Ralph Fiennes makes his directorial debut and stars in the titular role of the man eventually dubbed Coriolanus. It is always interesting to see exactly how an actor performs when he is directing himself especially in a leading role. Anyway the story begins with the common people launching a protest at their government with the focus being against Caius himself. Fiennes makes his entrance to confront the mob, and he establishes the character incredibly well. He bares the facial scars of a soldier who has seen many battles, but also the mental scars. In Fiennes's eyes there is the wear of many conflicts as he presents Caius as man truly hardened by his life. Fiennes is one of the masters of intensity and one of the best used examples of this is in his first scene of this film. All the rage and the hate needed for such a life is within his strict yet volcanic manner. Fiennes reveals a man ready to burst due to his past, especially when he sees a seemingly ungrateful mob dismissing his personal sacrifices.
Caius and the people avoid a direct conflict as he commands the situation. Fiennes proves himself to be an extremely strong Shakespearean actor as the language flows so naturally, and so effectively from him. Fiennes brings the overpowering presence needed for a great general as he dominates with every word and gesture towards the crowd. It is not a clear victory though as the people's disdain is still known to him, and Fiennes importantly portrays the way this outrages the man, however he avoids acting out after the crowd has been calmed. Caius is soon called upon to save Rome again by confronting the commander of the opposing Volscian army Tullus Aufidius(a surprisingly good Gerard Butler). Fiennes is excellent in the war scenes we do see as he essentially portrays his certain devotion to the state of Rome through the devotion to the battle. Fiennes brings the conviction of a true soldier in these scenes. He also reflects the severity of the situation, and active wear caused by the stress of the situation in every halted breath.
After yet another success in battle he is only held in higher regard by the elite of Rome as he is not only given the title of Coriolanus but he begins a political career as well. Caius is triumphant but Fiennes effectively realizes a palatable discontent in Caius. Fiennes suggests an unease due to no longer being a war. Fiennes is excellent by finding the complexity of this state as the war, which paints his body with wounds, is also what he has been so acclimated to that he can understand little else. As Caius becomes senator Fiennes portrays only a growing disdain which exacerbates severely when the commoners once again use him as a specific target for attack. Now this I imagine leads to the more divisive moments in Fiennes's performance as Caius lashes out against the people. Although it is Fiennes unbound, not even held back by a director after all, but I actually find it is absolutely fitting to the character. The sheer hatred that Fiennes unleashes is equal to man having pent it up for far too long as well as makes Caius seem a monster to the masses .This makes the result of the outburst convincing as public outcry causes Caius to be banished from Rome.
There's brief scene where we see Caius wandering alone which is a pivotal moment in Fienne's performance. Fiennes is rather moving and uses well as he shows the actual vulnerability in the man after this defeat that establishes what Caius has lost. Eventually Caius finds Aufidius and his men who end up embracing their former enemy. There are few words that explain this yet it is made believable by both Butler and Fiennes as they convey the earnest respect between the two in every glance. Fiennes goes further to also show a certain comfort in Caius as he interacts with men who lived the same life he has. There is no longer the same type of repressed anger, though that is not to say the man no longer hates. Caius though now directly hates by swearing vengeance against Rome, and joins with Aufidius and his men to destroy his former home. Fiennes in these scenes essentially becomes the villain, or at least the dictator that his critics had claimed to be. Fiennes internalizes the intensity though now of a man with a specific purpose. With that purpose Fiennes loses any of that unease presenting a man made hard by war, now finding comfort in that life. The Romans attempt to assuage his rage first by various envoys, but they come to a final resort by using his family, including his wife Virgilia (Jessica Chastain) and his mother Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave), to make a final plea for him to stop. This is perhaps Fiennes strongest scene in the film. He's largely reactionary yet incredibly affecting as he portrays the way his family's words slowly wear away on him. Fiennes is terrific by just barely revealing the weakness in the armor as that vulnerability quietly returns, and we do see his love for his family. Fiennes here not only proves himself capable of directing his own performance, but also a truly capable Shakespearean actor. Fiennes finds the power in the tragedy through his portrait of soldier unable to cope with peace, but also forever damaged by war.
62 comments:
Thoughts on Butler, or are you going to save him? From the bits I saw I was shockingly impressed.
Glad to see you liked him, but I wish he'd gotten the full five. Has anyone seen The Invisible Woman? Considering he proved his ability as a director with this and that he's really one of my all-time favorite actors, I feel like should check that out soon.
I liked this performance much less. I like his quieter moments later on but I thought his loud scenes were just too much. Glad you liked him though. I also have to admit I really don't like the movie, I think that Fiennes prove himself to be quite a fine director but my problem was that I thought that most of the actors failed to make Shakespeare's words work into the modern setting of the movie. But Butler was great. What are your ratings and thoughts on Redgrave (who was great) and Chastain (who was rather weak in my opinion)?
Would give him and Butler both 4's. Good, but no McKellen in terms of implementing Shakespeare into this militaristic sort of setting.
Louis: I'm pleased you liked him. :)
I saw Finding Dory last night, not a patch on the original but still good.
Robert:
Butler - 4(The strongest performance I've seen from him. He acquits himself well with the Shakespearean words, and really is a strong fit for the role as the life soldier. Butler does not make it a thin role as just a vicious enemy though. He brings the needed degree of nuance to his performance and actually allows empathy for his character. He's especially effective in the last scene of the film where he reveals a subtle despair as he proceeds with his perceived violent duty.)
Giuseppe:
Redgrave - 4(I thought her performance worked quite well. I liked how she brought so much warmth to the role of the mother and always reinforced the idea that she definitely loved her son, which contributed greatly to the final confrontation. Her brief "mad" scene was also very well handled since she did not overplay it suggesting it more as brief bit of hysteria fitting that that the character recovers by the end.)
Chastain - 2.5(Her performance never seems to have an exact confidence about it, and there were a few moments where I felt she seemed a little Romeo + Juliet, although never quite that bad. It also does not help that it's not the most substantial role. Most of her scenes are dominated by Volumnia, although that might be due to the performances as well)
Incidentally my favorite performance from the film is actually the one person no one has mentioned, hint his last name rhymes with box.
Louis: Rating and thoughts on Cox or are you saving him.
Luke:
I'll save him for the time being.
Now that you mention it, Cox was rather good. I should probably re-watch this.
On a seperate note, Tom Hiddleston's Coriolanus is rather excellent too. He's quite adept at the Shakesperean language, and was also pretty good in the Hollow Crown series (and before you ask Luke, I'm afraid I haven't checked out the new series yet, but apparently Tom Sturridge gives a good performance, so definitely intriguing).
Apparently Sturridge is stage-trained (he has a Tony nomination), so maybe Shakespeare works better for him?
Calvin: My appreciation for his work has gone up a lot since my first viewing in both parts of Henry VI and is a strong 4.5, though I absolutely love Cumberbatch and Okonedo.
Calvin: Now that you mention that, could be the case. Granted, I've only seen him in The Boat that Rocked (where he was bland) and FFTMC (where I thought he gave the worst performance of 2015, yes worse than Redmayne because he wasn't entertaining), so maybe he's usually more adept anyway.
Luke: Funnily enough, the responses I've read have veered to unanimously positive on Okonedo and Sturridge, whereas Cumberbatch veers between 'he was GREAT' to 'he was TERRIBLE'.
Calvin: I actually think it's his best work, though I have a few mates who thought he was a bit too theatrical with some of Richard's well known moments.
Louis: Your thoughts on:
John Gielgud
Malcolm McDowell
Ben Whishaw
Cillian Murphy
Benedict Cumberbatch
Eddie Redmayne
Mads Mikkelsen
Max Von Sydow
Louis: What are your overall thoughts on these actors:
Al Pacino
Robert De Niro
Jack Nicholson
Dustin Hoffman
Gene Hackman
Robert Duvall
Luke: Gielgud - (Could do standard proper elderly British man better than anyone as he usually managed to bring some wry humor to the role, even when it was not even necessarily there to begin with. He largely played these sort of roles, but he did them well. Although many of these parts could be similair he certainly knew how to find variation within them as well whether it be more menacing like in Gandhi or more welcoming like in The Elephant Man. If there was more complexity possible in a role though he'd always find it, and if it was a bit more outside this comfort zone such as in Julius Caesar or Providence he would thrive as well. He was a welcome in presence in almost any film he'd appear in. I suppose I should note, though I need to see more from his early film work, but judging only by Secret Agent it might have took him some time to get comfortable with film)
Louis: Your thoughts on Leonardo DiCaprio.
Anonymous: Thanks.
Louis: Your cast and director for a 1960's version of Quiz Show.
How about Ernest Borgnine as Herb Stempel, and Paul Scofield as Charles Van Doren?
I feel like someone more fresh faced would be more suited for Van Doren, maybe George Segal?
Yeah Segal would be great, actually.
Just watched Eastern Promises. Thoughts on Vincent Cassel's performance anyone? Viggo, as usual, was outstanding.hc
94dfk1: He was fine to me.
Cassel was very good, especially in his final scene, but I feel like his character had a lot more potential than what was utilized. That's a film in which a sequel could prove to be most intriguing.
Louis: Thoughts on Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, Rock Hudson
Watched Suicide Squad yesterday, I found it terrible. It basically ignores everything I look for in a movie.
Has anyone else seen The Lobster? I just watched it and I think it was good, but hell knows.
I saw The Lobster. Liked the first 45 minutes. Hated the rest.
Just watched Demolition. It was average at best.
Robert: Yeah I also felt the first half was very strong... it's just that halfway through the movie there were a few scenes that were a bit too much for me in terms of change of tone...
Louis: your thoughts/rating for Forest Whitaker in The Crying Game.
I agree about Demolition. Not even Gyllenhaal's performance has been staying with me.
Yeah, Jake isn't really sticking with me either.
He's my #2 for the year, Cheadle is easily my winner though and Gyllenhaal could easily be interchangeable with my #3 Yelchin, #4 Shannon and #5 Crowe/Gosling.
*so far
At the current moment, I'd go:
1. Viggo Mortensen in Captain Fantastic
2. Logan Lerman in Indignation (terrible movie, but he sells the shit out of it)
3. & 4. Dano and Ratcliffe in Swiss Army Man
5. Russell Crowe in The Nice Guys
At the moment I think:
1. Mortensen
2. Yelchin
3. Radcliffe
4. Downey
5. Uhhh Gosling I think?
Wow, that Rogue One trailer sold me.
Yep . I am sold as well.
Luke:
Malcolm McDowell - (Malcolm McDowell is an actor who now seems to be frequently cast as a "British person" literally in the case of a South Park episode. Judging by his excellent performance in A Clockwork Orange and Ganger No. 1, if the material is present McDowell more than delivers with his aggressive performance style. When he's playing just the British guy role, perhaps turned down by Terence Stamp, he's usually still good if a bit standard. I wish he'd get a juicy role again one of these days since I know he can be better than standard.)
Ben Whishaw - (Whishaw currently seems stuck in the same place as David Thewlis is currently in, playing very minor roles in prestige dramas. He's too young and talented for that! Whishaw is fine in those roles, and with meatier ones, like Cloud Atlas, he's capable such powerful yet understated work. Whishaw has not been given enough chances, and I wish he had a higher stature than some of his contemporaries, particularly one I'm going to get to in a moments or two. It's especially a shame since it would be so easy to see how he possibly could have brought so much more to some of the lead roles that he had to play second fiddle to.)
Cillian Murphy - (Murphy has an angular face which means he had to play a creep. Luckily Murphy is pretty good at that. Luckily as well he's been given the chance to branch out into leading roles more than you might expect. He's consistently intriguing actor taking roles in a different direction than you might expect. He's always an engaging performer, and it's a terrible thing whenever he's pressed into the background.)
Benedict Cumberbatch - (Cumberbatch has a great voice that needs to be said. He also is rather captivating in leading roles as cerebral men. However often in smaller supporting roles, especially when they require accents, Cumberbatch can flounder a bit. This leads him to stand out in a bad way. Now that's not true with all his supporting work, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is an early gem from him but once again that as a certain sort. His range might actually be fairly limited, but in his comfort zone he excels. As his career goes it will be interesting to see if he does manage to break out successfully from his mold, or if he'll just stick to finding the right variations within what he does best.)
Eddie Redmayne - (Ah old Redmayne. I have to put my cards on the table, the man has a punchable face, there I said it. Okay that only has a bit to do with him as an actor though. Well that being he'll make weird faces for some reason. Redmayne has some talent I'll give him that, but he also is perhaps a bit too daring for the amount he has. He has guts, he'll go off on the most dangerous of limbs, and fall terribly as seen in The Good Shepherd, The Danish Girl, and of course the one and only Jupiter Ascending.)
Mads Mikkelsen - (Ahh the Euron that should have been. Mikkelsen's another one I'll freely admit I need to see more of. What I have seen is that he's a uniquely compelling onscreen presence, and I only want to see more.)
Max Von Sydow - (One of the most consistent actors of all time, and he's been around for a long time. I don't think I've ever seen a performance of his that I've genuinely disliked. Von Sydow someone whose capable of chewing the scenery so effectively yet also capable of such poignant subtle performances as well. After all he's someone who excelled with both Ingmar Bergman and Flash Gordon of all things. He's an effortlessly captivating performer, a living cinematic legend.)
DiCaprio - (One of the few true box office draws around still, and a legitimate movie star. DiCaprio seems like he is possibly his own worst enemy in a way. It seems that he's a hard working actor who clearly takes his time in terms of choosing his projects, and usually chooses well. Now this has earned him some criticism as well a "tryhard". That can be easily seen as in his worst one does not think he's not giving his all, he's just giving his all in the wrong direction. This unfortunately also keeps him sometimes from utilizing his considerable charm. When DiCaprio pulls back a bit there is such an ease in his performances, that helped him to stardom with Titanic, and his career best with The Wolf of Wall Street. I personally don't think when he "tries" he's automatically bad, but then again there's no reason for him to waste some of his best assets as an actor)
Anonymous:
Al Pacino/Robert De Niro/Jack Nicholson - (The fall and rise of the big three. These are the three that are touted as the best the 70's had to offer. To be fair all three of them did incredible work in that decade. Pacino with his intensity, also his charm in couple of rare ventures, De Niro and his physicality, and Nicholson with his tremendous charisma. All three came into their own, but perhaps there was a modesty there. What defined each of them was that all of their raw talent always felt in service to their characters, and this resulted in one great performance after another. For De Niro this continued all the way until Goodfellas really. His fall came seemingly from a lack of interest later on. A bad De Niro performance is usually just boring, which is kind of the worst kind of bad performance unfortunately. As the years have progressed he'll show up to work, but not often enough. Pacino's downfall came by the way of becoming one of the biggest HAMS known to man. Now Pacino goes all in when goes all HAM. It can occasionally be entertaining, but it usually doesn't work as it just becomes too much. His best work from his later career is when he goes subdued which always proves he's lost none of his talent. Pacino perhaps took the wrong idea from what became his most iconic post-70's character and what he won his Oscar for. Nicholson followed a similair course. His personal style, which was so captivating in the 70's, started to feel like self-indulgent showboating where Nicholson came first the character came a distant second. Basically all of Nicholson's best performance post-70's are subdued, where he, or the director, forces him to pull back in service to the role. All three deserved the stature they attained, even if that stature may have caused them to become far less compelling performers over the years.)
Dustin Hoffman - (Hoffman broke out a bit before the the aforementioned three, and I don't think he had the same trajectory. He started strong, had his best performance pretty early on. For me, though he's gone from decent, to good, sometimes very good, to okay, for basically the rest of his career. He kind of willingly allowed himself to lose the same sort of status as an actor as he just started to appear in minor roles even when leading ones did not appear to be sparse. He's transitioned to a more than decent character actor. Perhaps he peaked early, but that's okay.)
Gene Hackman/Robert Duvall - (The two true acting giants of the 70's even if they are not held in the same regard as De Niro, Pacino or Nicholson in the broad general sense, for whatever reason. Perhaps it was because they were somewhat notable character actors already in the 60's, maybe it's because they're bald, or maybe they're just too damn good. The two of them are two of the greatest who have ever lived. I have not seen a bad performance from either of them, and never have seen them phone it in. The two of them never had a phase. Given the stories about Hackman on the Royal Tenenbaums it's remarkable how great he was in that role. The two both seemed to stress being believable above all else. They both have excelled as extroverts, as introverts, in subtle quiet roles, or in broad extremely entertaining roles. The two delivered from decade to decade, role to role, and it is quite bizarre that they are some how kind of underrated.)
John Smith:
Liam Neeson - (Neeson has had such a strange career trajectory starting off in serious dramas, falling into mentor roles, then coming back as an aged badass. Not a standard career progression. Neeson as an actor maybe does not have the broadest of ranges, emotional or otherwise, but the man has presence, intensity, a physicality, and gravitas. You might not more than that, especially in the right role, and he still has range don't get me wrong. The fact that he transitioned the way he has says something in itself.)
Ben Kingsley - (Kingsley is an inconsistent I suppose in that he can go a bit too theatrical in the wrong role or on the rare occasion can be bizarrely bland, perhaps maybe he picks a few too many of those too often. Kingsley is someone, even those too theatrical of roles, you can tell is immensely talented. A man who convincing played both Don Logan and Gandhi would have to be. When the role and Kingsley are in tandem, which can be quite the variety as he has a great range. There's not an exact logic for when Kingsley doesn't quite work because he has excelled in the grand, the vicious, the meek, and so many in between.)
Rock Hudson - (I've found him to be fairly bland in the dramatic roles I've seen him in. I rather liked him in the one romantic comedy leading role I've seen so maybe that was his calling. To tell you the truth I'd have to see more of him to know for sure.)
Anonymous:
Quiz Show late 60's:
Charles Van Doren: Robert Redford
Herb Stemple: Dustin Hoffman
Richard Goodwin: Stacy Keach
Dan Enright: Peter Falk
Mark Van Doren: Joseph Cotten
Jack Barry: James Garner
Calvin:
Whitaker - 3(His BritISH accent is a bit distracting, but not devastating to his performance. I do rather like his chemistry with Rea. I think the two very effectively grow the pivotal relationship between the too, and Whitaker makes his character endearing in his own quiet way that you also get set in Rea's mindset as well.)
Robert:
That was great.
Whitaker's accent is dreadful but I completely agree, he's grown on me so much. He's so crucial to finding that emotional basis for Rea's performance.
And yeah, count me in as sold too.
Thoughts on the Rogue One trailer:
Visually splendid.
Have a feeling there's more to Ahmed, and Mendelsohn's characters, hence why they're not revealing all that much so far.
Gonna be a Wild Bunch finale by the looks of it.
Louis: Rating and thoughts on:
Akim Tamiroff in The Great McGinty (Demarest as well) are Touch of Evil (Calleia as well)
Ralph Bellamy in His Girl Friday and Brother Orchid
Frank Morgan in The Mortal Storm
Louis Jourdan in Gigi
Louis, what's your opinion of Peter O'Toole and Paul Newman in the 60s?
Louis: Your thoughts on Viggo Mortensen, Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce, Charles Dance and Liam Cunningham.
Louis: And David Oyelowo & Chris Pine.
What a coincidence. I was about to ask what Louis thinks about Chris Pine as well.
I really like Russell Crowe as an actor. I would've gone with him instead of Tom Hanks for Cloud Atlas, since he's a little more versatile than him and is also in the same group of older actors that still get lead roles. I wasn't too crazy about him in The Nice Guys, however.
Guy Pearce is remarkable, and he should get more lead roles. Hoywood keeps trying him as a villain or as a supporting character. Hopefully, Oscar comes knocking soon.
I haven't seen much of Viggo, but he's terrific from what I've seen. His Russian accent works well and wasn't distracting in Eastern Promises.
Crowe is my favourite of that lot, he's just such a great actor overall, even in his lesser turns his talent really shines through. I need to see more of Viggo overall, but he's certainly a tremendous talent too, and is absolutely wonderful whenever he gets a big leading role to shine. Pearce actually has hit the highest highs for me amongst these actors with his wins for L.A. Confidential and Memento for me (though I'm considering changing him with Hanks in Cast Away for the latter), but also easily the lowest lows (see: Lawless).
Pearce in Lawless was a little...strange. I'm planning on checking out Captain Fantastic when it hits the home market. Those types of films don't usually come out where I live.
Pearce in Lawless might be my least favorite performance of the current decade. And I say this as someone who defends the man in Iron Man 3.
I hated him in Iron Man 3 too, and Prometheus. He can be actively dreadful, which is so bizzare because in his best performances he's so effortlessly great. His performance in L.A. Confidential is a close second to Spacey for me in its ensemble.
*I personally hated him
I give him a pass for Iron Man 3 since his delivery for the "Toast of Croydon" speech was marvelous.
I finally got around to watching this film. I have mixed feelings about the film itself but I strongly agree with your thoughts and rating of Fiennes. Louis what did you think of the film as a whole, did you like it?
Anonymous:
Tamiroff - The Great McGinty - 3.5(Tamiroff chronic overacting is a good fit for Preston Sturges's style. He's pretty funny here putting the appropriate degree of sleaze in his political machinist)
Tamiroff - The Touch of Evil - 3(His performance works here as well as his constant fussiness represents well his character's nervousness. He's good at being a hopelessly foolish crime boss, and is great to see him crumble in his scenes with Welles.)
Demarest - 3.5(Demarest + Struges = comic gold. Less of him here, but still enough.)
I believe I covered Calleia before.
Ralph Bellamy - His Girl Friday - 3.5(An entertaining performance as he once again works well as a foil for Grant. I'd say The Awful Truth still stands as his best version, but this is a fine pseudo reprise.)
Brother Orchid - 3(A simpler version of his other man routine, given that his character does not even mind being put second. He's enjoyable as usual while putting a bit more emphasis on the southern upbringing in this one.)
Frank Morgan - 3.5(It's a fairly brief performance but a rather affecting one. He's of course good at making you like this old man who he shows in a very dignified light. He's incredibly moving though in his haunted reactions at seeing the way the world changes around him.)
Jourdan - 1.5(I do not care for the film, and he does not help. He gives a bland performance as usual. He lacks the charm and presence to make up for the already extremely lackluster material.)
Luke:
Viggo Mortensen - (One of the best working actors and also one of the most underrated. Mortensen is an another actor that I can say I've yet to be disappointed by. When the film is lacking Mortensen still is the standout, even when he has a less showy role he still delivers. If he has meaty role he is always amazing. He also has such a strong range emotionally, and in terms of the variety of roles he can excel in.)
Russell Crowe - (He's someone with an old school presence that is such a genuine rarity to begin with which he knows how to use to such great effect. Crowe commands the screen like few others while still being incredibly adept at finding the needed nuance in his roles. Crowe usually understands his range incredibly well finding a wide variation within it.)
Guy Pearce - (Ah the man who looks like a movie star, but just never became one despite even having the charisma. Pearce though is a great actor well except as villains. To clarify that it is also only with villains that declare themselves as such. The thing is Pearce can play some dark characters, one could argue his character in The Rover is villain, but in those roles excels. If he's just a plain old baddie though he's never particularly good. Luckily the rest of the time he's good usually great. Pearce excels often bringing such emotional depth and conviction to his performances. He's one of the best working actors as well, just keep him away from those heel turns.)
Charles Dance - (You'll find few better as the man of power. Dance is an expert of the cold command, and you certainly never question his position in any role he may play. He also is perhaps a bit typecast as such since if you see his other roles, like his rendition of the Phantom or Alien 3, he has more to give as an actor than just being the stern authority figure.)
Liam Cunningham - (I'm glad Cunningham has such a juicy role on Game of Thrones since he's one of those actors who rarely has a large role, but then again he also always delivers. A truly great character actor whose game for whatever the film or part may be. He makes whatever he's in a little better which is the sign of a great actor I'd say.)
David Oyelowo - (Well he has Selma. The rest of what I've seen he's usually passable but sometimes an underwhelming actor. He performances sometimes can be a bit theatrical or just kind of thin. Given what he did in Selma I'm optimistic to see where he goes from here though.)
Chris Pine - (He's actually a bit like Brad Pitt, in that he's a character actor in spirit a leading man in body. Pine is usually decent enough in his leading performances, but he leaves a much stronger impression when he lets loose in those supporting role.)
Deiner:
I thought it was a good but not great Shakespearean adaptation. Fiennes's use of the setting was interesting though somewhat inconsistent in how effectively he used it throughout the film. There were moments in the story that he absolutely hit the mark with while others had a more muted impact. I liked the film but it was not without flaws.
Louis: What do you think of the score for Batman: The Mask of the Phantasm? I think it's quite great and underrated.
Post a Comment