Showing posts with label Viggo Mortenson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Viggo Mortenson. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

“The World is Changing…”

It’s a strange thing, but often when I hear the name The Lord of the Rings the first image that comes to mind is that of Cate Blanchett’s Galadriel. When we consider that her time in the epic is merely fractional I wonder why. I hate to think it’s my nepotism but perhaps it’s the simple fact that her ethereal voice is what introduces us to the piece. I often think of Cate as a voice actress (her brilliant acting often depends on how well she manages to alter her voice). So often I tie the goodness of her performance to the way she’s able to use her voice (liltingly, powerfully, coquettishly) and it’s important that her soothing voice leads us into the turbulent tale. To consider all that we perceive in a simple glance from Galadriel is testament to what Jackson is doing. The Lord of the Rings is BIG, but it’s not just about EXPOSITION. From the cantankerous farmer who appears for a bit to the protagonists of our tale, Jackson is intent on creating real people. It’s an estimable intent, but it’s easier said than done. We don’t get back-story for them, sometimes we only get a few moments and for all it’s attempting at The Lord of the Rings is no character study.
So much of this first part occurs in the Shire’s brightness that when we do get wind of the darkness in the real world it’s terrifying. It’s where Ian McKellen’s Gandalf is most necessary and most effective. McKellen has such a talent for working with expressions (and so quickly, too). In the twinkling of an eye he moves from deceptively relaxed to frighteningly austere. The Oscar snub heard around the world? No. That was some lineup and I could readily change my mind from McKellen to Broadbent to Hawke (and still make way for Kingsley). It is something curious that McKellen, known for his inspired takes on Shakespeare reaches cult status (in my head, okay) for taking on the role of Tolkien’s mythical creation. It’s not the effect wears off, because The Towers and The Return of the King are still admittedly brilliant in their own way. It’s just that there’s something extraordinary about that very first one that makes me have such an affinity for The Fellowship of the Rings.
Darren of the very prolific M0vie Blog writes:
“I think this is the benchmark for fantasy in the twenty-first century, and perhaps the most popular example of an "unfilmable" movie transitioning to screen. It's still an accomplishment, even after the success and the Oscars and the massive cultural impact, but I can't imagine how impossible it must have seemed when it was originally imagined. And that's perhaps my favourite thing about it - without seeing the film itself, it's almost impossible to imagine the sheer scale of it all. It's also some of the most impressive CGI I have ever seen, Avatar included. However, what's truly astonishing is that Jackson finds the heart of this story, and can guide the viewer to it. Despite the scale and the fantasy, it's a strangely human story.”
I all but devoured the book before I was old enough to grasp the scope of it, and as far as adaptations go The Fellowship of the Rings like its successors is anything but infallible. It’s less a slight at Tolkien and more my leniency that makes me say that I like the changes that occur in the cinematic incarnation more than its literary counterpart. And if you know how much of a literary snob I can be, you’ll know that that’s a big thing. It’s more than the staunchness of adaptation (or lack thereof) though. Literature is language based and, at its height, cinema is a visual medium. I’d watch The Fellowship of the Rings (all 3 hours of it) on silent. It’s not just the CGI though, but I remember The Fellowship in fragments. I have the image of Gandalf’s magic fireworks or Galadriel’s mirror or Arwen’s incantation in the river. On the note of Arwen, it’s easily my favourite deviation from the novel. I’m only infinitesimally displeased that Tolkien’s actual story is so devoid of significant female vigour and I applaud Jackson for giving Arwen power without making it too “Amazonian”. Call it what you will, but Arwen’s journey with Frodo on horseback is one of my favourite scenes of the entire series though there’s not really that much going on. Perhaps it’s because that particular bit of the score is my favourite, or maybe it’s just the climax of the water on the Wraiths – I don’t know, whatever it is it’s proof of how brilliant Jackson and company are.
So many actors were swept to the forefront with the films, though few utilised their status as much as Viggo Mortensen who went on to become one of the decade’s strongest actors. On that note, Heather of the classy Movie Mobsters is with me on becoming a believer of Mortensen with the series.
“At first viewing of the Fellowship I had not read J.R.R. Tolkiens acclaimed novel. In fact I had such disdain for Viggo Mortensen and Liv Tyler that I refused to watch the film. Not only did I fall madly in love with Viggo and Liv, but I was shocked by how amazing the film and the story itself were. The screenplay adapted by Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson himself, was done with such care for the original work of Tolkien and such great lengths were met to keep the integrity of the character’s and their journeys that this is without a doubt some of the best literature translated to the big screen ever. Every aspect of this story was done with the admiration of a true fan and the brilliance of an amazing filmmaker. The Fellowship of the Ring is what going to the movies is all about, and the best part is it’s only the beginning of the journey.”
Heather touches on what’s, possibly, the crux of the brilliance of the The Fellowship of the Rings and the entire trilogy in fact. Jackson is a fan of the franchise, he loves what he’s doing and ultimately no amount of skill, proficiency or flair can combat the love for one’s trade. All three films in the trilogy exude that, and none more than this first instalment. When this does get posted I’ll still be on my break…so in place of what should be a MEME post I’ll point out that The Lord of the Rings trilogy is my favourite series of related films….and this first instalments falls at #3 on my list of favourite films.
         
People, remember I'm MIA: automated posting.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Performances of the Decade (Male)

One of the best ways for us to take notice of an actor is when they play two characters simultaneously, or perhaps that’s an inaccurate summation. But let’s look at performances like Baxter in All About Eve or Streisand in Funny Girl. After pivotal character changes it’s as if both women begin playing different people. Still, neither of them has it as difficult as this next entry.
       
#4 Viggo Mortenson in A History of Violence (2005)

2005 was my least favourite year of the decade for many reasons. It was a weak year for films and the consensus of the Award Ceremonies that year was (for the most part) quite generic. I still am glad that Philip Seymour Hoffman won for his Capote since I think the performance is incredible. But he plays second fiddle to Mortenson in Cronenberg’s polarising film. Tom Stall is a local restaurant owner and with his quiet, polite, unassuming manner he’s the epitome of sagely goodness in his Millbrook community. This all changes when two gangsters attempt to rob their store and with a precision that’s almost chilling Tom kills them. It’s a given that Tom is not who he pretends to be, and A History of Violence is a film that functions excellently as a top-notch thriller as well as a heightened character study – Viggo Mortenson has much to do with this.

Viggo Mortenson is an actor who can be charismatic without being overwhelming. There’s a quietness to his charm and he uses this to great effect in A History of Violence. He is a man who is caught between two worlds – his past and his present and unease in Mortenson’s face is palpable as he moves through the middle of the film. It’s the quieter moments of Viggo’s performance that impress me more. The effusive devotion to his family is piercing and Mortenson is a particularly subtle actor using his eyes as much as he uses his body to establish his point. He works excellently against Bello and the moments where he must confess to his sins is excellently done. That’s not to say that when he returns to the world of Joey Cusack he isn’t as good. There is the constant hint of something more sinister below, but even as he returns to his brother we never see Viggo go completely assassin like, Tom Stall remains as a part of him and Viggo stresses this in his movements as we sense the reluctance to become Joey again.

It’s weird about this performance, because it’s essentially about the physicality of Tom/Joey. Viggo must convinces us of his agility and his skill in killing people but it’s his facial expressions that work the most. That final dinner scene is excellently played as Viggo reacts superbly to his surroundings. I’m glad Seymour Hoffman won because he was second choice but it’s a crime that Viggo Mortenson went snubbed in 2005 since none of the nominees that year (not even Capote) displayed this level of skill.
            
Did you catch Cronenberg’s A History of Violece? Did Viggo impress you?

Thursday, January 14, 2010

99 Cent Word Reviews: Page, Mortenson, Adams

I'm still on that somewhat foolhardy quest to watch as many films as I can before the end of this month when I'll start recapping the last year in film. So here are three more, somewhat overdue, reviews. Will either of them make a change to the Encore Award Nominations? Peut-etre.

       


Surprisingly, quite entertaining with good blends of drama and comedy. In a year of female directors it’s a pity that Drew couldn’t have gotten just a LITTLE more love. It seems like an ideal Golden Globe nominee for musical or comedy. Ellen Page is better here than in Juno, and that’s a bigger compliment than it seems. The film is actually casted to almost glorious perfection, which I was not quite expecting. But of course, the consummate supporting actress of them all steamrolls the entire cast even when she doesn’t try. It's Marcia Gay Harden for the win. Yep.        B
             


Damn, this is one bleak film. Clocking in at just below 90 minutes I don’t know why more people haven’t seen it. Of course it’s pretty grim. But it’s not as unnerving as previews would have you think. Viggo Mortenson is as usual excellent, perhaps his best ever – perhaps. The atmosphere is so palpably apocalyptic and Kodi Smith-McPhee is something of a revelation. But the person who deserves much praise is Charlize Theron who fades away before half an hour but is exceptional in her bit role. Is it too late to start a campaign for her and Mortenson?              B
                    


We see Amy Adams as an adult again; it’s been some time. It’s easy to place it as a trifling bauble but it has a whole lot of heart in it and does well what it has. It gets a bit of uncertain somewhere towards the middle but it’s able to pull it off, even though it could have been just a tighter. Still, it’s a pleasant piece and Alan Arkin is a charm to watch as is Emily Blunt who needs to get a significant role pronto. In the end I like it. And you’ll probably like it. B-
                 
So which have you seen? What did you think?
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...