Sunday 24 April 2016

Alternate Best Actor 1971: Paul Scofield in King Lear

Paul Scofield did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character in King Lear.

King Lear is Shakespeare's tragedy about the fallout after an elderly monarch foolishly divides his Kingdom among his daughters. King Lear, despite being often hailed as one of Shakespeare's greatest works, is not noted in terms of its cinematic adaptations, well other than the  Japanese version, that I hear is quite good. This is perhaps the most noted adaptation in the English language, that bears the original title, and it is a rather forgotten film. This version of King Lear was not especially well received when it was released, and it is apparently much too obscure today for a reappraisal. It is understandable why though director Peter Brook has a personal vision for the material. That vision though is that of an overwhelming gloom as the film is more of filmed in black and grey than black and white. It's a dark world this Lear lives in to begin with and the progression of the story simply allows the people to more closely fit in with the mood of their surroundings.

This adaptation of  King Lear stands as Paul Scofield's only major Shakespearean role on film, he had minor roles in Branagh's Henry V and Zeffirelli's Hamlet, despite being one of the most highly regarded Shakespearean actors of all time. Well as his one major cinematic performance utilizing the bard's work it is certainly an interesting one. Now it should be no surprise to anyone whose ever seen any performance by Paul Scofield that he thrives with Shakespeare's words. Scofield frankly does this with any writers' work with his precise and so eloquent manner of speaking that helps to create that rather unique cinematic presence of his. Scofield excels in this regard as he's particularly effective in the way he manages to find the beauty in the words while still always making them grounded in a definite reality. Scofield's approach is flawless in this regard since his delivery seems effortless to the point that it is entirely natural while in no way lacking a certain style all the same. Again though this should be no surprise for one familiar with Scofield's work, however what might be more surprising is in his approach to the old King Lear.

Laurence Olivier and Ian McKellen, both great Shakespearean actors in their own right, would later play King Lear. In both of their performances they approach the role of Lear as really a kindly old man at heart, which seems to be the most common approach to the part. Scofield though completely rejects such an approach evidenced from his first scene where Lear decides on the division of his Kingdom based upon his how his daughters express their love for him. From the start of it Scofield takes even an unorthodox approach to his physical depiction of the man's age. Instead of having the grace of a nice old white haired man, Scofield instead plays it as though Lear is a man fighting against his years in a way. Scofield expresses the wear in his face yet he never shows Lear to embrace it, as there is this certain tension about it as though Lear is attempting to keep his features that of younger man. However the age cannot not be hidden, from his grey hair, to his sunken features, and his quivering lip, which is a particularly brilliant touch by Scofield, and there is a certain unease to be found by Scofield portraying Lear as a man not fully comfortable with himself.

Scofield's daring approach continues though as he makes Lear a rather harsh man from the beginning. In the opening scene as he concerns himself with his daughters' gifts, his question to each of them of how much they love him does not seem that of just a old man looking for some comfort, but rather that of ruler demanding a concise answer to resolve the current matter of his Kingdom. Scofield places an emphasis on the idea of this King with his performance. In Scofield's portrayal there is that gravitas of a proper monarch, and the forcefulness of a man who has truly made an impact on his country. Scofield projects the power of the man's personality in the scene as there seems to be a great leader and perhaps warrior in his Lear. The only problem is that this is still made something of the past by Scofield, as he shows the scorn of age in his work, as the strength of such a many has slowly left him, though he certainly tries to hold onto it. Now with this approach Scofield actually is a particularly cold Lear, especially in the opening scene of the film where he rejects his daughter Cordelia because she refuses to play his little game to claim her inheritance. Scofield makes this work incredibly well as he importantly is able to suggest that this coldness is not that of an unloving person, but rather of a strict ruler.

King Lear's choice to reject Cordelia, while rewarding his elder daughters Goneril and Regan, quickly results in a chaos of a power struggle since his others daughters were not nearly as loyal as they proclaimed. Scofield utilizes his initial setup for Lear's in a fascinating fashion as now he goes a step further than a man slowly discovering the turmoil caused by his decision, but also explores the life of the King as he tries to be a man no longer as true King. Scofield displays well this definite awkwardness in Lear as he struggles to no longer be King in a way, and plays this almost gentle curiosity as he tries to go about his day at first as a man seemingly no longer burdened by his status. There is as well though an early sense of disbelief that Scofield conveys in Lear as shows the King to be genuinely surprised by the results of his actions. This only becomes worse though when he attempts to deal with his daughters and is treated as though he was nothing. Scofield is marvelous in the moment by making this betrayal particularly painful, as the sense of his once great standing as King seems to begin to fade from the man, and he becomes just the old man that his daughters view him as.

Scofield's work is amazing as he delivers the rage in the storm truly with the force of a man of such, former, power. Scofield turns this to not only a man who seems to raging as against his daughters treatment of him but also as a man turning his anger on fate itself as he must bear witness to the loss of all that he had. Scofield is fantastic the way he portrays this madness of the moment in Lear since he does not portray it as a detached psychosis, but rather a man specifically losing his mind due to having lost control of his realm. It is not a simple anger that Scofield reveals but also a terrible sadness within it as Lear falls apart along with his Kingdom. Scofield earns the moment wholly as all the seeds of weakness, his age, his daughters, his loss of power, weigh on him in the single moment reducing him to almost nothing. Lear though seems to have a chance at redemption as he finds that his daughter Cordelia has returned, and recognizes that she was the only one who loved him all along. Scofield is heartbreaking in the moment of realization in Lear, as he finally finds some warmth in the old man as he sees what he has done. What I love about Scofield's take though is he finds an even greater impact in this, as he makes the realization of more than just one mistake. Scofield instead finds a man understanding that being lost in his position caused him to be blind to his family. Scofield utilizing all that came before in making the strongest impact, as he loses that awkwardness as he becomes his age, and finally allows his own love for his daughter to fully reveal itself. Scofield's is truly affecting as he portrays the final scenes of the tragedy as a man recognizing his failures, and oh so briefly appreciating what he ignored. Scofield is perfection in Lear's final agonizing moments as he somberly accepts everything he ever cared for crumble around him in surprisingly quiet yet undeniably effective way. It is a shame Scofield's cinematic Shakespearean efforts were so limited, as this is a masterful portrayal by Scofield. He not only finds a unique approach to the character but from that finds an even greater depth to the tragedy of this King.

139 comments:

Michael McCarthy said...

I'm guessing #2 overall behind Attenborough.

Anonymous said...

He was amazing.
Louis: What do you think of a 30's version of Drive, with Wellman as director?

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Wellman's a great choice for director. Although I think the driver is the sort of role that would have played to Cooper's strengths, I do think he had too inherently mature of a look though. I feel the boyish quality is an essential part of the driver's character, so I would probably opt for either James Dunn or Robert Montgomery.

Anonymous said...

Louis: So, has Cagney grown on you greatly as an actor ever since you reviewed him for Angels With Dirty Faces?

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

He's definitely going to win from this lineup.
Louis: Your top ten great performances in horrible films (without spoiling any future reviews)

Anonymous said...

Tahmeed: Raul Julia's performance in Street Fighter is probably his 1#.

Calvin Law said...

*nods head in approval*

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your thoughts on Francis Ford Coppola, David Cronenberg, David Fincher, David Lean, David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese as directors.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: And the first episode of Game Of Thromes Season 6.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your Top Ten Shakespearean Characters.

Anonymous said...

Watched a much superior WW2 movie than Twelve O'Clock High, called Command Decision. This is an interesting performance from Gable, since he's not using his usual charm and charisma.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Last night's Game of Thrones was a mixed bag for me. Loved the Davos and Sansa storylines, either hated or did not care about the other ones.

Anonymous said...

I really liked first episode Game of Thrones Season 6. I loved the Davos and Sansa storylines too, and I think they were the best of the episode (I include Melisandre revelation in this group). But I also liked all the other story of the episode ... With one exception, the only bad part of the episode in my opinion was Dorne, and even being bad was not as bad as all the scenes of Dorne in the season 5 and I hope now we do not see Dorne again for a long time since his storyline seems to have closed... So I think it was a great return that ended some of the fifth season storylines and showed what we can expect from the sixth season. In my opinion it was a good episode overall.

Robert MacFarlane said...

The Dorne stuff is what I was referring to when I said "hate". Just nuke the country with Wildfyre and be done with it.

Anonymous said...

I hope that Cersei go do it at some point. I really hope so.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Cersei, I loved her expression and her reaction as she knew Myrcella's death. Lena Headey is great.

Luke Higham said...

Anonymous: I thought it was the weakest season opener to date.
Pros
Davos (As of this moment, my favourite living character)
Ending/Melisandre
Sansa
Brienne
Cersei
The North storylines

Cons
Siddig's departure
The Sand Snakes (Will someone please kill these bitches)
Dorne (Benioff & Weiss botched this storyline completely)
Daenerys (Still don't care about her)

Anonymous said...

Seems like Scofield will be 1#. Should have changed my prediction.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

I always liked Cagney but seeing more of his work has cemented his status as one of my favorites.

Luke:

Get you those lists, and those other thoughts soon.

As for Game of Thrones, definitely a set up episode. Really liked everything that went on in the north, and the King's Landing elements, well except for one. I still care about Arya but I ponder how long she will be stuck in the tutorial mode for.

I hope Varys and Tyrion can make Mereen interesting though this was not a strong indication that will be the case. Daenerys is once again saved by her status rather than anything she actually does herself, getting rather tired of that.

Then there's Dorne. Now did the showrunners completely mistake everyone's reaction to Dorne. We hated the Sand Snakes not Doran. I was hoping the season would have opened with all of the Sand Snakes being executed. In one fell swoop they made that story line impossible to salvage. Their appearance in King's Landing was even worse, and the thing that is most baffling is it seems like we are suppose to like them. Dorne is the worst writing the show has had to endure with every cheesy terrible line, and nonsensical plot twist (so all of Doran's people decided to turn on him in what seems like a matter of seconds?) that was awful.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: You forgot to answer my question about your top ten great performances in horrible movies.

Anonymous said...

Louis: If Bogart had lived longer, I could also see him playing Noah Cross in Chinatown. What do you think?

Louis Morgan said...

Tahmeed:

Hmm keeping to the horrible, and excluding Oscary fair (since in those cases the films can suffer sometimes since they may be tailored around the performances)

1. Raul Julia - Street Fighter
2. Richard Attenborough - Doctor Dolittle
3. Fred Gwynne - Pet Sematary
4. Dennis Hopper - The Spreading Ground
5. Pete Postlethwaite - The Lost World: Jurassic Park
6. Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje - Pompeii
7. Burgess Meredith - Rocky V
8. Mel Gibson - The Expendables 3
9. Michael Gough - Batman and Robin
10. Dan Janjigian - The Room

I'd consider including Geena Gershon in Showgirls, but I've never seen the whole thing.

Luke:

Francis Ford Coppola - (One should note with Coppola always is that his 70's streak is one of the greatest of any director ever, as those four films only go from Great to Masterful. In those four films one can also see a truly great filmmaker as with the Godfather films, which were not passion projects for him, such a precise and efficient director. He finds the perfect combination of realizing the source material, while adding just the right touches of a personal style. Then there are his passion projects of The Conversation and Apocalypse Now, which both are unique examples of a spellbinding visionary. Then there's the rest of his career. I have not seen his latest efforts, but even taking his 80's work there is definitely drop in quality. There's also an inconsistency about his work from the period. Sometimes the film would be all about his style, Rumble Fish, Dracula, or strangely very little of it The Rainmaker, The Outsiders, Jack(which still baffles me that he made it). Now I still like several of these films, I really like Tucker, but he definitely lost something after dealing with the madness of Apocalypse Now, as he has never regained what he had with those unforgettable four.)

David Cronenberg - (Another unique visionary as a director. Cronenberg's horror output was indeed all his own, and he managed to even weave that style into material that was not automatically horror with Dead Ringers. Cronenberg's style has always had this lack of shyness let's say, as he forces you to see the worst, and in turn does make for some very memorable films. However past that what I've always loved about Cronenberg's work is that, in his best films anyways, he never loses the human element. These horrible things happening to people is never a freak show, but you understand who they are as people first. Now I think past his transition period, which included his less concise work in the 90's and early 2000's he successfully found a new more "realistic" style of sorts with History of Violence and Eastern Promises. I think both those films suggested that he successfully found a way to not lose his style but adjust it for different material. That was until A Dangerous Method, which was his first film that did seem shy actually, and though I have not seen his succeeding efforts, he is apparently stumbling again. However his back log speaks for itself, and hope he finds the right material and voice once again)

David Fincher - (A bit like Cronenberg again where he developed his personal style through horror than continued on in this style even in other genres. Now as well as that works for the horror films he has directed, or when a horror element is within one of these films, I don't think it translates effortlessly in every case. In fact I must admit I've become somewhat tired of his style lately, particularly his choice to dimly light every one of his films. I don't wish to sound overly negative though because Fincher is a very capable visual stylist, even if it might be ill-fitting to some of his material. When the material and his style coincide and the material itself is strong though he is capable of making a masterpiece as he has done in the past with Zodiac and Seven.)

Louis Morgan said...

David Lean - (A true master of the craft. His early efforts proved his ability in terms of his visual prowess, but also how adept he was at capturing so intimate of emotions. It's interesting to look as his later career became that of the epic and he lost no footing at such a grand scale. The imagery he provided is so of the most memorable that one has ever seen in any film, but again Lean did not forgot his roots. No matter how grand of scale the epic in his best efforts, he never lost sight of again those more intimate detail. The scope never overwhelmed the human element as he found a balance that effortlessly connected the two as one.)

David Lynch - (There's a reason for the word Lynchian, as no one has ever or will be David Lynch as a director. There is not an element in a Lynch film that feels as though it is not of this strange yet cohesive madness. No film is quite a Lynch film with its captivating imagery, off-beat humor, or just a touch of oddity. No director ever I think is quite as a capable as Lynch in drawing you directly into the moment of a film. His ability to make a given moment so visceral is unparalleled, and this is evident even in his non-masterpieces. He is not pigeonholed in genre of the mind bending thriller either, as shown with The Straight Story and The Elephant Man. I love both of those films and it is fascinating as Lynch takes a very different kind of material, still makes it own, still makes it so vivid and proves his ability transcends genre. I only wish he'd come back.)

Stanley Kubrick - (Might as well get the negative out of the way first. Kubrick's approach seemed to be that of a cold calculation, fitting for a man who seemed as though he might have preferred the idea of robots to humans. As such this is an interesting case for a director where I think performances were truly central to the success of his films, despite that all his films would probably be described as "director's films", well except for maybe Lolita. The reason being it is in the performance that would develop the attachment to the emotional element of his films. When that was present his films were at their peak. Now beyond that little caveat he was a film making genius in crafting such a memorable aesthetic and that even when his films lacked the emotional attachment the sheer strength of the visuals almost could make up for it, such as with Barry Lyndon. Now I do actually think Kubrick is often undervalued as a writer strangely enough, given how effective he was a dark humorist, which he knew how flawlessly interconnect with a possibly more dramatic whole. Kubrick was indeed one of a kind, and when he established the right core for himself he did indeed find the perfection he was always seeking.)

Louis Morgan said...

Steven Spielberg - (The wonder maker who earned his place to have his name synonymous with cinema. Though let's start with the negative once again. Spielberg rarely writes his film so he can be inherently a victim of bad material, which has occurred in a few cases. He is also someone who has developed his style to a point that it almost can appear like self-parody. Spielberg though is set in his ways, and I personally finds his approach can still work, though I can see the other side given I've felt that way myself about a few of his efforts. In addition there is the occasional film where the magic just does not seem even really attempted like The Lost World and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. With that out of the way, I'll say it again he earned his position. There are few greater in sheer entertainment whether that be the taut thrillers of Duel and Jaws, fun of Indiana Jones, or the joy of something like E.T. No one makes them quite like Spielberg, as there seems an effort to go one step beyond in these films to make something truly special for the screen.)

Martin Scorsese - (Again like Spielberg material for is never inescapable, and if the material is rotten Scorsese won't be able to gloss over it. In fact in the curious case of Cape Fear his style unfortunately only makes it all the uglier. Then there is the slightly odd example of the Color of Money where you'd think anyone could have directed which is the oddest thing one can image about a film directed by Martin Scorsese. However the majority of his work, even with weaker material, Scorsese offers a kinetic life to his films like few others could even attempt. With lesser material Scorsese still offers an extra spark of inspiration that pulls it past a potential mediocrity. When Scorsese and the material match though it is never short of greatness)

1. Richard III
2. Falstaff
3. Brutus
4. Iago
5. Lady Macbeth
6. King Lear
7. Hamlet
8. Macbeth
9. Nick Bottom
10. Mercutio

Honorable mention for Buckingham who I always wished stayed around a bit longer in Richard.

Anonymous:

Yes I could.

Anonymous said...

Louis: How do you think All the King's Men could have been much better?

Louis Morgan said...

Montgomery Clift in John Ireland's role.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your thoughts on:
Cromwell (1970)
Alien
Aliens
Alien 3
Blade Runner
Prometheus

Anonymous said...

Louis: What about Welles in Crawford's role? While I liked Crawford more than you, I always thought Welles would have been perfect in this part. It appears that Wayne and Bogart were also considered.

Alex Marqués said...

Louis: what do you think of John Hillcoat and Paul Thomas Anderson?

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

I would not want to hand wave Crawford's performance like that, because I do think he's legitimately great in his rabble rousing and hatchet man scenes.

Luke Higham said...

Paul Thomas Anderson - (Paul Thomas Anderson has had a rather fascinating career path as he went at first wearing his inspiration clearly, yet did so effectively well crafting his own personal style at the same time. Hard Eight, Martin Scorsese, Magnolia and Boogie Nights, Robert Altman, There Will Be Blood, John Huston, then with The Master and most recently Inherent Vice he has become pure unadulterated Anderson. He's becoming a true master of cinema, no pun intended, and I think we'll see those attempting to be Andersonesque.)

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on Ridley Scott, William Wyler, Victor Fleming and The Coen Brothers.

Alex Marqués said...

Thanks Luke!

Anonymous said...

Louis: Who would you have chosen for Jesse James instead of Tyrone Power?

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on:
Highlander
Highlander II: The Quickening
Highlander: Endgame

Calvin: Have you seen Excalibur (1981)

Anonymous said...

Louis: Thoughts on these movies.
White Heat
Come Fill the Cup
Roaring Twenties
The Third Man
Winchester 73
The Naked Spur
The Man From Laramie

Giuseppe Fadda said...

I've just seen Game of Thrones and I have to admit I liked the episode a lot (Sansa's and Davos's sections in particular, but I also liked Cersei's, Daenerys's and Arya's). The King's Landing scene in particular was great thanks to Headey who was very good. I found it rather compelling and the ending was shocking, the only flaws were the horrible, atrocious Sand Snakes. God they're cringe-worthy.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: I'm so glad Scofield's your choice out of the nominees for 1966 Lead. :)

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your thoughts on Terrence Malick as a director.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: And Roman Polanski.

Calvin Law said...

Very glad to see Scofield take the lead out of the 1966 lot too :)

Saw Bastille Day and Eye in the Sky. The former was an enjoyable enough thriller bolstered by chemistry between the two leads, and a sense of fun making up for the overall lack of originality (it's essentially filmed in a pseudo-Bourne Identity style). The latter was actually pretty great overall, takes a bit to get going but once it starts getting into the ethical dilemmas of drone warfare I thought it was pretty masterful, my #2 of the year so far behind Midnight Special.

Elba - 3.5 (his accent is pretty wobbly which is strange, but beyond that he carries the film solidly. There's not much expected out of his character besides the fact that he's a badass and Elba dominates each of the action scenes well enough, with a nice touch of humour)
Madden - 3.5 (I found his whole nervous robber routine pretty funny, and he played very well off Elba's stoic performance. His accent is slightly wobbly too, but like Elba he's a lot of fun to watch even if he lacks any sort of significant arc)
Le Bon - 3.5 (it's a thankless role but one thing I did like about the film was how they wrote her character, an inspired touch involves her arc and overall I quite liked her surprisingly moving and engaging portrayal of a pawn turned badass)
Everyone else was fine but not particularly notable.

Mirren - 4.5 (I never for a second doubted her as the hard as nails military intelligence officer and completely made me invested in every decision her character made whether I agreed with them or not)
Rickman - 4 (vergin on a 4.5. Very Jack Hawkins like. He is excellent at showing why the attacks are necessary, and when a scene asks for him to get more confrontational he nails it. The exasperation of his character is very well done, and he adds to it with an underlying humanity which is quite moving. His final line was particularly affecting as it was built up to beautifully by his performance throughout.)
Paul - 4.5 (my favourite of the cast, and by far the best performance of his I've seen on film, he showcases the potential he had to be the moral center of the film in Triple 9 by his performance here. It's mostly a series of reaction shots and a performance from the shoulders up but each and every moment of it is superbly done.)
Fox - 3.5 (a supportive performance to Paul's role, and thus has less focus and less opportunity to shine, but I thought she was incredibly moving in showing a very humane side to the drone operators' predicament)
Glen - 3.5 (first off I've never heard him use his Scottish accent before, and it's pretty awesome he should use it more often. Anyway he was really good too in showing another side to the internal conflict, that of the politicians and their supposedly 'pragmatic' approach to the war on terror, and adds a great deal of character to the film)
Abdi - 4 (I'm glad he's got a good role again. It's interesting how both times he's played a man who's trying to keep things in order, only that time round he was playing a cold-hearted pragmatist with small shades of humanity, whereas here he's playing a warm and genuinely kind man who's doing his best to do the right thing. It's a limited role but he's excellent as another moral centre to the film)

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: I seriously need to give Eye In The Sky a Re-Watch, especially for Paul, who's currently a 4 for me.

Do you plan on watching The Witch anytime soon.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Triple 9
http://putlocker.is/watch-triple-9-online-free-putlocker.html

Are you seeing anything new this week, before Captain America: Civil War, the week after.

Calvin Law said...

Luke: Probably should but not at any point soon. Also to answer an earlier question I have seen bits of Excalibur, I thought Nicol Williamson was good but everything else felt rather bog standard.

Anonymous said...

While I prefer Burton's performance, I don't mind that you gave Scofield the win after a re-watch since he was brilliant as well.

Anonymous said...

Just finished watching The Angry Silence. I found it to be very, very good. I give Attenborough a 5. He's simply amazing. He'll be the winner of the 1960 lineup.

Anonymous said...

Louis, for 93 Best Actor, have you ever rewatched both In the Name of the Father and Schindler's List and considered moving both Neeson and DDL to 5? I rewatched both recently and found their performances just got better with each viewing.

Luke Higham said...

Anonymous: Neeson was a 5 initially for Schindler's List.

Anonymous said...

Finished watching Peeping Tom, and I have to say, I was amazed.

Alex Marqués said...

Anonymous: one of the greatest psychological thrillers of all time

Anonymous said...

I give 4,5's to both Boehm and Massey.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your thoughts on:
Empire Of The Sun
Moulin Rouge (2001)
The Phantom Of The Opera (2004)
Les Miserables (2012)
Into The Woods
Oliver!
300 (2007)
Ben-Hur
The Last Of The Mohicans
Enemy At The Gates

Anonymous said...

There's apparently a remake of All Quiet on the Western Front in the works.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: And War Horse.

Anonymous said...

Luke: I'm expecting a 1,5 for War Horse.

Calvin Law said...

Think we should chill out with these film ratings for a while now Luke :) Although I too am interested in knowing what Louis' thoughts on Mohicans are.

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: That's all I have for now. :)

Anonymous said...

Speaking of The Last of the Mohicans, it's kind of sad that Mann has been going downhill.

Alex Marqués said...

It seems that Blackhat is very acclaimed among Mann's fans, I might check it out.

Calvin Law said...

Blackhat was awful, and I'm speaking as a Mann fan haha

Calvin Law said...

Louis: To what extent could you make an argument for John Hurt as co-lead in 10 Rillington Place? I really want to keep him in supporting but watching the film again I'm thinking there could be an argument made for him to be moved, but I really don't want to.

Louis Morgan said...

Alex & Luke:

I'll get you those directors thoughts pretty soon.

Anonymous:

Well I don't think Power was miscast they just needed to get him to do what he did in his second to last scene for the entire film.

Calvin:

I can see the argument, but I personally still think he is supporting as I feel the film is always about Christie, everyone else being merely a potential victim. We begin with Christie and end with him, for an obvious reason I know. Everything we get of Evans factors into Christie, even the scene at the tavern sets up his habitual lying which Christie will later use against him. When Evans dies, as with every other victim, they're simply gone and we're left with what the killer does next.

Calvin Law said...

Phew thanks Louis, he's safely placed in supporting then :)



Calvin Law said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSAiI3xMh4

Snowden trailer. Must say it'll be interesting to see what direction this goes. JGL's definitely got the voice down though.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Will Sydow's review be coming within the next 7 days.

Robert MacFarlane said...

JGL's voice in that trailer has me so worried. He should have just played it straight, no one cares about what Edward Snowden sounds like. That affectation is giving me Ruffalo-in-Spotlight vibes.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

In my opinion, he does do the accent pretty well, judging by the trailer. And he would have been panned by most critics if he didn't even try, cause so many of them equate great acting with just using an accent, regardless of its quality (like Ruffalo in Spotlight).

Robert MacFarlane said...

No one panned Eisenberg for not sounding like Zuckerberg. Nor did anyone pan Fassbender for sounding more like Peter Sarsgaard than Steve Jobs. Voice matches are one of the most arbitrary rules of playing real life figures. It's not actually all that necessary, especially for someone like Snowden. This isn't Landau playing Bela Lugosi. It isn't needed.

Michael McCarthy said...

It's not necessary at all, but some actors feel it's helpful for finding the mental and emotional core of the character. It didn't seem terribly distracting to me in the trailer, but I guess neither did Ruffalo in the Spotlight trailer...we really just have to wait and see.

Alex Marqués said...

Louis: How would you rank your top 5 Richard Attenborough performances?

Anonymous said...

Louis: Who do you think gave the worst villain performance? Travolta or Redmayne? I'd go with Redmayne since he just went with what the Wachowskis told him to do.

Louis Morgan said...

Alex:

Hillcoat - (Having not seen his first two films but The Proposition stands out as something special. Hillcoat's direction effortlessly combined the beauty and harshness of the Australian frontier, while brilliantly realized every element of Nick Cave's incredible screenplay. It discovered the grand themes of the stories though always with the needed intimate detail to make the characters so vivid. That film is a masterpiece. He followed it up with the Road, which perhaps was not quite as strong narratively speaking, but Hillcoat's direction infused the film which such palatable atmsophere while making the tender moments within that bleakness truly poignant. Then came Lawless and Triple 9. Now both films have difficultly in terms of the writing to begin with, but Hillcoat's direction also feels far less assured than his previous efforts. He does balance the storylines well or even sometimes the tone. It's still never workmanlike or even really bad, but it's underwhelming especially when compared to his heights.)

Attenborough:

1. 10 Rillington Place
2. Brighton Rock
3. Guns At Batasi
4. Seance on a Wet Afternoon
5. Doctor Dolittle


Luke:

William Wyler - (Wyler was one of those few directors in which there are not really any obvious ques in his films that would make you go "that's a William Wyler film", yet his films are rarely lacking in terms of a personal vision. Wyler succeeded pretty much no matter the genre whether it is a more intimate drama like The Heiress, a lovely romantic comedy like Roman Holiday, a grand epic like Ben-Hur or even psychological thriller like the Collector. Wyler adapted brilliantly to every material finding a style that fits for that given story. As with any director there is the occasional mistep, but really Wyler's most common trademark as a director is that the film is probably good.)

Ridley Scott - (Scott began his career with three masterful films. Each offered a captivating vision, two of them being probably being among the most influential films of all time in terms of their visuals but also visceral precision in its storytelling. The character mattered as much as any futuristic city, spaceship corridor, or a grand French vista. After that point Scott has being usually described as more hit and miss particularly in his output after the 2000's. Now I ponder the question with those films is it really Scott at fault, or is just the material? I would not say with any of those films that the direction is what makes those films fail to work. Now those films are not Scott's best work, but nor do I feel they are truly poorly directed, unless one believes he should have demanded a full re-write in certain cases. Scott tends to try to add something, it does not always work, but sometimes it does. A notable example is Black Hawk Down which is a rather thinly scripted film, but made so much more by just how impeccable Scott's work behind the camera is.)

Victor Fleming - (It is a tad difficult to look at his two most notable efforts, both in 1939, of the Wizard of Oz and Gone With The Wind. The reason being in both circumstances he was one of several directors involved with each of them. Looking at the other films that I've seen it reveals possibly his contribution to those earlier films. In those films the moments of spectacle do stand out, like in Wizard and Wind, but unlike those films some of the performances seem off while the more intimate moments of the stories can be a bit awkward.)

I'll get to Polanski, The Coens, and Malick soon.

I did get a chance to see Midnight Special in the theater.

Anonymous:

Redmayne in that he almost makes Terle seem threatening by comparison.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Ratings and thoughts on the casts of Triple 9 and Midnight Special?

Louis Morgan said...

Robert:

Triple 9:

Affleck - 3(I liked his performance as far as it went. He manages to bring a bit of character, that isn't connected to the plot, just really through his slight mannerisms, that felt natural, he brought in. He did well with what he had, but as with everyone else down the line there is something severely lacking in terms of how their characters are written)

Ejiofor - 3(Now a problem with the film is, who is lead? Affleck I guess, maybe. The problem is it never stays with a character long enough for us to really get to know or care about them, since they stay so confined to what they have to do with their part of the plot. Ejiofor again I felt did well in at least conveying the emotional dismay in his character that effectively told his motivation, but was given little to do beyond that.)

Harrelson - 3(I suppose he had the biggest advantage in that the film did not seem even concerned with acting like he had anything to do other than further the plot. He's basically doing Marty Hart here, but it's a decent enough reprise.)

Mackie - 3(I won't repeat it. Mackie does his best to attempt to portray some conflict in his character, in really the most minor reactions, it does not add up to much but he at least manages to make up for the writing a little bit)

Collins - 2.5(Felt he made little impact in his early scenes so when he suddenly became the chief villain it really didn't work particularly well.)

Reedus - 3(I actually really liked his one short scene but unfortunately that's all he got. It's a shame as I felt he essentially set up his character as well as anyone else was able to do with far more screentime.)

Paul - 2(The more I see of Paul the more I'm convinced that he just might be a one trick pony. The odd thing is this should be in that comfort zone given the character is basically a variation of Jesse Pinkman, but it seems like Paul might only be able to play Jesse Pinkman. He really wasn't good here as he went with one note drug anguish without variation.)

Winslet - 1(Her accent unfortunately sounded more goofy than anything else, and beyond that I just thought she was pretty over the top here. She came off as a villain from a different kind of movie, a more overt sort of action thriller, and really over played every second she had. The problem is even in that vein she was never particularly menacing or even engaging)

Midnight Special:

I'll save Shannon for the time being.

Edgerton - 3.5(A good performance as I felt he managed to bring something in every slight reaction of his character, realizing an earnest empathy within his work, while reflecting the right type of tough exterior without seeming two dimensional.)

Dunst - 3.5(Melinda Dillon in Close Encounters to a t. I don't mean that she's copying her either. It's very similair character and Dunst gives an effective performance in pretty much exactly the same way. That being just giving a to the point yet honest portrayal of a loving mother.)

Driver - 3.5(I liked his performance as he managed not to over do the quirk while bringing just enough of a colorfulness to his fairly strict expository role. I felt he managed his character arc particularly well in the margins and made his actions believable by the end)

Lieberher - 2.5(I was concerned given his inconsistent performance in St. Vincent, and my concerns weren't alleviated. Once again he has good moments in there, but I felt he was bizarrely bland at times. The thing is I don't think he was trying to pull a Robert Powell either. The reason being it's not an overarching quality. He sometimes acts like a normal human than others he's bland and it does not coincide with whether he's being supernatural or not. Not terrible, but it's a shame Tye Sheridan is much too old these days.)

Robert MacFarlane said...

My issue was Winslet was the opposite: I actually found her bizzarely phoned in. If anything she needed to go broader.

Louis Morgan said...

It's a weird to describe it exactly because I'd agree she was phoned in, but I felt it made her come off as ridiculously over the top particularly in her final scene. "I really should kill you now" she says as though she's kind of annoyed that she's still in the movie.

Calvin Law said...

What did you think of Midnight Special overall Louis?

JackiBoyz said...

Louis: Interesting that you mention Robert Powell, I am assuming you mean his performance as Jesus, and if so what did you reckon to it and the series?

Luke Higham said...

Eddie The Eagle
Egerton - 3.5
Jackman - 3.5
I liked it well enough.

Calvin Law said...

I've bumped Egerton up to a 4.5 personally. The right way to do a mannered performance.

Seeing Civil War in an hour :)

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: I'm seeing it at 5:15. :)

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Are you doing '71 supporting after this or will you proceed to a different year for the lead category instead.

Calvin Law said...

Civil War Ratings

1. Evans (4.5): His best performance in the series, he's always been solid but this is a great display of his talents as an actor. He's charismatic, carries the action scenes well, and delivers the emotional heft well.

2. Downey Jr. (4.5): Alright maybe I speak too soon in calling this his best outing as Stark but I really thought he brought investment as well as new ways to go with the character this time round. He does his usual sardonic routine well but really gives it his all in the third act, and is probably the highlight of it for me.

3. Stan: (4, verging on 4.5): Now this was a surprise. The Winter Soldier gets a mouth and really takes advantage of it. The chemistry set up in The First Avenger with Evans is still there and he makes every reactionary shot count, and makes Bucky Barnes' attempt to be set free of his demons very moving.

4. Boseman (4, verging on 4.5): Black Panther is a great character and Boseman's conviction in the role is very admirable. He's effortlessly graceful and utterly convincing as the King of Wakanda, quite powerful in showing his character's righteousness, and has a particularly brilliant final scene...two scenes in fact.

5. Johansson  (4): Limited screentime but does a lot with what she's given. She charters Black Widow's arc well as the one with most divided loyalties and is particularly good in the action scenes too.

6. Bruhl (3.5): I won't go into Zemo too much but this is a solid set-up for him as a villain. I can't wait to see where they go with him as Bruhl brings the right amount of menace and intelligence and is also surprisngly moving in his two big speech scenes.

7. Holland (3.5): Can't wait to see his solo movie, he's very sweet, endearing and adorkable as Peter and a great deal of fun as Spidey.

8. Mackie (3.5): Energetic and charismatic as usual, has some funny scenes with Stan and also delivers when the more serious moments come.

9. Olsen (3.5): Toning down the accent was a good idea, she has a few great moments that show the severity of a hero's job and beyond that works well with the rest of the ensemble.

10. Renner (3.5): Gets little to do but I like how he's become the established everyman chap of the group, he delivers his lines with a great deal of humorous bent that's quite entertaining.

11. Bettany (3): Very little screentime and focus especially in comparison to Age of Ultron but he's an endearing presence again, and has some lovely low-key scenes with Wanda that in no way feel superfluous.

12. Rudd (3): It might be the direction around him this time round that makes Scott Lang such a cool cat but Rudd is his usual likable self and he's rapidly moving up my list of favourite Avengers.

13. Freeman (3): Doing his usual comic routine but I found it entertaining as always.

14. Cheadle (2.5): Well they lied he doesn't get more to do this time round, which is a shame but Cheadle is as always good especially in his scenes with Stark. I must say though watching Miles Ahead makes me a bit annoyed at how often he's wasted in roles like this.)

15. Hurt (2.5): Didn't really make much of an impression, very standard sort of military man routine but Hurt probably does it as well as anyone could, I guess it's nice that the Russo brothers remembered that The Incredible Hulk existed.

I should say all of the smaller roles from VanCamp to Kani, Woodard and Grillo, Slattery, Tomei etc. are well done. Also like the approach they'll be going with Aunt May, and the Spidey stuff in general.

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: Are you posting your thoughts on the film, on your blog.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

I haven't forgotten.

And I'll probably be doing supporting.

Jackiboyz:

I'll admit I was making a bit of an In Bruges reference though I have seen Jesus of Nazareth, it has been a very long time.

Calvin:

The film itself is at the very least an interesting exercise with Nichols still using his own style to do a Spielbergian homage. I liked the film for its sense of mystery in the first half, and I felt the family dynamic, particularly between the father and son, was well handled. However I did not love it as I felt it was a film where many elements felt underwritten. The cult seemed underdeveloped, as did the supernatural to a certain degree, as well as the government's own interest. I found the last third particularly problematic as the mystery is explained slightly too early, and they rid the film of a certain sense of urgency due to the way they handle the son's development of his powers. Then there is the big reveal which in Spielberg's hands, at least in the 70's and 80's, would have been set at night and been great like the endings of E.T. and Close Encounters. Nichols unfortunately seems less comfortable with such visual splendor as he forces the moment to be too literal by setting in the day, and unfortunately the realization looked just like a standard CGI future city. I still liked the film, but it seems to suggest that Nichols is not the best fit for Science Fiction.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: What are your ratings for the rest of the King Lear cast.

Calvin Law said...

I think I liked it a great deal more than you Louis, but can certainly see where you are coming from.

Luke: probably not, though I will say it's my #2 of the year so far.

Alex Marqués said...

Louis: your Best Director choices for the 40's and 50's please

Luke Higham said...

Captain America: Civil War
Evans/Downey Jr. - 4.5
Johansson - 3.5
Stan - 3.5
Mackie - 3
Cheadle - 2.5
Renner - 3
Boseman - 4
Bettany - 3
Olsen - 3.5
Rudd - 3/3.5
Holland - 3.5
Bruhl - 4
My Favourite Non-Guardians Marvel film to date.

Anonymous said...

Alex: His choices for Best Director in the 40's and 50's are:
1940: Hitchcock
1941: Huston
1942: Curtiz
1943: Hitchcock
1944: Wilder
1945: Lean
1946: Capra
1947: Reed
1948: Huston
1949: Reed
1950: Kurosawa
1951: Hitchcock
1952: Ford, I think
1953: Wilder
1954: Kurosawa
1956: Kubrick
1957: Lean
1958: Hitchcock
1959: Wyler
Don't know if his choice for 1955 Best Director is Laughton or Clouzot.

Alex Marqués said...

Thank you Anonymous ;)

Anonymous said...

Watched Captain America: Civil War. Great movie. Possibly my favorite of the MCU.
Evans: 4,5
Downey Jr.: 4,5
Johansson: 3
Stan: 3.5
Mackie: 3,5
Cheadle: 2.5
Renner: 3,5
Boseman: 4
Bettany: 3
Olsen: 3,5
Rudd: 3,5
Holland: 3,5
Bruhl: 3,5

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:


The Coen Brothers - (Eh what's not to love about their work? Alright the two without question have a certain wavelength in their writing and their comedy in particular. Everyone can't tap into that wavelength, and nor should they by the very nature of people I'd say. I personally rarely do not tap into though since like to love almost all of their films for a reason. Now beyond their style though they are truly consummate directors never failing to bring the right sort of flair to their efforts. The two of them prove themselves so able in almost every genre, and in a way Hail Caesar was almost like, "here's a few extra types we probably could do if we wanted to". Though they have a definite style they never pigeonhole themselves with it. They have lighter fair, they have darker fair, they have a cynical edge yet are quite capable of a genuine warmth. They're master filmmakers, that's all there is to it.)

Terrence Malick - (Malick's fascination with nature and stream of consciousness has lead him to be a divisive director, though most divisive it seems with critics against general audiences. Now I think Malick has two masterpieces with Badlands (which can be accepted by even those who hate his other work) and The Thin Red Line. In both instances though Malick has a narrative and well defined characters in which to graft his themes to, making his beautiful imagery mean more than that. Due to that I find his more freewheeling work far less interesting, as the random thoughts and images mean something to Malick without a doubt, but he does little to ease the audience into his own understanding. I don't hate those films to the degree others have, though I have not seen his last two efforts, but the elements that have the most impact in those films still are when Malick bothers to weave his ideas into something more tangible like the father/son relationship in Tree of Life.)

Roman Polanski - (The interesting thing about Polanski is that often a filmmaker's masterpiece can be the full realization of the potential of their style as a filmmaker with material that fits perfectly in line with this, but that's not exactly the case for him. There is almost too much Polanski with the films with perhaps an excessive, at times at least, of flourishes to perhaps purposefully indulge the more extreme elements of the story. This can be seen in Rosemary's Baby, The Tenant, Macbeth, and Carnage. His best work though has a far less obvious hand yet Polanski's effort is invisible in the best way. In say The Pianist and his masterpiece Chinatown Polanski infuses the films with a palatable sense of place along with such precise storytelling. There is a definite style but it always wholly serves the story at hand, which is not always the case with his more indulgent work.)

Louis Morgan said...

Cusack - 3.5(As per usual Cusack offers a rather interesting and unique presence here. Cusack does well in the part as he quietly conveys Albany's arc in just a few moments throughout the film in both terms of slowly creating a sense of confidence in the character, but also a growth of a moral strength as well)

Worth & Engel - 3.5(Felt they both approached the sisters very closely in style and made a similair impact in each case. This works find given each the similair purpose of the sisters. Both are good though in revealing the wicked nature of them in a genuine fashion, as both find the right callousness that they don't portray as objectively evil, but almost as the cruelty of power)

Magee - 3.5(Magee's pretty much always good and brings just the right devious quality to his work, in fact I liked watching him so much here that I found it unfortunate that he was fated to leave when he had to)

MacGowran - 3.5(A great fool to be sure. The mvp out of the supporting for me as I really liked the way he managed to combined this lighthearted quality to his work, to be a real fool as he should be, while always remained truly incisive in his mocking of Lear during the story.)

Alex:

Anonymous got most of them right, but here are a few changes.

41 - Welles
46 - I might go Wyler, though it's a close call either way.
52 - Kurosawa
55 - Laughton
58 - Welles

Calvin:

Since it must be done....for fun....

Midnight Special 70's directed by (do I need to say)

Roy: Roy Scheider
Lucas: Robert Duvall
Sarah: Melinda Dillon
Paul: Jeff Goldblum
Calvin: Joseph Cotten

Calvin Law said...

Jeff Goldblum as Paul = perfection. Also, thanks Louis. Always wanted to be played by ol' Joseph Cotten :)

Calvin Law said...

1970s Captain America: Civil War directed by Fred Zinnemann (I steal some ideas off Michael McCarthy here)

Captain America: Robert Redford
Iron Man: Paul Newman
Black Widow: Susan Sarandon
Bucky Barnes: John Cazale
Falcoln: Howard E. Rollins
War Machine: Richard Roundtree
Hawkeye: Sam Shepard
T'Challa: Denzel Washington (making an early film debut)
Vision: Max Von Sydow
Wanda: Elizabeth Hartman
Ant Man: Peter Falk
Spider-Man: Dennis Christopher
Baron Zemo: Alain Delon

Anonymous said...

Louis: So you still prefer IAWL and Vertigo over BYOOL and TOE despite giving the director win to Welles and probably Wyler?

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

As films as a whole, yes.

Anonymous said...

Road to Perdition (40's version, directed by Fred Zinnemann)
Michael Sullivan Sr: Van Heflin
Michael Sullivan Jr: Dean Stockwell
John Rooney: Barry Fitzgerald
Harlan Maguire: James Mason
Connor Rooney: Robert Ryan
Frank Nitti: Edward G. Robinson

Miller's Crossing (1950's version, by Billy Wilder)
Tom Reagan: Alec Guinness
Leo O'Bannion: James Cagney
Verna Bernbaum: Shelley Winters
Bernie Bernbaum: Eli Wallach
Johnny Caspar: Lee J. Cobb

Anonymous said...

Louis: What are your thoughts on All Quiet on the Western Front's camera movement?

Anonymous said...

I got to saw Captain America also, very good film, with pretty much everyone adding something.

Best Performance - Robert Downey JR and Chadwick Boseman
Most surprisingly good performance - Daniel Bruhl (easily the best villain in the series)
Worst perfomer - By default, Martin Freeman, why was he cast in a role where he does nothing???

Calvin Law said...

Demolition: I was surprised by it. It's not a great film, lots of flaws and clichés, and is certainly no Dallas Buyers Club, but a huge improvement over Wild.

Gyllenhaal: 5 (my first of the year, and I think I might prefer this just slightly over his work in Nightcrawler. He's absolutely fantastic in depicting his character's powerful journey to demolition and finding himself and even made some of the questionable attempts at humour work really well)

Watts: 3 (kind of disappointed by how limited she was by the material but she's a good foil to Gyllenhaal)

Lewis: 2.5 (I might need to re-watch but I thought he was COMPLETELY overshadowed by Gyllenhaal in all his scenes)

Cooper: 3 (he was definitely quite one - note but I thought he had some strong emotional moments just wish he had a bit more to work with)

I would say the main flaw of the film really is the unimaginative direction and besides the main character (and it actually might be the performance which adds the depth) everyone else is very 2d. Also Robert, agree with you/your friend on FB that it did kind of feel very standard sort of film of its type.

Calvin Law said...

Also can do a very early ranking of lead and supporting actors now:

1. Gyllenhaal (5)
2. Cheadle (4.5/5)
3. Evans (4.5)
4. Shannon (4.5)
5. Egerton (4.5)
6. Reynolds (4.5)
7. Brolin (4)
8. Affleck (3.5)
9. Lieberhan (3.5)
10. Madden (3.5)

1. Downey Jr. (4.5)
2. Ehrenreich (4.5₩
3. Paul (4.5)
4. Boseman (4)
5. Rickman (4)
6. Abdi (4)
7. Egerton (3.5)
8. Driver (3.5)
9. Clooney (3.5)
10. Tatum (3.5)

Calvin Law said...

Oops actually

1. Downey Jr. (4.5)
2. Ehrenreich (4.5)
3. Paul (4.5)
4. Boseman (4)
5. Rickman (4)
6. Stan (4)
7. Abdi (4)
8. Edgerton (3.5)
9. Clooney (3.5)
10. Bruhl (3.5)

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Apart from Triple 9 and Midnight Special, have you seen anything else in the past week.

Anonymous said...

Saw G Men and Bullets or Ballots. Not great, but entertaining enough due to Cagney and Robinson. Those two never cease to amaze me.

Matt Mustin said...

Louis, if you have the time, can I have your ratings and thoughts on The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada and The Homesman?

Luke Higham said...

Calvin:
Lead Actor
1. Shannon/Midnight Special (5)
2. Evans/Captain America: Civil War (4.5)
3. Reynolds/Deadpool (4.5)
4. Brolin/Hail, Caesar! (4)
5. Affleck/Batman Vs. Superman (4)
6. Egerton/Eddie The Eagle (4)
7. Strong/Grimsby (3)
8. Affleck/Triple 9 (3)
9. Sethi/The Jungle Book (3)
10. Pine/The Finest Hours (3)

Lead Actress
1. Taylor-Joy/The Witch (5)
2. Mirren/Eye In The Sky (4.5)
3. Blunt/The Huntsman: Winter's War (3)

Supporting Actor
1. Ineson/The Witch (4.5)
2. Scrimshaw/The Witch (4.5)
3. Ehrenreich/Hail, Caesar! (4.5)
4. Downey Jr./Captain America: Civil War (4.5)
5. Edgerton/Midnight Special (4)
6. Bruhl/Captain America: Civil War (4)
7. Paul/Eye In The Sky (4)
8. Rickman/Eye In The Sky (4)
9. Boseman/Captain America: Civil War (4)
10. Fiennes/Hail, Caesar! (4)

Supporting Actress
1. Dunst/Midnight Special (4.5)
2. Dickie/The Witch (4)
3. Swinton/Hail, Caesar! (3.5)
4. Johansson/Captain America: Civil War (3.5)
5. Olsen/Captain America: Civil War (3.5)

Anonymous said...

Louis : I hope you don't mind reviewing Tyrone Power's powerful performance in Nightmare Alley for 1947 lead. That pun was not intended.

Luke Higham said...

Anonymous: At the moment, what are your top 2s for all 4 acting categories.

Anonymous said...

Lead Actor
1. Shannon in Midnight Special
2. Evans in Captain America: Civil War

Lead Actress
1. Taylor-Joy in The Witch
2. Mirren in Eye In The Sky (saw it today)

Supporting Actor
1. Ineson in The Witch
2. Scrimshaw in The Witch

Supporting Actress
1. Dunst in Midnight Special
2. Dickie in The Witch

ruthiehenshallfan99 said...

Does anybody know Louis' thoughts on Jennifer Jones in The Song of Bernadette?

Luke Higham said...

Anonymous: Your ratings for the Eye In The Sky cast.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your thoughts on Tom Hanks as an actor.

Anonymous said...

Luke:
Rickman: 4
Glen: 3,5
Fox: 3,5
Abdi: 4
Paul: 4

Anonymous said...

Louis: Is there an actor you think could have played Tracy's fishermen in Captains Courageous and The Old Man and The Sea better than him?

Calvin Law said...

Louis: your thoughts and ratings on Anthony Hopkins and Tom Waits in Dracula?

Anonymous said...

Louis: Just another question. What do you think of the idea of a version of Gangs of New York in the 1940's, with Cagney as Bill the Butcher?

Calvin Law said...

Anoynmous: That sounds like an AMAZING idea.

Gangs of New York (1940's directed by Michael Curtiz)
Bill the Butcher: James Cagney
Amsterdam Vallon: Richard Attenborough
Jenny Everdeane: Kathleen Ryan
'Priest' Vallon: Pat O'Brien
Boss Tweed: Hume Croyn
Johnny Sirocco: Dan O'Herlihy
Happy Jack: Denis O'Dea
Monk McGinn: Charles Laughton

Anonymous said...

Calvin: I'd go with Walsh instead of Curtiz as director. And the cast you have is better than mine.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Dynamic in a way that was very rare for the time, and essential in giving the battle scenes the visceral effectiveness they have.

Luke:

Hanks - (Hanks very much is old school in that he's probably not the man you want for the most extreme accents or sometimes even the personalities, but he's a great fit for interesting variations of the "average" man. Hanks perhaps too often has tried to break out of his range, but when within it he's an effective and engaging performer. In the range of the right character, Hanks has consistently proven to be able to be traditionally charming but capable of some considerable emotional depth as well. Really Hanks is best when he tries to be more of James Stewart, and less of a Daniel Day-Lewis)

Anonymous:

Captains: Warner Baxter, John Carradine, Charles Laughton, Walter Slezak. Probably others.

The Oldman and The Sea: Anthony Quinn, Thomas Gomez. Probably others.

Calvin:

Hopkins - 3.5(The film is a bit strange with the different wavelengths the actors are on, but Hopkins understands the tone. He's a hoot in really embracing the absurdity of the situations with such aplomb, and not minding at all in basically giving a comedic performance. I do particularly enjoy his excessively deadpan delivery of van Helsing describing what he did to Lucy)

Waits - 3.5(Two scenes of patented Waits madness that only Waits could possibly bring. I wish there had been more of his Reinfeld because again he also understood the tone to be insane, and played beautifully along with that.)

Waits

Anonymous:

An interesting choice for playing a character who hates the Irish, but then again so was Day-Lewis. He'd be a great fit for the role though.

Calvin Law said...

Another interesting choice was choosing the Irish Brendan Gleeson to play a Scotsman in Braveheart and having the Scottish David O'Hara play the Irishman. Though I love them both in their respective roles always wondered what it'd be like the other way around.

Completely agree about Waits, I wish he'd do more film roles in general honestly. I could watch a whole film about his character in Seven Psychopaths.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Seven Psychopaths, I think that it would have been an amazing idea of a 60's version of that film with Wilder as director and writer.

Louis Morgan said...

Cast:

Marty: Robert Shaw
Billy: Jack Lemmon
Costello: Lee J. Cobb
Hans: Edward G. Robinson
Zachariah: John Carradine
Angela: Ursula Andress
Kaya: Shirley MacLaine
Palo: Dan Duryea
Myra: Juanita Moore
The Quaker: Otto Kruger
Larry: Frank Overton
Tommy: Robert Duvall

Calvin Law said...

Seven Psychopaths (1960's version directed by Billy Wilder)
Marty: Richard Curtis
Billy: Eli Wallach
Charlie: Lee Marvin
Hans: James Stewart
Zachariah: Anthony Quinn
Quaker: Robert Ryan
Larry and Tommy: Jack Lemmon and Peter Falk

Calvin Law said...

Ahh dammit beat me to it and in a better fashion Louis :/

Anonymous said...

Louis: In your opinion, what are the worst Oscar winners for director and screenplay?

Matt Mustin said...

Louis, what are your thoughts on the score to The Dark Knight. I know it has some detractors, but I think it's amazing.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your thoughts on last night's Game Of Thrones.

Alex Marqués said...

I concur, Tom Waits rocks.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Directors:

1. Frank Lloyd (Calvacade)
2. Vincent Minnelli
3. Tom Hooper
4. Elia Kazan (Gentleman's Agreement)
5. Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby)

Screenplays:

1. Cimarron
2. Gigi
3. The Big House (Oh yeah!)
4. The Cider House Rules
5. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

Matt:

I think it's an effective score, particularly the Joker's theme. I can see the criticism, given it's intensity but I think it works well for the tone of the film.

Luke:

Well I liked almost everything in this episode. von Sydow as the raven, the whole flashback scene really. Theon and Sansa's farewell, Allen and Turner were both heartbreaking. The wildings to the rescue was a great moment, Jamie and the High Sparrow, with Pryce being still so unassuming yet so menacing, unsure if anything can save Mereen but I did actually really like Tyrion's scene with the dragons, the introduction to Euron was interesting, though slightly undercut for the reason I'll get to in a moment. Then there was the ending which I'll admit I knew what was going to happen the whole time, but I loved the execution of it particularly due to Carice van Houten's performance.

Then the one thing I did not care for though was the exit of Roose Bolton. In part I'll admit because I do think Roose is the better villain, and Ramsay has really already worn out his welcome. Then again I do think what happened could have worked as a natural progression if it came a little later, and in a better fashion. It made Balon's departure seem repetitive unfortunately, the method was ridiculous, I mean come on Roose of all people should have seen that coming. It could have worked if the tension was built up for a bit longer, and Roose pressed a bit longer leaving Ramsay to lash out at a less predictable moment.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I called Roose being killed that way, but not this early in the season. I agree Ramsay has worn his welcome. At this point he's so cartoonishly evil that he plays as a parody. Agree the rest of the episode was great, though. Unlike you I had issues with van Houtsn's work in the earlier seasons, but her moments in this episode are undeniably wonderful.

Anonymous said...

Louis: What are your thoughts and ratings on Clint Eastwood in In the Line of Fire and Lee J. Cobb in The Exorcist.

Calvin Law said...

http://actoroscar.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/alternate-best-actor-1958.html

In the Line of Fire - 4.5(One of the most leading man, style leading man performances from him. He does it well though bringing some charm and humor nicely to the part, as well as some actual weight in the portrayal of his character's uncertainty)

Anonymous said...

Rewatched Man of the West. Found it to be much better this time around despite Cooper's miscasting and the score. I find it hard to believe that Coop was the first choice for Harry Powell.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Cobb - (An underrated performance in the scheme of the film as he adds such a natural and properly amusing comic relief, in what is a role largely for exposition. He makes the most of his character's movie loving quirk, and I especially love his bashful expression when he admits that he's really asking for an autograph for himself)

Calvin Law said...

Louis: Who do you think would win in a cat and mouse chase, Jeff Costello in Le Samourai or The Driver in Drive?

Calvin Law said...

Agree about Cobb, very important comforting factor in the film.

Louis Morgan said...

Calvin:

The Driver. Costello is probably the more skilled of the two, but say in the situation they each gain an emotional connection to something that becomes an hindrance for Costello but a powerful motivation for the driver.