Geoffrey Rush portrays Philip Henslowe the owner of the Theater where Shakespeare writes for. Henslowe is deep in debt, and desperately wants Shakespeare to write him a successful comedy to payoff his debtors. I should say right off that Rush really has a very limited role as Philip Henslowe. Like Ed Harris in The Truman Show I suppose most of the performance is in his character creation. Rush makes Henslowe a usually whimpering confused fellow constantly begging for things to be going his way, and he is a rather meek fellow in Rush's portrayal.
I would say really the whole point of Henslowe is just to be comic relief in the film. After all after just a couple of early scenes where he talks to his debtors, and tries to convince Shakespeare to write him his play, Rush mostly just has small reactions that are always suppose to comedic. I would say he overplay's the part with his sloppy way of speaking, and almost always surprised look, but really that is the point of Henslowe. Henslowe is just suppose to be a wacky character just for a couple of laughs nothing more. There is not any sort of drive to his character, or purpose besides that.
I guess one could argue he does a little more when he calls on the tavern crowd to be his actors, but even then Rush portrays in very much the same way. I would say his performance is repetitive but really but really there is always enough of a space between his short reactions that it is not. Rush is actually entirely fine in the role, he is sort of humorous, but not all that funny. I don't have problem with his performance, it's energetic, Rush certainly isn't boring, but there just is not anything special or notable in the role. Frankly if a supporting actor needed to be nominated here I think Tom Wilkinson probably would have been the better choice.
10 comments:
I just love this movie and think there is no weak link but I also don't think that Rush needed an Oscar nomination for this.
I agree with Fritz, I usually like Rush as an actor, purely because I think all of his acting performances tend to be showy perfomances and I can admire that.
I think Rush should have been replaced with Tom Wilkinson or Colin Firth.
The first time I have seen the film, I also thought that Wilkinson was better and more worthy of a nomination. But then I watched it again and again and I found his performance funny and effective enough...
I'm convinced confused voters accidentally nominated this performance instead of his stronger work in Elizabeth. That would make more sense. Still, it's good enough, I guess.
Don't remember him much , saw this film like twice like 12 years ago .
My favourite male performances in supporting roles in this film were Martin Clunes and Rupert Everett. Never quite understood why it was Rush who got the nomination, except that he had Oscar 'pedigree'. But he's not bad. And his most memorable line, "It's a mystery", is paid off in the very different context of the climactic scene.
A question: given that Everett was unbilled, has anyone ever been nominated for a performance for which they were unbilled?
I can't think of any, off the top of my head anyway.
Tom Wilkinson was miles better!
He was the best not only of his movie, but of the nominees. He managed to be quirky, mannerist and very, very funny indeed. Unlike other Oscar-nominated weirdos such as Michael Lerner.
Post a Comment