Thursday 21 January 2016

Best Actor 2015: Bryan Cranston in Trumbo

Bryan Cranston received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Dalton Trumbo in Trumbo.

Trumbo is a watchable enough film about the trials and tribulations of a Hollywood screen writer during the blacklist.

Trumbo is a film that decides to give its story a certain style as though it is a film from the period in which the story takes place. Well this is somewhat misguided as it seems to believe that all films from the period were a bit overacted, which was not the case. Now we get a series of imitations throughout the film ones of very prominent actors including John Wayne, Kirk Douglas and Edward G. Robinson. Michael Stuhlbarg as Robinson does the best job out of those by actually not focusing stiffly on imitating the man's mannerisms and voice. The imitations extend to somewhat lesser known figures like Otto Preminger and Hedda Hopper. Hey, even Alan Tudyk portrays Ian McLellan Hunter as though he's giving a bad imitation, even though most people probably have no idea what the real Ian McLellean Hunter was like. This choice extends to Bryan Cranston's leading turn as the titular Trumbo, which to be fair it is unlikely that one could wholly shy away from if they tried given his mustache, cigarette holder, and an apparent affection for working while bathing. Cranston does indeed embrace this, going head first in bringing to life Trumbo's particular way of speaking and his physical idiosyncrasies. 

Now to Cranston's credit he actually does match Trumbo's real life ways fairly well, but dials them just a few notches past normalcy. I won't say he goes too far, since he very much goes for a comedic excess. This is understandable given that the film wishes to be a comedy some of the time. It's after all directed by Jay Roach who got his start in broad comedies, and you know when broad comedy directors...alright I won't go over again. Any who the film's tone tries to mix comedy with the drama of the situation, which does not work too well in about the first twenty minutes of the film. This extends to Cranston's performance where it seems a few slices of ham could be trimmed off of Trumbo as he flaunts his superiority of wit at his opponents, the problem is this also extends as he's just spending time with his family. Cranston's overt approach though does find its place when Trumbo is put in front of HUAC. His excess actually really works in the situation as he finds the right combination of humor and passion as Trumbo goes upon taking on the committee's questions by asking a few of his own. Thankfully after this scene Cranston also dials down his performance considerably, and seems to become far more comfortable in the role.

This is probably more likely a side effect of Cranston depicting Trumbo as his ego has been deflated somewhat due to legal defeats, and facing jail time, either way it's a good thing. It becomes far easier to accept Cranston in the role, and his performance grows far more effective. Cranston thankfully is not ruled by his mannerisms and is able to find what lies beneath it all to reveal actual human qualities in the man, not just being a caricature of him. After Trumbo is let out of prison the film basically jumps around, not necessarily in a bad way, as it follows Trumbo as he deals with the large number of different people in his personal and professional life. The film puts much upon Bryan Cranston as he basically must jump around the various hurdles placed in from him in order to match whatever tone is required for each character and situation. Cranston manages to balance it rather well in the lighter situation such as dealing with the schlock movie producers he goes to work for, where Cranston offers just enough of a sardonic touch while staying fairly dead pan in dealing with the men who are even more extreme than he is. He nicely plays it up just a bit more when Trumbo jokes about their situation with the other writer who have been blacklisted.

In turn when dealing with someone adamant about the blacklist, such as Hedda Hopper, Cranston brings the right quiet disdain and disgust as he almost tries to avoid a direct confrontation. Cranston is wise to contrast this in the scenes where he deals with people who have named names in order to avoid their own careers being ruined. Although Cranston still conveys a definite disgust, he carefully relays an undercurrent of sympathy in his condemnation that keeps his Trumbo from seeming overly self-righteous. Then there is Trumbo's most personal scenes with his family which are jumbled in a way, since we never are shown a natural flow from one scene to another. It's either Trumbo telling them a new plan of his, showing concern for them due to outside threats, or yelling at them for not doing exactly what he demands of them. Although we mostly get glimpses of each of these sides, Cranston performs each quite well. He brings the needed energy as he tries to almost boost the family's moral. When he sees the hardships of his family, as well as some of the other writers, Cranston is moving by earnestly depicting Trumbo's quiet empathy for others. Then in his most negative side Cranston is good in portraying a strong bluster, that he makes a bit thin, which actually effectively conveys the idea that it in part comes from the stress of his situation. Cranston's performance works in realizing the film's intent for Trumbo, which is as the triumph of an individual over some sort of establishment. It even ends with a speech to sum his whole journey up. But again to Cranston's credit he delivers it well by only ever bringing an emotional truth to his words. Though I do think he makes a few missteps in his performance, most of them being in the just the opening twenty minutes, Cranston delivers a fine leading turn that one would expect from this type of biopic.

58 comments:

moviefilm said...

Thoughts and ratings on the cast (the ones you find notable in any way), especially Mirren.

Michael McCarthy said...

Huh, higher than I'd expected. I definitely didn't think his performance was without merit, but Louis C.K. was easily the standout for me.

Luke Higham said...

Mirren - 3.5(She's one note evil, though not in a fashion that it's her fault. Every scene she's shown to be essentially personally leading a witch hunt. She's entertaining in delivering that one venomous note, though frankly the film actually could have let her play it up even more since the intentions of Hopper are so simply used)

Lane & Fanning - 3(Both are good in just portraying a quiet warmth with just the right passionate disapproval at times when it is required that they question Trumbo. They're not given too much to do but they do well with what they have)

Louis C.K. - 4(As basically Zero Mostel in The Front he's moving in portraying the slow deterioration of his character as he portrays an earnest passion that he shows gradually wains as he cannot find solace. In addition he finds the right tone for his performance as he has edges of sardonic humor yet he never allows this to overwhelm his character, still keeping the poignancy well intact)

Goodman - 3.5(Felt a little bit like he ran out of Coen Brothers film. Goodman is enjoyable in portraying basically a more supportive version of Mike Starr's character in Ed Wood. He's makes him the crass shlockmeister he should be. He's also a bit fun in his few asides with Stephen Root, whose also fun as his meeker brother.)

Elliot - 1.5(Felt his performance to be a weak John Wayne imitation but worse than that his whole performance is controlled by that imitation. Never felt like more than just an act that would be more fitting in a comedy sketch.)

O'Gorman - 1.5(Same as Elliot really except its a Kirk Douglas imitation)

Berkel - 3(Felt his Otto Preminger imitation was a bit better, but it was probably helped by the fact that his character was only really there to be funny, which luckily he was)

Stuhlbarg - 3.5(He really does not bother to imitate Edward G. Robinson at all, which is probably the better idea since he actually does not seem like simply a parody. Stuhlbarg instead tries to find just sort of the essence of his style, and the emotional truth of how he is as a character. This is not Martin Landau in Ed Wood mind you, but Stuhlbarg manages to make his portrayal of Robinson's struggle rather affecting. Though it should be noted that the film unfairly treats Robinson.)

Luke Higham said...

I guess Fassbender's gonna be reviewed next, then Damon and DiCaprio to finish off.

Michael McCarthy said...

Unless Louis chooses to review those two last to mess with me. Which admittedly is probably lots of fun.

Michael McCarthy said...

Also I still don't think it's fair that Elliott and O'Gorman are the same rating. Yeah Elliott went a little overboard, but at least the stiffness kind of works for Wayne. O'Gorman came off like Douglas was treating constipation with horse tranquilizers.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Who would be your cast and director for:
Blood Simple (1940's version)
Raising Arizona (1950's version)
Memento (1960's version)
Insomnia (1970's version)

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Blood Simple (1940's directed by H. Bruce Humberstone)

Ray: Victor Mature
Abby: Susan Hayward
Julian: Ed Begley
Visser: William Bendix

Raising Arizona (1950's directed by Billy Wilder)

Herbert: Alan Arkin
Ed: Lee Remick
Nathan Arizona: Frank Overton
Gale: Robert Strauss
Evelle: Darren McGavin
Leonard Smalls: Neville Brand

Memento (1960's directed by Stanley Kubrick)

Leonard: Robert Shaw
Natalie: Janet Leigh
Teddy: Vincent Price
Burt: Peter Bull
Sammy: Hume Cronyn
Mrs. Jankins: Jessica Tandy
Jimmy: Timothy Carey

Insomnia (1970's directed by Francis Ford Coppola)

Detective Dormer: Marlon Brando
Finch: Art Carney
Ellie: Stockard Channing

Anonymous said...

Louis: Do you think Edward G. Robinson was ever close to getting an Oscar nomination?

Matt Mustin said...

Haven't seen this, but the words "Academy Award Nominee Bryan Cranston" are just so beautiful to me.

Robert MacFarlane said...

By the way Louis, when I rewatched Fury Road, I ended up coming around to your opinion on Hardy.

Luke Higham said...

My Top 15 Films of 2015.
1. Mad Max: Fury Road
2. Brooklyn
3. Carol
4. The Revenant
5. The Hateful Eight
6. Star Wars: The Force Awakens
7. Spotlight
8. Macbeth
9. Sicario
10. Beasts Of No Nation
11. Room
12. Anomalisa
13. Shaun The Sheep Movie
14. Bone Tomahawk
15. Far From The Madding Crowd

Deiner said...

Great review Louis, and I agree with your rating.

Calvin Law said...

Luke:
1. Carol
2. Brooklyn
3. Creed
4. The Martian
5. Star Wars: The Force Awakens
6. The Hateful Eight
7. Mad Max: Fury Road
8. The End of the Tour
9. Sicario
10. Ex Machina
11. Mr Holmes
12. The Revenant
13. Spotlight
14. Bridge of Spies
15. Spectre

Calvin Law said...

Ooh actually, Room would be in 12.

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: Forgot about Creed and Ex Machina, both are #11 and 12.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Did you see Macbeth.

Michael Patison said...

Luke: I just requested access to the document but then realized it was for an email I've forgotten the password for, so my email is: jmpatison003@swbell.net

Luke Higham said...

Michael Patison: I've sent it to you. If there's anything else you'd like to request, just ask and I'll work on it and send it to you.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

He quite possibly was number 6 for Double Indemnity or not even close. It's really hard to tell in the 30's and 40's considering how random some of the nominations could seem.

Robert:

Glad to hear that.

Deiner:

Thanks.

Luke:

I've seen it.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your thoughts on it and ratings and thoughts on the cast.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Have you finished Wolf Hall, if you have, I'll ask for your thoughts on the next review.

Anonymous said...

Louis: One final premake question. Who would be your cast and director for:
Apocalypse Now (1940's and 1950's version)

Michael Patison said...

Louis: Just curious and I don't mean this to sound accusatory at all. I really am just curious, so hear me out.

What is it about female performances that keeps you from giving more of them 4.5s and 5s? Actresses undoubtedly still have a massively hard time getting great parts written for them in any kind of sizable quantity, and it's been that way for 80+ years. We all know that, so the relative lack of 5s and 4.5s handed out to actresses compared to actors is understandable. But even this year, most certainly a banner year where women in film is concerned (you need only see that 4/5 nominees are at least great if not incredible), will almost certainly see you hand out quite a few more 5s and 4.5s to men than to women. I know the odds are still not nearly even in this battle of the sexes, but I think my original question still stands for another reason.

There are some performances that are widely acclaimed that you either have no taste for at all or that you think are very good, but not quite as great as everybody else. Bette Davis in All About Eve springs to mind (mostly because it's my favorite female performance of all time, but still).

Is there something (or some things) actresses tend to do acting-wise that ruffles your feathers and keeps their 4.5 from being a 5 or their 4 from a 4.5 right on down the line? I'd be interested, mostly just because I find the method behind your grading to be really interesting.

Luke Higham said...

Michael Patison: Did you like the document.

Michael Patison said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Patison said...

Yeah no it's a great start. I was a little disappointed it only listed the 5s and the 4.5s. I was hoping it had all of his female top 5s and/or 10s, but it's no big deal. It'll give me something to do this weekend while I watch my Toffees in all likelihood blow a 2-goal lead with 20 minutes to play against a side fourth from bottom.

Luke Higham said...

Michael Patison: I'll try and get you those lists sometime in the very near future. :)

I hope my beloved Blues don't get relegated. :)

Calvin Law said...

Oh Chelsea *shakes head*

Michael Patison said...

If that involves going through all of the comments sections, then I'd feel terrible if you did that and I didn't offer to help.

Haha As much as I dislike them, it'd be bad for the PL if they did. I don't know what's wrong with them this season, but I'd be incredibly surprised if they do something even remotely similar next season. Plus I don't think they will. That being said, it would be fascinating seeing who would stay and who would go if they got relegated. Anyway, here's my top 5 and bottom 3 predictions:
1. Arsenal
2. Manchester City
3. Manchester United
4. Tottenham Hotspur (they'll choke, but not bad enough)
5. West Ham United
I think 6 and 7 with be Leicester City and Stoke, the latter relying on the continuation of the form they've been in since October, otherwise the Red Shite sneak in. If we (Everton) could figure out how to shut up shop we'd be in the top 5 I, think, or close to it, so I could potentially see us fighting for 5th if we can start finishing out matches, but not 4th, which is where we'll need to be to guarantee we keep Stones, Barkley, and Lukaku.

18. Swansea
19. Sunderland (I think we'll have to settle for only getting 9 installations of The Great Escape)
20. Aston Villa (They're fucked, though they have already surpassed Derby's record-low points total)
All I know is that Bournemouth isn't going down, especially when Wilson returns in a month or two, which is when it all really counts, and because Eddie Howe is everything Sean Dyche isn't, most notably managing a team with more than 3 players good enough to play top division level and not being ginger. Newcastle will catch a break sooner or later cause their playing terrific ball right now just without the final result to show for it (much like Everton, who just weren't shit to start the season), so they won't go down either. That leaves either Norwich or Swansea, and I think sacking Garry Monk was a poor decision despite the run of results, and it's even worse because they can't put the ball in the back of the net like at all. The Dutch Disaster will get your Blues enough cringeworthy draws to keep them afloat, while West Brom will be vintage Pulis and survive by playing football that's good for only one thing: eyeball-gouging. Other than that I don't see anybody struggling to get the points they need for survival.

It'll take low 80s to win the league and 35 at most (balls deep I'd go 33) to stay up.

Wow, that was much longer than I intended. Oh well, sue me.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Apocalypse Now 40's directed by Carol Reed:

Willard: Trevor Howard
Kurtz: Charles Laughton
Killgore: Clark Gable (An American Escort)
Hicks: George Sanders
Chief: Bernard Lee
Lance: Richard Burton
Miller: Ian Holm
Corman: Ralph Richardson
Lucas: Peter Ustinov
The Photojournalist: Peter Finch

50's directed by Fred Zinnemann:

Willard: William Holden
Kurtz: Henry Fonda
Killgore: Lee J Cobb
Hicks: Edward Binns
Chief: Ernest Borgnine
Lance: Charles Grodin
Miller: Tommy Kirk
Corman: Pat O'Brien
Lucas: Jason Robards
The Photojournalist: Jack Lemmon

Luke:

Macbeth certainly is a film where I see how its been divisive but when you're adapting Shakespeare you better have a vision which Kurzel certainly does. In terms of the additional written elements I found them a rather fascinating addition particularly Macbeth's child, which I found added a lot. Past that though Kurzel direction enlivened certain scenes masterfully, though I did feel it became just a bit indulgent with the opening battle sequence. It's a striking adaptation to be sure, it does not best Throne of Blood, but that's a tall order.

Cotillard - 5(Loved her performance really as I found she found a her own ground with a role that's definitely been played many ways. It's intriguing that making Lady Macbeth French actually brought something, and Cotillard played along with this brilliantly in the way she suggested a certain detachment in Lady Macbeth in terms of her interactions with those other than Macbeth. I liked that in a way there was something less overtly devious in her rendition, and almost a hint as though she's working just a foreigner seeing an advantage. With that she is very effective in portraying the development of Lady Macbeth not as a madness, but rather a growing depression which she fosters from the beginning right up until her outstanding final monologue)

Harris - 4(Thought he was quite good in depicting the honest man of the story in the straight forward way he should be depicted. I liked how he matched the right intensity needed for the part, particularly in the final duel, but also brought an understated tenderness that alluded to the goodness of Macduff)

Considine - 3.5(I'd say Banquo probably has fewer lines than even usual but Considine does a lot with the little time he has. You really feel a camaraderie just in his interactions with Fassbender and he sufficiently haunting in his last scene (no puns intended with that))

Debicki - 3(Did pretty much as much as she could and is appropriately heartbreaking in her very brief screen time.)

Thewlis - (Do I even need to say it anymore)

Michael:

Well I've got several answers for you.

The first being I think it is fair, as you mentioned, to say men more often get juicier roles particularly when it comes to supporting performances.

Second is the focus of blog, which only occurred because of when I started there were several blogs focused solely on female performances, that's why I did solely male performances. Now I mention that because my focus in terms of film viewing has skewed more towards film featuring notable male performances, so I would say I've seen fewer female performances in a given year, though I've been trying to fix that lately.

Third is the reviews. Many times my enthusiasm for a performance will increase when I try to examine the work in closer detail and summarize what exactly I liked about them.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: I'm glad you liked it. :)

What's Cotillard's placement and where would you rank her. I personally think she's supporting and am having a hard time choosing either her or Vikander as my runner up for 2015.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Your top ten for Cinematography this year.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: You've only got one possible Female 5 left to see in Bel Powley's work in The Diary Of A Teenage Girl, which I hope you'll watch sometime during the alternates.

Anonymous said...

Louis: What about an American version of Apocalypse Now in the 1940's? Who would be your cast and director?

Luke Higham said...

My Early Alternate Lead Suggestions
Jason Bateman in The Gift
Ben Mendelsohn in Mississippi Grind
Tom Hardy in Legend
Michael Fassbender in Macbeth
Ian McKellen in Mr. Holmes
Jason Segel in The End Of The Tour
Abraham Attah in Beasts Of No Nation (Would be nice if you reviewed Tremblay as well)
Ben Foster in The Program
Tom Courtenay in 45 Years
Michael B. Jordan in Creed

Alex Marqués said...

I second that list.

Anonymous said...

Louis do you reckon actors like Paul Dano and Johnny Depp could be put in the bonus lineup instead of the alternate perhaps?

Luke Higham said...

Anonymous: I doubt he's gonna do that I'm afraid. :(

GM said...

Tremblay is not a lock?

Luke Higham said...

GM: He might review Attah and Tremblay simultaneously. Attah's my favourite of the two best child performances of the year and I'm sure Louis feels the same way. Tremblay's really great as well.

Alex Marqués said...

GM: Are you going to review the actress line-up from 2015?

Michael McCarthy said...

I see no reason why Attah and Tremblay should be reviewed together. They gave two completely different performances in two completely different films.

Luke Higham said...

Michael McCarthy: They're Child performances though.

Michael McCarthy said...

So what? They still have nothing to do with each other.

Luke Higham said...

Michael McCarthy: You want Tremblay, I want Attah and quite frankly, the latter's more likely.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I'm with Michael on this one.

Luke Higham said...

Michael & Robert: Fair enough, At the end of the day, I'd like everyone to be satisfied.

Calvin Law said...

I don't mind so long as Louis chooses the performances he wants. Mendehlson and Bateman are the requests and I feel like they're both solid 5's so happy with that.

Other than those two, I would love to see Attah, Jordan, McKellen and Segel in the lineup, but any performance in Lead this year will be interesting to read about.

Calvin Law said...

Luke: What might work better actually, is if Louis reviews Attah and Elba together.

Calvin Law said...

Which would make enough space for the following lineup (still kind of hoping Depp will get a review):
Tremblay
Mendehlson
Bateman
McKellen
Segel
Courtenay
Hardy
Fassbender
Foster
Jordan

Possibilities: Dano/Cusack, Depp

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: That's a good idea. :) I doubt Louis' gonna make an exception though. :(

I might actually change one of my requests, though one that's very likely to be reviewed otherwise.

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: Don't worry, I'll save it until he posts his Lead Lineup. :)

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: By the way, you misspelt Mendelsohn. :)

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Cotillard's my runner-up. She's supporting I actually found all the category placement talk for her strange, since have they never seen an adaptation of Macbeth before? Lady Macbeth is a very important and substantial role, but its still Macbeth's story.

I've actually watched Diary of a Teenage Girl a bit ago, but I did not have the heart to tell Robert, because I kind of hated the film. I don't have thoughts to give on Powley at the moment because I feel I'd have to re-watch the film to really give her performance a fair shake, but I'll admit that I'm in no hurry to do so.

Cinematography:

1. The Revenant
2. Mad Max: Fury Road
3. Sicario
4. Creed
5. Macbeth
6. The Hateful Eight
7. Carol
8. Brooklyn
9. Bridge of Spies
10. Spectre


Anonymous:

Apocalypse Now 40's directed by William Wyler:

Willard: Dana Andrews
Kurtz: Edward G. Robinson
Killgore: James Cagney
Hicks: Lon Chaney Jr.
Chief: Burgess Meredith
Lance: Tony Curtis
Miller: Don Murray
Corman: Herbert Marshall
Lucas: Karl Malden
The Photojournalist: John Carradine

Robert MacFarlane said...

Don't give any thoughts on it. My poor heart can't take it.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Just give it a week and then go off on Diary.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: With Cotillard's Five, Supporting Actress has had more fives than in any other year.