I’m having right now – the thought that Kunis could get in over such a wide field of deserving ladies is seriously giving me goose bumps (and not in a good way). And the thing is, right there, we could have a slot of nominees – and sure it’s not that bad because even though I don’t love Leo she’s nowhere terrible in The Fighter...but that sounds too easy, no?

             

I don’t know why something is telling me to not write off Manville (and include her here instead of Leading), I haven’t even seen Another Year and the last lock Leigh seemed to have (paging Sally “Poppy” Hawkins) didn’t come to fruition despite a Golden Globe nomination and win. But, I sort of want to think they’ll push her here... and then, there’s the biggest category fraud this side of the millennium – Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit, which is another exasperating possibility that just depresses me. If she doesn’t make it in the lead race – I don’t see her making it anywhere, because I don’t see the voters being silly enough to reward her here, if they pushed Kate in lead, heck they pushed Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada as a lead (which it wasn’t) so I think we’re safe from her here – the Actress category is another story. And, finally, there is the pair of ladies from Made in Dagenham – Rosamund Pike and Miranda Richardson. Rosamund has had a nice year (or so I heard) apparently being a shining light in Barney’s Version and this biopic, and Miranda is the sort of affable screen presence it’s difficult to ignore. Could there be an upset nomination for either? I wouldn’t be against...but I just don’t know. But, here goes.

                   

Predictions (alpha): Amy Adams in The Fighter / Helena Bonham Carter in The King’s Speech / Mila Kunis in Black Swan / Melissa Leo in The Fighter / Jacki Weaver in Animal Kingdom Alternates (by probability): Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit / Miranda Richardson in Made in Dagenham / Leslie Manville in Another Year

         

Are you sensing an upset (nomination) for the men – a la Michael Shannon or William Hurt? Am I crazy for ignoring the possibility of the studios lying through their teeth and earning Steinfeld a nomination? Who’d you love to see pop up in either categories?

Supporting Actress Blog-a-Thon: Helena Bonham Carter in Alice in Wonderland

I decided I would offer up a companion piece to my write-up on Tammy Blanchard. She is playing a supporting woman on the sideline and now on to a supporting player with no interest in being supportive. (This too is in lieu of StinkyLulu and his Supporting Actress Blog-a-Thon which goes on all day, so time is still available to write an entry.)

                        

Tim Burton’s disgustingly successful Alice in Wonderland is not without its issues. Although I’m generally fond of it Wolverton’s poor script is a problem that looms over the entire narrative – and my biggest qualm with the blockbuster. Amidst her inability to satisfactorily create resolutions for her characters is the tyrannical Red Queen who – whatever the incarnation – seems to emerge as one of the most interesting creatures of Wonderland Underland. Tim Burton often gets flack for his predilection to use a set of familiar faces continually in his films, and as far as Depp goes it’s an argument I can understand. When it comes to Helena Bonham Carter, though, I’m nonplussed about the argument. Like with Sweeney Todd and Corpse Bride before Bonham Carter’s ability to command the screen is responsible for a great deal of the success in Burton’s piece. Unlike the other two, Alice in Wonderland is not a very strong feature which makes her contributions all the more laudable.
                                       

This sort of emotionally stunted diabolical thing is vaguely evocative of her work in Merlin as the similarly perverse Morgan Le Fey – but Wonderland’s Underland’s Queen is a new creation. Even when she was playing the corseted maiden in the early 90s Helena has always has a knack for deadpan humour (Twelfth Night) and her presence alone makes me less tetchy about Alice in Wonderland being labelled a “comedy”. The most obvious scene is the ill-fated meeting between Um (Alice in disguise) and the Queen’s second-in-command, the Knave. She’s terribly overbearing – but it’s hilarious watching her get consistently more annoyed as she tries to convey that Um’s name is Um – and not an inadvertent error on her part. Incidentally, there’s little inherently smart about the scene on paper – but playing the Queen as a sort of perverse child makes Wolverton’s gags more bearable, and even inspired from the right angle. She manages to make the bipolar writing work for her similarly unfocused self, with the same note of anger she will switch to cooing sentimentality as she breathes - “I love a warm pig for my aching feet.” Priceless.

                          

It probably sounds like I’m out to pan her script, but I’ll give Woolverton props for the rare moment of something close to emotional poignancy – although it’s not where you’d expect it. Perhaps it’s Wasikowska’s generally dreariness here, or maybe it’s just another screenplay shortcoming, but Alice’s journey never attains any emotional resonance. The single moment where I’m moved to consider the realness of the characters (aside from Hathaway’s delightfully diabolical good witch) is a conversation between the Red Queen and the Knave (played to perfection by Crispin Glover) and though there is something altogether too pat about the line “It is better to be feared than loved” Helena does the weirdest thing in manging to evoke the biggest laughs and the most striking poignancy in the same film and all this with  that abrasive shrieking tone she uses to characterise the Queen. It would be simple to accuse Bonham Carter of being like the Queen and hogging the spotlight here, but she - like everyone in the cast - is given a script to work with that has palpable issues, she cannot be blamed for doing excellent things with it.

                                        

I was somewhat amused when I noticed that she made the BAFTA longlist for her work here. And though the honour of such a mention is quite diluted when clunkers like Ellen Page in Inception, Depp in Alice in Wonderland and performances I still can’t get understand the appeal of like DiCaprion in Inception and Kunis in Black Swan I felt a sort of contentment that I wasn’t the only noticing that amidst it’s craziness there’s good work being done in Alice in Wonderland.

Forgotten Characters 3:3 (2010 in Review)

There are few things more annoying than watching a film being praised for all the wrong reasons. More than that, it’s more exasperating how an unremarkable performance from a film can be praised while others remain in the background both literally and figurative. I suppose the fact that it wasn’t a big role accounts for its forgotten states, but I’m still especially fond of

Crispin Glover in Alice in Wonderland

as Stayne, Knave of Hearts

I think we can all agree that Helena Bonham Carter was the best-in-show in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland (reviewed here) and true, even those who’ve mistakenly (in my book) given support to Depp’s work in the film agree on that. What I wish they’d take time out to note is the fact that Crispin Clover’s second-in-command to the diabolical Red Queen easily emerges as the film’s most notable male performance. Bonham Carter has a terrifying screen presence that’s put to full use here and in all her tyranny Glover must be the diplomatic bridge between the Queen’s constant freak-outs and those she freaks out upon. Naturally, he himself has pent-up hatred for the Queen. Woolverton’s resolution to their relationship which only reinforces the poorness of the screenplay but watching Glover’s very slick Knave opposite Bonham Carter’s very fiery Queen is a treat. Because the Red Queen is so officious he ends up having to spend a great deal of time playing reactionary shots that he absolutely sells. There’s something a little creepy about him (put to excellent use in Charlie’s Angels), but he tempers the creepiness – and where the screenplay is doing nothing to help him out he creates the Knave as a very interesting anti-hero who you want to know more of.

                           

There’s that moment where Um, Alice in disguise is at the Red Queen’s lair – fine her castle – and there’s that confusion as to what her name is. Helena is just a treasure there, but it’s interesting watching Stayne’s face as he thinks he’s one-upped our Ladyship. Well, he has actually – but they haven’t realised it. It’s that sort of reactionary consistency – notice he’s always excessively glib when the Queen has her freak-outs to the point of disinterest – that manages to make Woolverton’s script not good, but better than abysmal. I hate and love that about-face moment where he tries to kill the Red Queen at the film’s end. I hate it because you sort of wish that their dysfunctional relationship could thrive, but it makes sense in a way and Glover does a good job of pulling it off. As he tells her, “It is far better to be feared than loved.” He’s just after the best meal ticket – and getting banished means he has no need for her anymore. Either way he’s a nice bit of fun in an ensemble that has some hits (Bonham Carter, Hathaway) and just as many misses (Depp, Wasikowska) and even though his seduction of Alice makes me shake my head it does spawn my favourite line of his – “I like you, Um. I like largeness.” Priceless.

Do you remember Glover’s dark Knave or did Burton’s officiously directed Alice in Wonderland make you forget him?

Encore's Greatest Voices: The Top Ten (Shamelessly Overdue)

Further proof that I’m especially unreliable; I posted the last entry of Encore’s Greatest Voices in August. It’s now December and I’ve yet to give you the top 10 – until now. Excuse my general capriciousness, but here are the top 10 – finally.

#10: Susan Sarandon in James & Giant Peach
as Miss Spider

“Centipede I do not know whether to kill you or kiss you.”

There was something a little off about Susan Sarandon in Enchanted, and I still can’t put my house on it. She has a silky voice that has the potential to be unsettling, so perhaps it was the obvious villainy of her character that didn’t quite work. However, in James & the Giant Peach she uses her voice to create a character that may be evil, and then again might not be. There something especially exotic about her Miss Spider and she emerges from a varied cast of hilarious misfits as the most interesting.

                                            

#9: George Sanders in The Jungle Book
as Shere Khan

“Is it possible that you don't know who I am?”

If Addison DeWitt is proof of anything it’s that George Sanders can be unctuous and still appealing, and that’s essentially what Shere Khan is. There’s something chilling and yet alluring about his baritone voice, and his penchant for elongating vowels is just hilarious (but still disturbing). Shere Khan is not exactly the most rounded character, and he’s probably not the most interesting character in The Jungle Book, but Sanders voicework is still amazing.

                             

#8: Meryl Streep in The Fantastic Mr. Fox
as Mrs. Fox

“If what I think is happening is happening – it better not me.”

Ah, Streep. Yeah, I don’t go crazy over her every move like this guy (or this one) – or anyone really, but when she lands it – she’s phenomenal. Really, if I used to count animated performances eligible she’d have made my top 3 last year for Best Actress. There’s just something especially charming, witty and downright irresistible.

                          

#7: Eleanor Audley in Sleeping Beauty
as Maleficent

“Well, quite a glittering assemblage King Stefan. Royalty, nobility, the gentry, and... oh, how quaint - even the rabble.”

In the face of Disney’s numerous villains I’m always surprised that Audley’s Maleficent is not remembered more often. Visually, she’s the most memorable to me and I have a slight hunch that every female animated villain uses her voice-work as a paradigm for their performances.

                               

#6: Pat Carroll in The Little Mermaid
as Ursula

“Come in. Come in, my child. We mustn't lurk in doorways. It's rude. One might question your upbringing.”

Ursula is especially quotable, and especially frightening too; but she’s still also much fun. She’s still sort of pathetic in her own way, and Carroll milks it for all the delicious campiness it’s worth. A few call it their favourite, and I can’t fault them – she’s phenomenal.

                                 

#5: Robin Williams in Aladdin
as Genie

“You ain't never had a friend like me!”

Williams’ over-the-top, bipolar craziness works perfectly for the role. His name is not the in the film’s title, but the Genie’s hilarious nature is one of the most significant things about Aladdin. It takes the role of the chatty sidekick to another level and gives Williams a chance to use his voice-impersonations without being gratuitous.

                           

#4: Ellen DeGeneres in Finding Nemo
as Dory

“I don't know where I am... I don't know what's going on. I think I lost somebody but I, I can't remember... and I can't remember... ”

I always wish that Ellen would do more movies. Her off-kilter humorousness is a specific charm of hers, and like most comedians it’s found in her voice. Is Finding Nemo Pixar’s masterpiece? Maybe, though I don’t especially go crazy over it. But DeGeneres’ charm is irresistible, and she easily emerges as not only the greatest Pixar creation, character wise, but the greatest Pixar actor, voice wise.

                                

#3: Susan Egan in Hercules
as Megara

“I'm a big tough girl. I tie my own sandals and everything.”

I really can’t account for how often Hercules is forgotten when one remembers Disney’s animation from the nineties and beyond. Perhaps, it’s the fact that the story has been told so often – but really, that logic seems a bit flawed – so I can’t be certain. Still, Egan’s Megan – a damsel in distress, who’s not quite a damsel but certainly is in distress, is a joy to watch/listen to. Her voice is just an octave lower than the typical Disney heroine, and with her questionable past she’s not a typical one really. It’s a shame she only gets one number, but she sells the dialogue just as wonderfully to.

#2: Helena Bonham Carter in Corpse Bride
as The Corpse Bride

“Isn't the view beautiful? It takes my breath away. Well, it would if I had any.”

I shall forever champion the brilliance that is Corpse Bride, it’s remembered for its visual brilliance, sometimes for its music but rarely for its acting which is top notch. It also happens to be my favourite HBC performance in a Burton film, which is not quite the backhanded compliment it sounds like considering some of the good things they’ve done together.

#1: Jeremy Irons in The Lion King
as Scar

“I’m surrounded by idiots.”

Predictable? Perhaps, but can you really blame me? Scar is the ultimate bad-guy, and perhaps it’s because I’m a stealth baddie myself (possible), but I find him too be – arguably – the most sympathetic character of the film. There’s just something poignant (even if in a clichéd way) about being the forgotten child, the eternal bridesmaid, and what not. And I’m damned if he doesn’t make even the most rote of lines resonate. (“I killed Mufasa, anyone?) So, Irons takes the crown for Encore’s Greatest Voice.

                              

So, now that I've finally revealed the list, which voices would rank at the top of your imaginary list of Greatest Voices?

PREVIOUSLY

#11-#20

#21-#30

#31-40

#41-#50

Films with Multiple Mentions:

Aladdin (4): Linda Larkin (#32), Jonathan Freeman (#21), Scott Weinger (#20), Robin Williams (#5)

Beauty & the Beast (4): Angela Lansbury (#33), Robby Benson (#25), Richard White (#18), Paige O'Hara (#16)

The Lion King (3): James Earle Jones (#31), Robert Guillame (#23), Jeremy Irons (#1)

The Little Mermaid (3): Jodi Benson (#37), Samuel E. Wright (#13), Pat Carroll (#6) 

Hercules (3): Lilias White &co. (#22), James Woods (#15), Susan Egan (#3)

James & the Giant Peach (3): Richard Dreyfuss (#24), Simon Callow (#14), Susan Sarandon (#10)

Corpse Bride (2): Johnny Depp (#27), Helena Bonham Carter (#2)

The Fantastic Mr. Fox (2): Jason Schwartzman (#11), Meryl Streep (#8)

The Jungle Book (2): Phil Harris (#39), George Sanders (#9)

Sleeping Beauty (2): Barbara Luddy (#40), Eleanor Audley (#7)

Wallace & Grommit: Curse of the Were Rabbit (2): Ralph Fiennes (#46), Helena Bonham Carter (#35)

                         

Actors with Multiple Mentions:

Eleanor Audley: Cinderella (#42), Sleeping Beauty (#7)

Helena Bonham Carter: Wallace & Grommit: Curse of the Were Rabbit (#35), Corpse Bride (#2)

Glenn Close: Tarzan (#47), Hoodwinked (#34)

Robin Williams: Happy Feet (#44), Aladdin (#5)

Oscar Talk: Supporting Women

People are making claims left and right, but of all the acting races the Supporting Actress one seems to have the least direction. I think that’s a good thing, though. I’m having an especially difficult time whittling down my personal ballot to five, and I haven’t even seen all of the heavyweights. True, I’ve already cast my Oscar vote blatantly to Helena Bonham Carter, and I’m still backing her all the way. If Helen Mirren, Jeff Bridges, Morgan Freeman and (insert gag) Sandra Bullock can win Oscars for lifetime achievement I have no problem with HBC doing the same – what a career it’s been. I have no idea if she’s a veritable threat, though – she’s obviously on her way to a nomination and from the looks of it she’ll be joined by The Fighter duo – Amy Adams and Melissa Leo. Perhaps it’s because I’ve yet to see Russell’s feature, but I keep on doubting that both ladies will turn up at the Oscars, but all indications point to that they will, I can be a bit headstrong in my stupidity sometimes. Melissa Leo is getting a lot of support for a win, but I’m even more doubtful of that – unless she stream-rolls the precursors. If Christian Bale ends up getting the push to go all out and take the win I can’t imagine Leo taking the Oscar too. I’d be more likely call Adams as a potential threat in the race; she’s been especially ubiquitous these past 5 years.
                      

Jackie Weaver, from Animal Kingdom (a film which should be receiving much more laurels than just Weaver) is another one being touted as a serious threat. She got a Globe nod, but SAG didn’t come knocking. I could see it happening, but I could just as easily see it not happening – and really, the lack of love from the SAG doesn’t help. True, Marcia Gay Harden took the Oscar without even a nomination from SAG or FPA but that was ten years ago and there are some key distinctions between Animal Kingdom and Pollock. Not only was the latter an American biopoic, but legendary thespian Ed Harris was helming the project (and starring in it), there was obvious goodwill there - Animal Kingdom doesn't have that obvious industry support. SAG gives support to Mila Kunis in Black Swan and Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit, who I heard is being fraudulently campaigned here – but it’s never stopped them before. Kunis has a Globe nod too, but that’s one prediction I’m tentative of supporting. Like the Best Actress race there’s that fifth spot that could go to anyone, and I’m yet to see Black Swan, but all the citations for Kunis still surprise me. Speaking of category fraud, though, maybe I shouldn’t count Julianne Moore out of the supporting category just yet. I’m predicting her in my Lead Actress spot, but who knows....perhaps she could show up here. If pushed, I’d predict Kunis over Steinfeld – though – because I have a feeling that True Grit is not going to be that much of a heavyhitter at the Globes. I can’t explain for the lack of love for Dianne Wiest who’s a perennial supporting actress, and a standout in a talented ensemble. It could be a surprise nod (a la Ruby Dee in American Gangster) but then, this year is much more packed a race than 2007. For now I’ll say Adams/Bonham-Carter/Leo/Wiest/Weaver – I’m gunning on the belief that the hundred or so actors who've worked with Woody Allen will support Wiest’s bid for a nod.

Shame that neither the ladies from Nowhere Boy (Kristin Scott Thomas or Anne Marie Duff) or The Ghost Writer (Kim Cattrall or Olivia Williams) have a shot, and Rosamund Pike has two supporting roles in Made in Dagenham and Barney’s Version that I’m looking forward to...but neither looks likely.

               

Which lady would bet on? Which lady would you like to see sidle into that fifth spot?