I’m breathing sigh of release in a way as I come to the final two entries in this long feature. Surely, it’s all subjective because we all have different thoughts. The aughts have been regarded as the decade where many actors burst on to the scene – Depp, Hoffman, Ledger but for me the aughts were all about one man. If I decided to do a list of the greatest actors last decade he’s top it easily. It’s a performance that has not been celebrated enough as it should have been. But that’s what I’m here for, to remember the greatest male performance of the last ten years. This was an easy choice.
#1 Leonardo DiCaprio in Revolutionary Road (2008)
Revolutionary Road is difficult to watch as it is to pull off. It seems to begin at the crescendo and the actors need to harbour the interest of the audience for the next two hours. But it’s a trick really. Sure, Leo is good in those first few scenes but it’s nothing compared to what is to come as he gives the best performance of his career. The clichéd feeling of the fifties man dissatisfied with his life probably does not resonate as much as it did when the novel premiered, but Leo breathes new life into the cliché. It works because of the familiarity with him. We’ve watched him grow and that irrepressibility is still there in him even as we watch the life – literally – being sucked out of him. He manages to keep us feeling for him even as he cheats on his wife. His guilt is palpable, like in the shower was we can see him trying to scrub off the traces of the sordid affair.
Like with his last performance cited what makes Leo’s Frank so memorable is the bits of vulnerability he is so willing to disclose. He tries to hide is fair and immaturity behind his audaciousness; but like his wife’s coldness it’s simply a mask that we can watch crumbling if we look closely at him. From the final appearance of John until the film’s end Leo is in excellent form. I cannot help but cringe as he confesses his affair to April. It’s the sort of impish, pathetic thing we expect from him. It is sad to see his reaction as he realises her (assumed) apathetic stance. The growing panic on his face is difficult to watch as you can see him literally clutching at straws. It’s a panic that turns Shanley’s visit into a disaster. It would seem over-the-top as Frank gets physical with his guest, but we need look closer. This is a man at breaking point.
That final dispute with April belongs to DiCaprio completely as he crumbles before our eyes and we see him for the child that he is. His reaction the next morning to April is excellent, his hesitance and uncertainty. I love his reading of the line “You don’t hate me; or anything…” Of course that final reaction to April’s death is a classic. The run through the streets – with no destination –it’s perhaps a theme of his life. It’s strange that the tagline for Mendes’ debut was ‘look closer’. We should probably do the same with DiCaprio’s work as Frank Wheeler.
I suppose this is a surprising pick, but Leo has never impressed me more. What are your thoughts on him in Revolutionary Road?
In the last decade we lost a number of esteemed movie stars, among them Katharine Hepburn. You probably know my feelings on Kate, and I always wished that she’d had a career resurgence before her death. Of course she was in her nineties. These few women aren’t exactly at death’s door (knock wood) but I’m getting a bit antsy for their prospects – cinematically speaking. It’s hard enough getting roles now, but before the next decade they’ll all be seventy. That’ll be even more difficult. Their counterparts (Dench, Streep, Mirren) continue to find success on films. I wish they’d be so lucky. Here are the nine older gals I hope get a career resurrection this decade. The rule is they can’t have had a notable leading role recently, so even though I wish they’d both do better work Sissy Spaceck (In the Bedroom) Diane Keaton (Something’s Gotta Give) and Julie Christie (Away From Her) don’t make the top ten, even though they’re on the sidelines, not far from this nine.
Marsha Mason (67) Oscar Nominations: Cinderella Liberty (1973), The Goodbye Girl (1977), Chapter Two (1979) Only When I Laugh (1981) Last Notable Role: Only When I Laugh (1981)
Back in the days she was a constant Oscar nominee, but I suppose few even remember who she is. She was a formidable screen presence, and I don't think that's something that one can lose. She is particularly gifted in comedy and with so many comedic roles for older women up for grabs it's a pity she can't even land one of those. It's a longshot, I suppose, hoping she'll ever get another good role...
Barbra Streisand (67)
Oscar Win: Funny Girl (1968), Oscar Nomination: The Way We Were (1972)
Last Notable Role: The Mirror Has Two Faces (1996)
You may scoff, but Barbra Streisand is actually a talented. She’s not done a real film role in some time and I wonder if she’s forgotten how to. More than being a talented actress, though, she’s an exceptional comedian and I would love to see her reawaken her comedic talents in a nice caustic role (a la Judi in Mrs. Henderson Presents). She has enough money to fund it for herself.
Sally Field (63)
Oscar Wins: Norma Rae 1979, Places in the Heart (1984
Last Notable Role: Mrs. Doubtfire (1993)
The lady is obviously talented. She is currently doing good work on Brothers & Sisters; but I want her back on the big screen. Sally has a knack for heavy drama and she deserves to get a nice juicy dramatic role. The role of a grieving mother sounds like the perfect type of schmaltzy drama she can make work. I mean, Places in the Heart shouldn’t work as well as it does, but it’s Sally’s talent that makes it succeed.
Julie Andrews (74)
Oscar Win: Mary Poppins (1964); Oscar Nominations: The Sound of Music (1965), Victor/Victoria (1982)
Last Notable Role: Duet For One (1985)
I don’t mind when I see actors I love slumming it in pop fare, but I got no satisfaction from seeing her in The Princess Diaries. It’s become a “given” now that Julie can’t act, but I think that’s an obvious untruth. Sure, she thrives when she sings but The Sound of Music and Mary Poppins don’t work any less she uses her acting skills alone. The woman has a skill with mannered comedy, I’m not sure if she’s given up on acting or acting has given up on her….
Jessica Lange (60)
Oscar Wins: Tootsie (1982), Blue Sky (1994), Oscar Nominations: Frances, Country (1984) Sweet Dreams (1985) Music Box (1989)
Last Notable Role: Cousin Bette (1998) I’m not sure why, but Jessica Lange doesn’t seem to have too many roles (or fans). For the life of me, I can’t see why. Plastic surgery or not she continues to be an excellent actress (see Grey Gardens, Big Fish) and when she spoke about the lack of roles she gets at the Emmy’s last year I felt a bit sad. The woman’s a double Oscar winner, beautiful and talented. Who doesn’t want to see her in a movie? She has a formidable range. I really want someone to give her the chance to use it.
Susan Sarandon (63)
Oscar Win: Dead Man Walking (1995), Oscar Nominations: Atlantic City (1981), Thelma & Louise (1991), Lorenzo’s Oil (1992), The Client (1994) Last Notable Role: The Banger Sisters (2002)
In a way Susan is like Diane Keaton. She’s been doing work, but not deserving of her talent. She gave a valiant performance opposite Carey Mulligan in The Greatest this year, but the film is not worthy of either woman. She just needs to work with better talent; she’s obviously not lost her touch for turning stock roles into real people. I still recall how the stodgy Shall We Dance lighted up whenever she was on screen. I wonder if her separation from Tim will send her career up or down...
Vanessa Redgrave (73)
Oscar Win: Julia (1977), Oscar Nominations: Morgan 1966, Isadora (1968, Mary, Queen of Scots (1971)The Bostonians (1984)Howards End
Last Notable Role: Mrs. Dalloway (1997)
I suppose in some ways this is a bit of a cheat since Ms. Redgrave actually has two films slated for release this year. She has the Amanda Seyfried romance (Letters from Juliet) and the alleged Ralph Fiennes Shakespeare piece (Coriolanus). I’m not certain if they’ll reach fruition, and nonetheless, there’s nothing like too much Vanessa. She remains as one of the most resplendent actors on screen and has aged so gracefully. She was slated to play Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine in the Robin Hood flick this year, but the death of her daughter Natasha Richardson prevented it.
Maggie Smith (75)
Oscar Wins: The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (1969), California Suite (1978); Oscar Nominations: Othello (1965), Travels With My Aunt (1972) A Room With A View (1986) Gosford Park (2001)
Last Notable Role: Tea With Mussolini (1999)
Maggie has brightened the last decade with supporting roles (some prime) on screen. Her most notable was he part in Gosford Park – which earned an Oscar nod. Still, even that’s been a while. I do enjoy seeing her breathe life into McGonagall in the Harry Potter series, but surely she deserves a greater role to go out on. Maggie is one of those rare thespians who is equally skilled in comedy as she is in drama, so there’s any number of great roles that could be offered to her.
Glenn Close (63)
Oscar Nominations: The World According to Garp (1982); The Big Chill (1983), The Natural (1984); Fatal Attraction (1987), Dangerous Liaisons (1988)
Last Notable Role: Hamlet (1990)
Sometimes I forget that my darling Glenn is over sixty. She always seems so full of life. She’s experiencing a rebirth of sorts on TV impressing audiences with her audacious work on Damages, but I’m not satisfied. It’s not that I don’t like TV – I do. But the screen is where I'll always prefer to see her, and she is worthy of it. I’d love to see her bring that musical version of Sunset Boulevard to fruition - although I know the chances of that are slim at best. The thing is, she can play more than the caustic roles we've come to recognise (and love) her for. Why isn't anyone using her talents?
Which of these women deserves a plum role the most? Or is there someone I've missed?
It's been quite some time since I've done one of these - over a month actually, so here goes.
2009’s Revolutionary Road was one of my favourite films of that year. For me it was a perfect blend of good writing, good acting and good direction featuring two outstanding performances from the two leads. The film was unfairly ignored by a majority of the Award ceremonies. So I’d like to shine a light on
Kathy Bates in Revolutionary
As Mrs. Givings
As Mrs. Givings, Kathy Bates gives what is arguably my favourite supporting performance from her. As a duplicitous realtor her thoughts are enigmatic at best, until the very end. We meet her right at the beginning after April’s travesty of a play. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that it wasn’t a hit. Her first few words to Frank are "I can’t tell you how much we enjoyed it. You have a very talented wife." It seems like just a few kind words, but Mrs. Givings profuse praise is just a tad bit unnerving, only setting the tone for what her character is like. Even when we feel something near sadness for her situation it’s never sympathy. When her son John makes his appearance and she is on the receiving end of his caustic words we never can feel sorry for her. It’s a good acting choice on Kathy’s part playing Mrs. Givings as a sort of Stepford Wife.
My favourite moment from her comes during John’s second visit to the Wheelers. There’s that moment when John hits at the core of the Wheeler’s façade and Frank picks up the chair in anger, the look of terror on Kathy’s face is so controlled and so real at the same time. It’s a good acting moment and I always remember that look on her face. Of course the revelation of her character in the final minutes of the film is proverbial punch in the gut. It severs any chance we had of liking this fickle woman. And it is that moment that we truly realise that she is as inconstant as the wind. As the film ends with her droning voice and her husband attempts to block out her voice, we too are only happy to be rid of her. Never before has Kathy Bates been so disagreeable.
Martin Scorsese is my favourite director so it’s no surprise that he makes quite a number of appearances on my list of 100 favourite films. People love Scorsese...even his films that don’t get all the love [King of Comedy, Mean Streets, Casino] are still widely loved...expect for this. I could be wrong. Maybe there are people out there who love this...but I’ve never met them. I think this is Scorsese’s most underrated film. It is not ostensibly about deception, anguish or war as Good Fellas, The Departed or Raging Bull. But The Age of Innocence is as profound as Scorsese’s other works. The story is adapted from Edith Wharton's novel of the same name. It tells the story of a Newland Archer, a wealthy New York Bachelor. He is engaged to May Whitfield – a pretty, rich and dim young lady who seems infatuated with Newland. Newland is ready to set down and all seems to be going well until the appearance of May’s cousin – Countess Olenska. Olenska is European and divorcing her husband – scandalous in New York. May encourages Newland to befriend Olenska – she a social pariah...and their friendship becomes something more...
I wasn’t around in the days when the phrase Merchant Ivory signified brilliance but I’m still appreciative of the great work they’ve done in adapting classic literature to classic film. Few have done it as excellently as they have. The Remains of the Day was their final juggernaut that triumphed with Oscar – and yet the film won none of the eight Oscars it was nominated – a pity really. Something The Remains of the Days shares The Age of Innocence is a relationship between two protagonists that doesn’t go too far; in some ways I suppose it’s even going far to call the relationship between Stevens and Miss Kenton a romantic one. But it is. Isn’t it? And like Scorsese’s flick The Remains of the Day is concerned with changing social norms.Stevens has a definitive connection to his home and it’s a bit tragic to watch as it’s auctioned off, bit by bit.
The Age of Innocence is a beautiful period piece...but above all else, it is an actors’ flick. Michelle Pfeiffer, Daniel Day Lewis and Winona Ryder give outstanding performances as the three leads. If I ruled the world Daniel Day Lewis would have won a second Oscar for either this or In the Name of the Father and Michelle Pfeiffer would have also been on the receiving end of a nomination and battling it out with Emma Thompson for the win. I always marvel at how these performances were ignored. Winona Ryder was the lone cast member to make it to the Oscar race. On first viewing I was smitten with the performance. It does not hold up as well, but it is still a good performance. It’s a difficult character. Is May really that bland or is it Winona’s characterisation? It’s a tough call...but I think that May is just an unremarkable young lady. But the ending of the film makes you reassess everything that you thought earlier. Is May in fact the least honest character in The Age of Innocence? It doesn’t seem outlandish to assume that perhaps May knew of Newland’s attraction to Ellen throughout, and that one assumption makes her character so much fuller. May just may be the most artful wife. It’s a typically Scorsese turn – even if the inclination is provided by Wharton.
And speaking of endings, who can forget the lovely departure Emma Thompson makes in The Remains of the Day. My allegiances do lie with that other Thompson/Hopkins/Merchant Ivory flick. But even I won’t deny that Emma and Anthony are quite excellent here. The Remains of the Day is Anthony’s story completely and nothing he has done before or since feels as profound, real and iconic as his Stevens. It’s a wondrous thing to watch him as he shields his emotion. In some ways his Stevens seems to be the perfect companion to Helen Mirren’s Mrs. Wilson. The two would have existed in perfect cohesion. The film is all Anthony’s, but this never prevents Emma from making her mark – and with so little time. Pragmatic and yet attractive Emma is excellent throughout, but it’s here tears at the end of the film that always get to me. Such skill.
I know everybody was going crazy in 1993 about Schindler’s List and The Piano – two great films. But my three favourites of that year were The Remains of the Day, In the Name of the Father, The Age of Innocence. Their ranking changes from year to year but these three films had the most profound impact on me – for different reasons. I already spoke of In the Name of the Father; The Age of Innocence appears at #47 on my list of favourites and The Remains of the Day at #33. Which do you prefer?
It is a rare and beautiful thing when a role seems created for one actor alone. That combination of artist and subject when done right is scintillating and is a constant joy to watch. The decade has been filled with many actors performing in roles that they seemed meant to play and few were more satisfying than this treasure.
# 2 Annette Bening in Being Julia (2004)
Being Julia - adapted from Somerset Maugham’s “Theatre” – exists as one whimsical moment after another. In a favourite scene of mine the ever dependable Miriam Margolyes asks our eponymous heroine “Do you mean that, or are you acting? I’m never sure if you’re acting.” It’s a significant moment; not only because of Annette’s brilliant response but because of Dolly’s incidental but accurate supposition. Annette is not the first woman to play an actress, nor is she the only one to play it brilliantly. It’s a situation where Julia is always on the offensive. How do you play character that never seems to settle and exists – at least ostensibly – in her upper register throughout?
Observe Annette in her first scene – not the one that rolls during the credits, the one after. She bursts into hers husband’s office for a monologue. “I’m tired, I’m utterly exhausted! I need a holiday.” Julia isn’t on stage anymore, but don’t tell that to Annette. She’s still very much ON. It’s not until she has accomplished her wish – Geoffrey’s acquiescence – that she really does lose her character and settle down to her real self, or at least what she hopes for us to perceive it to be. The thing is we notice in passing that Annette is giving a good performance but I’m never sure if we realise just how much of a double edged sword Julia Lambert is. Yes, the role exists in that tone where it’s easy to catch the audience, but on paper – delightful as it is – Julia exists not as a person, but as a character (albeit a marvellous one). Annette is forced to do twice the work.
It’s obviously a showcase for a woman her age; she makes those memories with Micahel Gambon work as well as she gets fed line after quotable line. Sometimes she seems to exist doing monologue after monologue as she tears through the scenes. We watch her come alive as she experiences the rebirth with Tom, but she doesn’t make it too serious because this is not a serious film. As the relationship heads downwards we are just as thrilled watching her at her low points. It’s one of the traits of an Annette performance isn’t it? She’s so willing to be a masochist – always willing to take her character through the unseemly at the expense of pride. The thing is we constantly get the feeling that she still is playing a part. It’s not that Annette is not acting sincerely, but she’s playing a woman with little sincerity…or is she?
We have to look closely for the moments when she’s caught unawares. For example, when Charles tells her he’s gay. That nervous laugh and then that slight twist of the head are unlike the Julia we’ve seen before. There is a natural easiness that is not forced. Still, if anyone brings out the easiness in Julia, it’s Roger – her son, played excellently by Tom Sturridge. In fact, Roger should be credited with the epiphany that changes the course of the film. As he tells her how unrealistic she is, the look of surprise on her face – authentic for once – is startling and unaffected. It’s as if at that moment I see the real Julia coming forth, more subtle than her histrionics imply. It leads of course to that delicious one woman show against that little “tart” Avis Creighton which will definitely be high on a list of scenes of the decade. It is unforgettable, no doubt. But that’s assured; we know Annette is capable of that. It’s the moments after when she laughs exuberantly with her assistant or when Geoffrey jovially calls her a monster. The delicious response of hers? “That’s how you love me!” And isn’t she correct? That is how we love her.
Annette thrives as Julia. It is a tour-de-force in my eyes. But what do you think? How does this rank on the continuum of brilliant Annette performances? Worthy of a decade end citation?
So it's been solved, my banner is from Howards End...a movie that I adore. Every time I watch I see something new, and it's only now I realised how much Ivory uses nature to bring out his characters. Howards End features one of the most beauteous openings I can recall as Ms. Redgrave saunters through the grass looking resplendent as ever. Isn't she lovely?
I’m nothing if not consistent. There are actors who continually work for me, regardless of the role they take or the film they star in. When you view an actor as the finest of his craft I suppose it’s a bit weird when you have to make lists like these. I do consider this man to be the best actor below sixty at the moment, even if my favourite performance of his last decade doesn’t top the list. I know everyone continues to praise his Plainview, which was excellent even if it was outside the top 15. The Day Lewis performance that really impressed me last decade was this – unfortunately snubbed – piece.
#2 Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York (2002)
If any actor can be referred to as a chameleon it’s Daniel Day Lewis. I’m uncertain who Daniel Day Lewis – the man – is. But he has the ability to become so many different characters that it’s thrilling even disconcerting at times. In Gangs of New York he plays Bill the Butcher – a man as charismatic as he is dangerous. In the thrilling prologue we watch as he kills the father of our protagonist. As I write the word protagonist I wonder if Amsterdam really is the central character of our story. Perhaps, a bit like The Departed dually centred piece Gangs of New York exists in the same realm. Bill is a thrilling character, and he’d probably show up high (higher than Plainview I think, even) on a list of iconic characters. But the iconicity of Bill doesn’t lie completely in the writing – it depends centrally on Day Lewis.
I began my admiration of Day Lewis after this film, and this is actually the first searing memory of him I have. I remember when I first saw the man (out of character) I was uncertain if it really was him. It’s not just the makeup, because the use of cosmetics is slight in unearthing Bill’s character. But every movement from Day Lewis seems to be from someone completely different. His swaggering walk, his laconic manner of speaking and the little tics in his movement are all completely different from Daniel Day Lewis, as he appears normally. Gangs of New York is recalled as the last important Hollywood epic and though the film is not absolute perfection, like all of Scorsese’s films it’s well worth your time. Ostensibly Day Lewis is at his most exhilarating in the first third of the film. As he tears through the film, even though the cast (particularly DiCaprio, Diaz and Broadbent) do good work there’s no one that equals his excellence here. It’s a total immersion in character that’s almost frightening to behold. Even though the theatrics diminish as his character develops Daniel doesn’t become any less satisfying.
Bill is a beast of a man, but it’s to Daniel’s credit that we never think of him as a monster. His devotion to Amsterdam is interesting to watch as is his reaction when Amsterdam’s identity is revealed. His barbaric swipe at DiCaprio is chilling as we watch the glint in Day Lewis’ eyes. He is never the hero of our story, but he continuously looms over the narrative like a bad dream of unnerving spectre that we cannot avoid. His final scene opposite DiCaprio is a poignant moment. We’ve spent the entire time waiting for this moment, and when it comes it’s not as satisfying as we hope it would be – no fault of Scorsese. It’s actually the point of it really. Bill is a terrifying creation, but he has his ethics and his reasons for why he lives. Even though the narrative never delves too deep, Daniel’s excellent performance always keeps us aware of this.
Gangs of New York isn’t remembered very fondly? But what do you think? Is Daniel Day Lewis as exceptional as I think he is?
