Robert Shaw in Battle of the Bulge
Richard Harris in Major Dundee
Claude Rains in The Greatest Story Ever Told
Charlton Heston in The Greatest Story Ever Told
Donald Pleasence in The Greatest Story Ever Told
Friday, 29 December 2017
Alternate Best Supporting Actor 1965
Robert Shaw in Battle of the Bulge
Richard Harris in Major Dundee
Claude Rains in The Greatest Story Ever Told
Charlton Heston in The Greatest Story Ever Told
Donald Pleasence in The Greatest Story Ever Told
Thursday, 28 December 2017
Alternate Best Actor 1965: Results
Best Scene: Seizure
Best Scene: First meeting the princesses.
Best Scene: Recovering from his wound.
Best Scene: Waiting inside during the deportation.
Best Scene: The battle.
Next Year: 1965 Supporting
Alternate Best Actor 1965: Lou Castel in Fists in the Pocket
Lou Castel did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Alessandro in Fists in the Pocket.
Fists in the Pocket I found a mostly tiresome exercise about a brother of a family taking a most extreme measure to "cure" his family's dysfunction.
Now I write that it feels as a tiresome exercise because the whole plot setup feels a contrivance for a bit of dark storytelling about this family whom the majority of suffer from epilepsy with only the eldest brother capable of providing a living for his family. The youngest brother though decides to fix this that being Castel's Alessandro. That is the setup however this is not granted any true credence within the film. It is a motivation presented but not earned by what we actually witness within the film which seems built around just attempting to tell this story of a single son trying to destroy his family within. The film is more akin to say Chaplin's Monsieur Verdoux in its examination of these events with a certain callousness due to the focus being on Castel's Alessandro and his way of performing the part. The motivation, while granted as some false concern for his older brother, is left to be just the actions of a full blown sociopath however this is further emphasized by making this a stylized sociopath by Castel's portrayal. Castel seems to wish to evoke a young Marlon Brando with his work however he is more than few charisma points short for that coming closer to a precursor of sorts to Brad Dourif.
Castel's performance is quiet and intense as a proper Brandoian turn should be however he doesn't succeed in being that in any way. Castel fails to be charming being far more overtly creepy to the point that anyone should suspect him the moment anything goes wrong for anyone in his household. Castel grimaces around with a coldness that comes off as more off-putting than anything even before he starts to kill off his family members. His approach to stylize so much simplifies the part perhaps too much as even his claimed positive motivation seems a lie through his portrayal of Alessandro as so embracing of his life choices. Castel tries to be too cool for his own good even in this as he leaves the motivation to be thin finding no nuance in this. Instead Castel is content to depict Alessandro as this creeper throughout that I have to admit I found fairly tiresome fairly quickly given that give him scenes that seem to demand a more overt presence which Castel lacks. It seems as though the film would like Alessandro to be a more complicated figure to interpret however it is difficult to do so with his decidedly unpleasant work from the outset. There is no change within the character just this general petulant disdain that defines the man at all times, even his proclamations of love towards two of his siblings feel lacking given Castel's one note portrayal of the vile Alessandro. Although I would say Castel's performance could work within a different context it falters here given the greater importance given to his work. I will even grant him some credit for delivering in the epileptic seizure by throwing himself fully into the moment, but that is a minor point within the larger context of this performance. He needed to make Alessandro a far more dynamic force yet his "too cool for school" choices in developing the role leaves him a repetitious factor that simplifies the story to the point it becomes frankly boring despite its content.
Now I write that it feels as a tiresome exercise because the whole plot setup feels a contrivance for a bit of dark storytelling about this family whom the majority of suffer from epilepsy with only the eldest brother capable of providing a living for his family. The youngest brother though decides to fix this that being Castel's Alessandro. That is the setup however this is not granted any true credence within the film. It is a motivation presented but not earned by what we actually witness within the film which seems built around just attempting to tell this story of a single son trying to destroy his family within. The film is more akin to say Chaplin's Monsieur Verdoux in its examination of these events with a certain callousness due to the focus being on Castel's Alessandro and his way of performing the part. The motivation, while granted as some false concern for his older brother, is left to be just the actions of a full blown sociopath however this is further emphasized by making this a stylized sociopath by Castel's portrayal. Castel seems to wish to evoke a young Marlon Brando with his work however he is more than few charisma points short for that coming closer to a precursor of sorts to Brad Dourif.
Castel's performance is quiet and intense as a proper Brandoian turn should be however he doesn't succeed in being that in any way. Castel fails to be charming being far more overtly creepy to the point that anyone should suspect him the moment anything goes wrong for anyone in his household. Castel grimaces around with a coldness that comes off as more off-putting than anything even before he starts to kill off his family members. His approach to stylize so much simplifies the part perhaps too much as even his claimed positive motivation seems a lie through his portrayal of Alessandro as so embracing of his life choices. Castel tries to be too cool for his own good even in this as he leaves the motivation to be thin finding no nuance in this. Instead Castel is content to depict Alessandro as this creeper throughout that I have to admit I found fairly tiresome fairly quickly given that give him scenes that seem to demand a more overt presence which Castel lacks. It seems as though the film would like Alessandro to be a more complicated figure to interpret however it is difficult to do so with his decidedly unpleasant work from the outset. There is no change within the character just this general petulant disdain that defines the man at all times, even his proclamations of love towards two of his siblings feel lacking given Castel's one note portrayal of the vile Alessandro. Although I would say Castel's performance could work within a different context it falters here given the greater importance given to his work. I will even grant him some credit for delivering in the epileptic seizure by throwing himself fully into the moment, but that is a minor point within the larger context of this performance. He needed to make Alessandro a far more dynamic force yet his "too cool for school" choices in developing the role leaves him a repetitious factor that simplifies the story to the point it becomes frankly boring despite its content.
Tuesday, 26 December 2017
Alternate Best Actor 1965: Orson Welles in Chimes at Midnight
Orson Welles did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Sir John Falstaff in Chimes at Midnight.
Chimes At Midnight is a brilliant Shakespearean adaptation that reworks several of his plays to build a narrative around the supporting character of Falstaff, and his relationship with the young prince Hal aka the future Henry V.
Orson Welles's history with Shakespeare, in and outside of film, seemed often to reinvent the work of the bard through his own vision. That was found in his adaptation of Othello, where he built the central suspicion of the lead around the concern of his lack of attractiveness compared to wife, on stage his Macbeth with an all African American cast, his anti-fascist examination of Julius Caesar, really his film version Macbeth was by far was his least impressive adaptation perhaps because of how straight forward it was, his most daring work though was perhaps here through his turning John Falstaff into a lead while dramatically reworking texts into an altered narrative. Whereas as with Othello and Macbeth Welles was a rather atypical choice for the roles, it must be said Falstaff is a role Welles seemed born to play. A man of excess, a man tempted for glory, a man not opposed to go on long philosophical pondering of one matter or another. This should be a role made for Welles, and well it very much is. This match of man and role does not disappoint as evident from his very first scene where the young Prince Hal (Keith Baxter), awakens the old Knight whose purse has been stolen by another member of their group.
In the very awakening of the man Welles reveals the wholly brilliant fashion he will approach the part of Falstaff, which is pivotal in a realization of the nature of this man. Physically here this is perhaps where Welles most accepted his weight in a role as there is no attempt to hide it, in fact there seems to be the attempt to embrace it fully. Welles walks in a most fascinating way actually in that he doesn't lumber but rather has this grace. A grace though that should not exist from a man of his size yet can only be within a man of his size. When he awakens from that slumber he gets up in a way that is fitting of both a knight and a buffoon. There is that proper gait of a knight, however with the silliness of a fool that seems so natural to everything that Welles finds in this role. His whole manner is of a sheer perfection in the realization of the strange role that Falstaff fulfills in this world. It is widely evident from even a single glance that he is a fool, after all the first thing he does is fail to find what is stolen from him, however the foolishness is not in the way it would be for any man. Falstaff is of a different sort than all that and this is within the Welles carries himself with this grandeur that is worthy of a greatness, a greatness Falstaff though is not worthy of.
Falstaff's life is in a way an entirely of hypocrisy validated through his companion of the young Prince Hal, which is contrast to the rest of his entourage that is made up of thieves, whores, other lowly sorts who all congregate within a dank little tavern. The key though to Falstaff is the way the man presents himself. Welles's fantastic here, and perhaps gives his most overtly charming performance as Falstaff. Welles brings an inherent joviality within the man that exudes off of him in such a pleasant way. Welles even speaks the words themselves without distance, creating a real familiarity with the knight through every word. As the prince Hal does, it becomes very easy to love Falstaff as there seems only the most splendid of hearts within the man and through Welles's portrayal of it. There is an excessive abundance of warmth and a considerable playfulness in every moment. Welles in this way creates the greater appeal to the thievery and whoring that Falstaff encourages since it seems all but a game. A game with a most simple man to follow into every act given how disarming Falstaff is even when he charges group of men with his sword in order to rob them.
The truth of it is that Falstaff though is no ordinary buffoon but only because of only his own way of creating a certain delusion. Welles does not make this any simple creation of a delusion as it is part of Falstaff's very being. Again there is that grace which Welles captures so effectively and takes even further whenever he is called upon to for his particularly ramblings on the value of being an corpulent fool essentially. Welles in every word speaks with such unshakable pride. There is not a hint of shame but in a way that does not deter one from accepting the man's declarations. Falstaff as he even mocks Hal's father Henry IV (John Gielgud) grants only a most endearing quality to the forceful spirit of the man. It is a marvelous thing perhaps in the way Welles is wholly without a hint of malevolence for even a moment, even if his sentiment may construed as such in some way. Welles captures the firmness of Falstaff's beliefs without question. Welles speaks with the same passion, same assurance, as Henry would eventually do when leading his men into battle, it just happens that what Falstaff speaks of is the desire to continue a life of great unimportance.
Eventually the world of the outside is thrust upon Falstaff and Hal, when the young prince is needed to help his father quell an uprising within the borders of England. This is no problem it seems for Falstaff in fact Welles is something truly special in portraying the Falstaff brims with a remarkable majesty as he goes about preparing for the upcoming battle. In his full armor he suddenly seems a man who was born to battle, a warrior poet if there ever was one and Welles again is careful to hold not a whiff of loathing within a man presenting himself prepared to take on all comers. Of course when the battle itself comes the great knight hides behind bushes for the majority of the battle only coming out to claim victory for the death of the enemy leader, actually felled by Hal. Hal doesn't stop Falstaff from the credit, and only seems slightly taken aback by this act. The thing is neither did I feel the need for Falstaff to be punished. Again Welles's portrayal of the lack of shame, and the full embrace of even this cowardice someone endears one to the knight all the more. It would seem wrong for the knight to shed blood, or to not be a coward. Welles gives understanding to the man, as he finds his appeal so naturally, as every moment he is exactly who he has always been and should be.
The glory of Falstaff is a short one though when the death of Hal's father requires the young wayward boy to become a man and finally embrace his destiny as king. This though leads the Hal to directly denounce Falstaff when the old knight attempts to continue his place as his mentor even as king. Welles is indeed heartbreaking in his reaction of confusion as Falstaff is rejected, but all the same there was a devious, a charming, yet still devious grin as he spoke of claiming his new rights as friend to the king. It is with this there is this duality of the character, but only in terms of other's perspective of the man. This is both as the viewer and as Hal sees him. Welles in his own place understand that Falstaff simply is who he is, and doesn't change except towards that final depression. The duality instead comes what should one take of the man. Are his lessons worthless, is he a bad influence, or is he a charming man whose teachings were worthwhile in some way. Well all of it is true and all of it can be true through Welles's outstanding performance. Welles grants the appeal unquestionably the man, even the appeal of his hypocrisy and most problematic qualities. Welles makes Falstaff the grand yet pathetic, or perhaps pathetic yet grand man he is. He embodies that one of a kind spirit. What is perhaps the greatest achievement of this is how Welles, without changing the man at any point, allows this pathos within the often comical by showing tragedy in losing this spirit, even while showing why that spirit must be lost. This is a wonderful performance by Orson Welles, giving one of the greatest cinematic Shakespearean turns by finding the complexity within a certain simplicity and giving a real power to the story of a buffoon.
Orson Welles's history with Shakespeare, in and outside of film, seemed often to reinvent the work of the bard through his own vision. That was found in his adaptation of Othello, where he built the central suspicion of the lead around the concern of his lack of attractiveness compared to wife, on stage his Macbeth with an all African American cast, his anti-fascist examination of Julius Caesar, really his film version Macbeth was by far was his least impressive adaptation perhaps because of how straight forward it was, his most daring work though was perhaps here through his turning John Falstaff into a lead while dramatically reworking texts into an altered narrative. Whereas as with Othello and Macbeth Welles was a rather atypical choice for the roles, it must be said Falstaff is a role Welles seemed born to play. A man of excess, a man tempted for glory, a man not opposed to go on long philosophical pondering of one matter or another. This should be a role made for Welles, and well it very much is. This match of man and role does not disappoint as evident from his very first scene where the young Prince Hal (Keith Baxter), awakens the old Knight whose purse has been stolen by another member of their group.
In the very awakening of the man Welles reveals the wholly brilliant fashion he will approach the part of Falstaff, which is pivotal in a realization of the nature of this man. Physically here this is perhaps where Welles most accepted his weight in a role as there is no attempt to hide it, in fact there seems to be the attempt to embrace it fully. Welles walks in a most fascinating way actually in that he doesn't lumber but rather has this grace. A grace though that should not exist from a man of his size yet can only be within a man of his size. When he awakens from that slumber he gets up in a way that is fitting of both a knight and a buffoon. There is that proper gait of a knight, however with the silliness of a fool that seems so natural to everything that Welles finds in this role. His whole manner is of a sheer perfection in the realization of the strange role that Falstaff fulfills in this world. It is widely evident from even a single glance that he is a fool, after all the first thing he does is fail to find what is stolen from him, however the foolishness is not in the way it would be for any man. Falstaff is of a different sort than all that and this is within the Welles carries himself with this grandeur that is worthy of a greatness, a greatness Falstaff though is not worthy of.
Falstaff's life is in a way an entirely of hypocrisy validated through his companion of the young Prince Hal, which is contrast to the rest of his entourage that is made up of thieves, whores, other lowly sorts who all congregate within a dank little tavern. The key though to Falstaff is the way the man presents himself. Welles's fantastic here, and perhaps gives his most overtly charming performance as Falstaff. Welles brings an inherent joviality within the man that exudes off of him in such a pleasant way. Welles even speaks the words themselves without distance, creating a real familiarity with the knight through every word. As the prince Hal does, it becomes very easy to love Falstaff as there seems only the most splendid of hearts within the man and through Welles's portrayal of it. There is an excessive abundance of warmth and a considerable playfulness in every moment. Welles in this way creates the greater appeal to the thievery and whoring that Falstaff encourages since it seems all but a game. A game with a most simple man to follow into every act given how disarming Falstaff is even when he charges group of men with his sword in order to rob them.
The truth of it is that Falstaff though is no ordinary buffoon but only because of only his own way of creating a certain delusion. Welles does not make this any simple creation of a delusion as it is part of Falstaff's very being. Again there is that grace which Welles captures so effectively and takes even further whenever he is called upon to for his particularly ramblings on the value of being an corpulent fool essentially. Welles in every word speaks with such unshakable pride. There is not a hint of shame but in a way that does not deter one from accepting the man's declarations. Falstaff as he even mocks Hal's father Henry IV (John Gielgud) grants only a most endearing quality to the forceful spirit of the man. It is a marvelous thing perhaps in the way Welles is wholly without a hint of malevolence for even a moment, even if his sentiment may construed as such in some way. Welles captures the firmness of Falstaff's beliefs without question. Welles speaks with the same passion, same assurance, as Henry would eventually do when leading his men into battle, it just happens that what Falstaff speaks of is the desire to continue a life of great unimportance.
Eventually the world of the outside is thrust upon Falstaff and Hal, when the young prince is needed to help his father quell an uprising within the borders of England. This is no problem it seems for Falstaff in fact Welles is something truly special in portraying the Falstaff brims with a remarkable majesty as he goes about preparing for the upcoming battle. In his full armor he suddenly seems a man who was born to battle, a warrior poet if there ever was one and Welles again is careful to hold not a whiff of loathing within a man presenting himself prepared to take on all comers. Of course when the battle itself comes the great knight hides behind bushes for the majority of the battle only coming out to claim victory for the death of the enemy leader, actually felled by Hal. Hal doesn't stop Falstaff from the credit, and only seems slightly taken aback by this act. The thing is neither did I feel the need for Falstaff to be punished. Again Welles's portrayal of the lack of shame, and the full embrace of even this cowardice someone endears one to the knight all the more. It would seem wrong for the knight to shed blood, or to not be a coward. Welles gives understanding to the man, as he finds his appeal so naturally, as every moment he is exactly who he has always been and should be.
The glory of Falstaff is a short one though when the death of Hal's father requires the young wayward boy to become a man and finally embrace his destiny as king. This though leads the Hal to directly denounce Falstaff when the old knight attempts to continue his place as his mentor even as king. Welles is indeed heartbreaking in his reaction of confusion as Falstaff is rejected, but all the same there was a devious, a charming, yet still devious grin as he spoke of claiming his new rights as friend to the king. It is with this there is this duality of the character, but only in terms of other's perspective of the man. This is both as the viewer and as Hal sees him. Welles in his own place understand that Falstaff simply is who he is, and doesn't change except towards that final depression. The duality instead comes what should one take of the man. Are his lessons worthless, is he a bad influence, or is he a charming man whose teachings were worthwhile in some way. Well all of it is true and all of it can be true through Welles's outstanding performance. Welles grants the appeal unquestionably the man, even the appeal of his hypocrisy and most problematic qualities. Welles makes Falstaff the grand yet pathetic, or perhaps pathetic yet grand man he is. He embodies that one of a kind spirit. What is perhaps the greatest achievement of this is how Welles, without changing the man at any point, allows this pathos within the often comical by showing tragedy in losing this spirit, even while showing why that spirit must be lost. This is a wonderful performance by Orson Welles, giving one of the greatest cinematic Shakespearean turns by finding the complexity within a certain simplicity and giving a real power to the story of a buffoon.
Monday, 18 December 2017
Alternate Best Actor 1965: Jozef Kroner in The Shop on Main Street
Jozef Kroner did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying
Anton "Tóno" Brtko in The Shop on Main Street.
The Shop on Main Street is a powerful film depicting a carpenter's relationship with an elderly Jewish shop owner after being appointed as an Aryan overseer in Nazi occupied Czechoslovakia.
The Shop on Main Street has a somewhat interesting history with its U.S. release and the Academy Awards. The film was initially eligible for the 1965 Awards where it won best foreign language film due to the foreign submission rules. It later became a Oscar nominee the following year, due to different Oscar submission rules outside of the foreign language category, when Ida Kaminska was nominated for Best Actress. Jozef Kroner on the other hand was ignored despite the film being from his perspective to the point that Kaminska's role as the elderly Jewish button shop owner Rozalia Lautmannová really is a supporting one. The film follows the gentile in the situation who we see as a non too remarkable sort as the film opens. Kroner embodies a contentment in the discontentment. Kroner's eyes are almost glazed over as he watches soldier move through his town without a thought in his mind on the matter. He glances upon the sights of his occupied country without much interest. That contentment towards the severity of the situation facing his country Kroner portrays as coming from the discontent for his life. The discontent in his state as a poor carpenter which Kroner exudes so well with a grumbling lip, and a disposition that seems to be holding a bit of anger just in general towards his place in the world more than anything.
After a bit wallowing in himself it lashes out quite naturally towards his well to do brother-in-law, well to do by working as a collaborator with the Nazis. The lashing out scene is a great moment in Kroner's work because of how much petulance he brings to it very much emphasizing the state of the man who is more angry at his position, as well as jealous of his brother-in-law's position than anyone around him. Kroner makes this a natural starting point and carefully doesn't go too far. He doesn't make Tóno a horrible person, but certainly not a good one. He though elicits the right sympathy just by portraying Tóno as an average man's whose behavior, while not pleasant, wouldn't be deemed too terrible if he was in a simpler situation. Despite the lashing though Tóno is given a position by his brother-in-law as the assigned Aryan to manage a shop owned by the elderly widow Rozalia Lautmannová. Kroner is great in his initial scene of arriving to the shop to "take over". In part he's good in just showing a now content Tóno who walks with such pride in the shop, then breaks this down though as he depicts such awkwardness as he attempts to explain the situation to Lautmannová who is hard of hearing.
Kroner brings actually quite a bit of very natural humor to the moment by bringing such a genuine sheepishness in his depiction of the unease of Tóno as he tries to deliver some horrible news. Now the interesting things is that Kroner shows so effectively the way the seemingly now content Tóno has this moment of realization. Kroner finds this just in these early interactions by creating a sense of the empathy in Tóno towards the old woman in the situation as he struggles to even say the words. Kroner properly makes every moment of this having this tension of the man who realizes he's doing something he can't quite completely accept as right, as reinforces every moment with the right shyness that reflects this understanding of what this really means. Tóno soon learns that the woman is essentially bankrupt and the Jewish community will support him to support her. Kroner again is so good in just reflecting with such honesty the man taking all this in somewhat baffled, somewhat confused, but within his eyes the right hint of sympathy given the situation. This even includes the widow not really being all that nice to him once he starts to assist her in the shop.
Kroner in these scenes is very good in the way he makes the arc of Tóno quietly such a poignant one. On the surface he's good in again actually being a bit funny actually in showing the strange way that he physically works around the woman, as well as attempts to portray both a confidence of pretending to run the shop while trying to basically mind his manners around her. Tóno realizes this dance so well, but goes much further than this in showing the change in Tóno as he finally begins to notice what is going on around. Kroner is marvelous in the subtle way he depicts this change in his often reactionary performance. Kroner's face says so much more than so many words would in every scene. This is in the quiet appreciation of the person in the old woman, despite her misgivings towards him, but also far more in his reactions towards seeing the increasing nature of the regime in front of him. A particularly powerful moment in this regard coming when a friend of his, and supporter of the local jews is beaten and displayed for the public to see. Kroner's expression is haunting as he realizes within certainly the fear for his own fate, concern for his friend, but his eyes also convey this sense of recognition of the plight around him in general including the old Jewish woman.
This brings me to the film's finale which is an extended sequence that is dependent on Kroner's performance. It is actually a largely silent sequence as the man drinks while watching the Jews being round up for deportation from the old Jewish woman's shop, while she remains unaware of what is going on around him. Although technically it is a sparse sequence I was absolutely transfixed for every second of it, and the greatest contributor to this is Kroner's performance. Kroner is absolutely outstanding as he depicts such a vivid portrayal of the inner workings of the man's mind on this fateful day. There is not a single second wasted, and even though he only has a couple of lines, often of little importance, there is nothing vague in this performance. Kroner brings to life this struggle which he never simplifies. In his eyes, his moments of turning from the danger, or thinking of the woman he says so much without verbalizing a word. There are times again of obvious fear but that is never all there is. Kroner even in that finds the struggle within the fear of the man both at times succumbing to it, and other times feeling a different fear for the woman. Kroner projects this weight of the situation upon this man. There are times where he is selfish, other he is selfless, but it is never anything to be taken lightly. It is incredible to watch as Kroner finds the complexity of this with such an emotional impact in every moment of the man dealing with his own demons and weaknesses, while still concerning himself with the fate of this old woman. It is fascinating how much Kroner finds with this painful silence of this single horrible moment. When something finally happens that directly affects him his reaction is wholly heartbreaking and completely earned as his work to that point has so effectively brought us within the mind of this man. This is a fantastic performance as it is not a portrayal of a bad man becoming a good man. Kroner rather gives us something perhaps far more human in a man struggling with his better self, with his worse self as he faced with being responsible for more that just himself for once in his life.
The Shop on Main Street has a somewhat interesting history with its U.S. release and the Academy Awards. The film was initially eligible for the 1965 Awards where it won best foreign language film due to the foreign submission rules. It later became a Oscar nominee the following year, due to different Oscar submission rules outside of the foreign language category, when Ida Kaminska was nominated for Best Actress. Jozef Kroner on the other hand was ignored despite the film being from his perspective to the point that Kaminska's role as the elderly Jewish button shop owner Rozalia Lautmannová really is a supporting one. The film follows the gentile in the situation who we see as a non too remarkable sort as the film opens. Kroner embodies a contentment in the discontentment. Kroner's eyes are almost glazed over as he watches soldier move through his town without a thought in his mind on the matter. He glances upon the sights of his occupied country without much interest. That contentment towards the severity of the situation facing his country Kroner portrays as coming from the discontent for his life. The discontent in his state as a poor carpenter which Kroner exudes so well with a grumbling lip, and a disposition that seems to be holding a bit of anger just in general towards his place in the world more than anything.
After a bit wallowing in himself it lashes out quite naturally towards his well to do brother-in-law, well to do by working as a collaborator with the Nazis. The lashing out scene is a great moment in Kroner's work because of how much petulance he brings to it very much emphasizing the state of the man who is more angry at his position, as well as jealous of his brother-in-law's position than anyone around him. Kroner makes this a natural starting point and carefully doesn't go too far. He doesn't make Tóno a horrible person, but certainly not a good one. He though elicits the right sympathy just by portraying Tóno as an average man's whose behavior, while not pleasant, wouldn't be deemed too terrible if he was in a simpler situation. Despite the lashing though Tóno is given a position by his brother-in-law as the assigned Aryan to manage a shop owned by the elderly widow Rozalia Lautmannová. Kroner is great in his initial scene of arriving to the shop to "take over". In part he's good in just showing a now content Tóno who walks with such pride in the shop, then breaks this down though as he depicts such awkwardness as he attempts to explain the situation to Lautmannová who is hard of hearing.
Kroner brings actually quite a bit of very natural humor to the moment by bringing such a genuine sheepishness in his depiction of the unease of Tóno as he tries to deliver some horrible news. Now the interesting things is that Kroner shows so effectively the way the seemingly now content Tóno has this moment of realization. Kroner finds this just in these early interactions by creating a sense of the empathy in Tóno towards the old woman in the situation as he struggles to even say the words. Kroner properly makes every moment of this having this tension of the man who realizes he's doing something he can't quite completely accept as right, as reinforces every moment with the right shyness that reflects this understanding of what this really means. Tóno soon learns that the woman is essentially bankrupt and the Jewish community will support him to support her. Kroner again is so good in just reflecting with such honesty the man taking all this in somewhat baffled, somewhat confused, but within his eyes the right hint of sympathy given the situation. This even includes the widow not really being all that nice to him once he starts to assist her in the shop.
Kroner in these scenes is very good in the way he makes the arc of Tóno quietly such a poignant one. On the surface he's good in again actually being a bit funny actually in showing the strange way that he physically works around the woman, as well as attempts to portray both a confidence of pretending to run the shop while trying to basically mind his manners around her. Tóno realizes this dance so well, but goes much further than this in showing the change in Tóno as he finally begins to notice what is going on around. Kroner is marvelous in the subtle way he depicts this change in his often reactionary performance. Kroner's face says so much more than so many words would in every scene. This is in the quiet appreciation of the person in the old woman, despite her misgivings towards him, but also far more in his reactions towards seeing the increasing nature of the regime in front of him. A particularly powerful moment in this regard coming when a friend of his, and supporter of the local jews is beaten and displayed for the public to see. Kroner's expression is haunting as he realizes within certainly the fear for his own fate, concern for his friend, but his eyes also convey this sense of recognition of the plight around him in general including the old Jewish woman.
This brings me to the film's finale which is an extended sequence that is dependent on Kroner's performance. It is actually a largely silent sequence as the man drinks while watching the Jews being round up for deportation from the old Jewish woman's shop, while she remains unaware of what is going on around him. Although technically it is a sparse sequence I was absolutely transfixed for every second of it, and the greatest contributor to this is Kroner's performance. Kroner is absolutely outstanding as he depicts such a vivid portrayal of the inner workings of the man's mind on this fateful day. There is not a single second wasted, and even though he only has a couple of lines, often of little importance, there is nothing vague in this performance. Kroner brings to life this struggle which he never simplifies. In his eyes, his moments of turning from the danger, or thinking of the woman he says so much without verbalizing a word. There are times again of obvious fear but that is never all there is. Kroner even in that finds the struggle within the fear of the man both at times succumbing to it, and other times feeling a different fear for the woman. Kroner projects this weight of the situation upon this man. There are times where he is selfish, other he is selfless, but it is never anything to be taken lightly. It is incredible to watch as Kroner finds the complexity of this with such an emotional impact in every moment of the man dealing with his own demons and weaknesses, while still concerning himself with the fate of this old woman. It is fascinating how much Kroner finds with this painful silence of this single horrible moment. When something finally happens that directly affects him his reaction is wholly heartbreaking and completely earned as his work to that point has so effectively brought us within the mind of this man. This is a fantastic performance as it is not a portrayal of a bad man becoming a good man. Kroner rather gives us something perhaps far more human in a man struggling with his better self, with his worse self as he faced with being responsible for more that just himself for once in his life.
Thursday, 14 December 2017
Alternate Best Actor 1965: Charlton Heston in Major Dundee
Charlton Heston did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Major Amos Dundee in Major Dundee.
Major Dundee, in its proper extended version, is a terrific western, despite a little bit of clashing between a traditionalist and modernist view of a western, about a Union cavalry officer calling upon the aid of Confederate prisoners in order to avenge an Apache massacre near the end of the civil war.
Charlton Heston, known for his roles as steadfast leads, seems well enough equipped for the role of the tough Union officer, however this is a bit atypical, particularly for the time for him, given it is a film by Sam Peckinpah, and his leads are never simple heroes. Heston's presence here makes for an interesting one in the film in the way it is used with the character of Major Dundee. Now on the surface Heston is in prime Heston form. He has all his stature, and the power of screen presence that is a consistent factor in all of his performances, even in lesser ones. Heston's innate confidence suits well Dundee as we first meet him in charge of a fort deep into west and out of the way of the main civil war, with the primary mission in housing a group of confederates lead by Captain Benjamin Tyreen (Richard Harris). Heston's blunt approach works effectively in establishing Dundee as this blunt force of will early on. Heston makes the character's determination convincing which is particularly important to the plot where he makes his mortal enemies work for him. Heston delivers in presenting Dundee as this unshakable force from the outset.
The point of Dundee is interesting though as watching it you initially believe the man as well given just how Heston brims with such a confidence. This is even as the film hints that the man is far more flawed than how he presents himself suggests. After all why would such a formidable soldier be practically a prison warden then, it is hinted at that his actions in the battle of Gettysburg were for his own glory than the overall success of the war. This actually can be taken as his motivation to avenge the massacre since Heston portrays this as somewhat dispassionate. In that he never portrays a direct anger or anguish towards those who died, rather his determination seems to only surround the idea of the daring of the task which involves catching such a sly prey, which even involves going into Mexico and risking coming afoul the French army posted there. Heston does not convey those humane ideas as settling at any point into Dundee's mind rather only seemingly the idea of the potential glory in the task through the strength of a man absolutely certain in this resolve. This choice is actually the proper one for the character, and again though watching the film it would seem this is because Heston is just making Dundee this type of unflappable hero, however that is not the case.
The truth is revealed as the film goes on but examining this performance it is two faced once you know this truth. During the beginning of the journey there are moments where Dundee is quiet honestly a jerk, and Heston doesn't hold back in these scenes. He's frankly cold in moments as he lobs insults at one of his men because he comes from the artillery, or questioning the loyalty of one of the Apache working with his battalion. At initial glance this may seem just a man who sufers no fools, but with the understanding of the whole of Dundee it is a palatable egotism that Heston reflects in his performance. Now to be sure this is not a case of Heston making this a pure negative rather he does find the complexity of this brashness of a soldier. On one point Heston does realize essentially the usefulness of this in any scene in which he initially comes to a battle of wills with Tyreen. The intensity of the man's daring that Heston provides shows effectively his ability to keep them inline. This is also seen in his moments of strategy against the enemy which Heston conveys the worthwhile nature of his passion for victory. There is a darkness within this though as Heston reveals such a lack of empathy as a man perhaps willing to risk everyone lives if it means a great victory.
Now I will say in part this is a performance that is aided greatly by his frequent scene partner in Richard Harris. As Stephen Boyd did in Ben-Hur, Harris provides the right type of foil against Heston's more direct work. What Harris does, which I will get more detailed on later, is essential in creating some of the complexity of the character of Dundee by the way he challenges the typical Heston presence. To be fair, unlike as Ben-Hur where he stays much more the hero, though here Heston challenges it a bit himself. This is mostly seen through a needed diversion where Dundee is wounded and must be taken to hospital in Mexico. In typical Peckinpah form this challenges the values of Dundee when he is without his army, without his pride, without even his physical power as a man. Heston does deliver in breaking down his presence to powerfully reveal a more vulnerable man as he struggles to stand and is even caught in caring for the results of his actions for a moment. Heston gives these scenes the impact they need, however I don't think he quite lets them influence the rest of his work enough. He tones the egotism a bit, but the last act should have brought a far more changed Dundee. We get a little change, but there was a greater potential there that perhaps a William Holden in the role could have brought out as he did in his own collaboration with Peckinpah. This stands as a good performance still from Heston which does subvert his work to an extent, but perhaps not enough.
Charlton Heston, known for his roles as steadfast leads, seems well enough equipped for the role of the tough Union officer, however this is a bit atypical, particularly for the time for him, given it is a film by Sam Peckinpah, and his leads are never simple heroes. Heston's presence here makes for an interesting one in the film in the way it is used with the character of Major Dundee. Now on the surface Heston is in prime Heston form. He has all his stature, and the power of screen presence that is a consistent factor in all of his performances, even in lesser ones. Heston's innate confidence suits well Dundee as we first meet him in charge of a fort deep into west and out of the way of the main civil war, with the primary mission in housing a group of confederates lead by Captain Benjamin Tyreen (Richard Harris). Heston's blunt approach works effectively in establishing Dundee as this blunt force of will early on. Heston makes the character's determination convincing which is particularly important to the plot where he makes his mortal enemies work for him. Heston delivers in presenting Dundee as this unshakable force from the outset.
The point of Dundee is interesting though as watching it you initially believe the man as well given just how Heston brims with such a confidence. This is even as the film hints that the man is far more flawed than how he presents himself suggests. After all why would such a formidable soldier be practically a prison warden then, it is hinted at that his actions in the battle of Gettysburg were for his own glory than the overall success of the war. This actually can be taken as his motivation to avenge the massacre since Heston portrays this as somewhat dispassionate. In that he never portrays a direct anger or anguish towards those who died, rather his determination seems to only surround the idea of the daring of the task which involves catching such a sly prey, which even involves going into Mexico and risking coming afoul the French army posted there. Heston does not convey those humane ideas as settling at any point into Dundee's mind rather only seemingly the idea of the potential glory in the task through the strength of a man absolutely certain in this resolve. This choice is actually the proper one for the character, and again though watching the film it would seem this is because Heston is just making Dundee this type of unflappable hero, however that is not the case.
The truth is revealed as the film goes on but examining this performance it is two faced once you know this truth. During the beginning of the journey there are moments where Dundee is quiet honestly a jerk, and Heston doesn't hold back in these scenes. He's frankly cold in moments as he lobs insults at one of his men because he comes from the artillery, or questioning the loyalty of one of the Apache working with his battalion. At initial glance this may seem just a man who sufers no fools, but with the understanding of the whole of Dundee it is a palatable egotism that Heston reflects in his performance. Now to be sure this is not a case of Heston making this a pure negative rather he does find the complexity of this brashness of a soldier. On one point Heston does realize essentially the usefulness of this in any scene in which he initially comes to a battle of wills with Tyreen. The intensity of the man's daring that Heston provides shows effectively his ability to keep them inline. This is also seen in his moments of strategy against the enemy which Heston conveys the worthwhile nature of his passion for victory. There is a darkness within this though as Heston reveals such a lack of empathy as a man perhaps willing to risk everyone lives if it means a great victory.
Now I will say in part this is a performance that is aided greatly by his frequent scene partner in Richard Harris. As Stephen Boyd did in Ben-Hur, Harris provides the right type of foil against Heston's more direct work. What Harris does, which I will get more detailed on later, is essential in creating some of the complexity of the character of Dundee by the way he challenges the typical Heston presence. To be fair, unlike as Ben-Hur where he stays much more the hero, though here Heston challenges it a bit himself. This is mostly seen through a needed diversion where Dundee is wounded and must be taken to hospital in Mexico. In typical Peckinpah form this challenges the values of Dundee when he is without his army, without his pride, without even his physical power as a man. Heston does deliver in breaking down his presence to powerfully reveal a more vulnerable man as he struggles to stand and is even caught in caring for the results of his actions for a moment. Heston gives these scenes the impact they need, however I don't think he quite lets them influence the rest of his work enough. He tones the egotism a bit, but the last act should have brought a far more changed Dundee. We get a little change, but there was a greater potential there that perhaps a William Holden in the role could have brought out as he did in his own collaboration with Peckinpah. This stands as a good performance still from Heston which does subvert his work to an extent, but perhaps not enough.
Tuesday, 12 December 2017
Alternate Best Actor 1965: Zbigniew Cybulski in The Saragossa Manuscript
Zbigniew Cybulski did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Alfonso van Worden in The Saragossa Manuscript.
The Saragossa Manuscript is not a film that one can easily describe what it is about, it's no surprise to learn that David Lynch holds the film in high esteem, other than there are many stories, stories within stories, and the reality of each isn't always exactly the most understandable. I would say the film is fascinating, the first part of I suppose I could more easily say is quite great, I would probably recommend taking a break though before heading on to the second half which can become quite dizzying.
Well about seven years after his breakout role in Ashes and Diamonds, we find Zbigniew Cybulski once again. In that earlier film Zbigniew Cybulski's performance was fashioned over James Dean, which sadly came to be came prophetic with Cybulski's early death. Cybulski though didn't die as young as James Dean so he continued as an actor, and here we see him a very different role, as a closer to middle aged man. Cybulski in no way plays into that Dean idea here, which would likely be ill-fitting to a man living during the Spanish Inquisition. Cybulski, while not playing the role as James Dean, is actually a very modern presence given the time period still. This is not at all ill-fitting towards the film. In fact Cybulski's approach is very welcome towards the film and in a way help to ease some of the film's mind bending through his approach. Cybulski quite honestly gives a comedic performance here, even though his character goes through torture at the hands of the inquisition, seemingly demonic forces, and all sorts of far more serious subjects to be sure. There's quite a lot going on around the poor Captain of the guards Alfonso, and Cybulski's performance actually acts as a bit of balancing factor to keep it all from it all becoming perhaps too much.
Cybulski's performance, which is often to play Alfonso as the audience at any given point, has what one could call sort of a precursor to a Lynchian style of humor. In that Cybulski's performance often is within some horrifying scenes however these scenes will often become suddenly hilarious without distracting from the scene. This is from Cybulski's work which is notable in that he basically plays the part as a normal guy in this situation with no great ambitions other than for nothing bad to happen to him, and perhaps indulging with some "fair" maidens who claim he's the first man they've ever seen. Cybulski for example, in the scene of meeting these two strange princesses who live in a cavern, and want him to drink out of a skull, portrays a blend of curiosity with bit of a bashfulness of a man who believes he's hit an unexpected jackpot. The potential horror elements naturally being assuaged due to the most intriguing prospect at the center of it all. Cybulski brings the right lack of shame in this indulgence and he is rather amusing just to watch deal with this entanglement of sorts. Of course this entanglement never seems to end well when he always wakes up at the end of it among corpses.
Now one major similarity between his work here and the last time I reviewed him in Ashes and Diamonds, is the fact that despite being lead in both films, he's just barely lead in each. This film once again does devote the most time to his story however this is not saying a great deal in the scheme of the film which gets lost in its stories among stories among stories. Once it really gets going in the stories we are only granted a brief moment with him where he is just as confused as ever that is before the film's finale which seems answer a few of the questions though only with a few more questions. Cybulski's performance offers a bit stability in two ways. One being that he doesn't change within the story always portraying his role as a man just trying to figure what is going on the same way the audience really is, the other being by offer a bit respite in the humor that comes from such worldly approach within the surreal environment. This is a good performance by Zbigniew Cybulski however I must say once again that it is a limited one and the unquestionable takeaway from this film is of the vision from director Wojciech Jerzy Has. Cybulski's work though is still an important part of that vision though it is unquestionably overshadowed by it.
Well about seven years after his breakout role in Ashes and Diamonds, we find Zbigniew Cybulski once again. In that earlier film Zbigniew Cybulski's performance was fashioned over James Dean, which sadly came to be came prophetic with Cybulski's early death. Cybulski though didn't die as young as James Dean so he continued as an actor, and here we see him a very different role, as a closer to middle aged man. Cybulski in no way plays into that Dean idea here, which would likely be ill-fitting to a man living during the Spanish Inquisition. Cybulski, while not playing the role as James Dean, is actually a very modern presence given the time period still. This is not at all ill-fitting towards the film. In fact Cybulski's approach is very welcome towards the film and in a way help to ease some of the film's mind bending through his approach. Cybulski quite honestly gives a comedic performance here, even though his character goes through torture at the hands of the inquisition, seemingly demonic forces, and all sorts of far more serious subjects to be sure. There's quite a lot going on around the poor Captain of the guards Alfonso, and Cybulski's performance actually acts as a bit of balancing factor to keep it all from it all becoming perhaps too much.
Cybulski's performance, which is often to play Alfonso as the audience at any given point, has what one could call sort of a precursor to a Lynchian style of humor. In that Cybulski's performance often is within some horrifying scenes however these scenes will often become suddenly hilarious without distracting from the scene. This is from Cybulski's work which is notable in that he basically plays the part as a normal guy in this situation with no great ambitions other than for nothing bad to happen to him, and perhaps indulging with some "fair" maidens who claim he's the first man they've ever seen. Cybulski for example, in the scene of meeting these two strange princesses who live in a cavern, and want him to drink out of a skull, portrays a blend of curiosity with bit of a bashfulness of a man who believes he's hit an unexpected jackpot. The potential horror elements naturally being assuaged due to the most intriguing prospect at the center of it all. Cybulski brings the right lack of shame in this indulgence and he is rather amusing just to watch deal with this entanglement of sorts. Of course this entanglement never seems to end well when he always wakes up at the end of it among corpses.
Now one major similarity between his work here and the last time I reviewed him in Ashes and Diamonds, is the fact that despite being lead in both films, he's just barely lead in each. This film once again does devote the most time to his story however this is not saying a great deal in the scheme of the film which gets lost in its stories among stories among stories. Once it really gets going in the stories we are only granted a brief moment with him where he is just as confused as ever that is before the film's finale which seems answer a few of the questions though only with a few more questions. Cybulski's performance offers a bit stability in two ways. One being that he doesn't change within the story always portraying his role as a man just trying to figure what is going on the same way the audience really is, the other being by offer a bit respite in the humor that comes from such worldly approach within the surreal environment. This is a good performance by Zbigniew Cybulski however I must say once again that it is a limited one and the unquestionable takeaway from this film is of the vision from director Wojciech Jerzy Has. Cybulski's work though is still an important part of that vision though it is unquestionably overshadowed by it.
Sunday, 10 December 2017
Alternate Best Actor 1965
Lou Castel in Fists in the Pocket
Charlton Heston in Major Dundee
Orson Welles in Chimes at Midnight
Jozef Kroner in The Shop on Main Street
Zbigniew Cybulski in The Saragossa Manuscript
Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2010: Results
Best Scene: The last supper.
Best Scene: Meeting the president of Harvard.
Best Scene: The Lighthouse.
Best Scene: Demanding his coat back.
Next Year: 1965 Lead
Saturday, 9 December 2017
Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2010: Liu Kai-chi in The Stool Pigeon
Liu Kai-chi did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Jabber in The Stool Pigeon.
The Stool Pigeon is a thriller that follows a police inspector Lee (Nick Cheung) and his criminal driver informant Ghost. Although it is bolstered somewhat by a charismatic lead performance by Nicholas Tse as the driver it is bogged down by some rather awkward plotting.
Liu Kai-chi plays the previous titular stool pigeon before Tse takes up the job, and we first meet him in the film's opening where a sting is bungled. That leads Jabber on the wrong end of several machetes when the gangster he was working for becomes aware of his treachery. Liu kind of goes full on manic desperate fool, that you often see in a Hong Kong crime thriller, and it is perhaps a touch over the top. He becomes less sympathetic and more ridiculous in this early scene which is problematic because it is suppose to set up the guilt inspector Lee must suffer. Unfortunately that is made all the more underwhelming by Nick Cheung's bland performance. This is suppose to be an underlying and important plot point however I sort of forgot Liu was even in the film much of the time. He occasionally pops back up as now a deranged homeless man hiding from the criminals and constantly fearful for his life. Again Liu's performance is excessive, and it actually might have been somewhat forgivable if he was a little more subtle in his opening scene. His performance instead goes from an 11 to 11 so the change really doesn't leave any impression. Instead we get more of him reacting in an outrageous fashion to everything. Now he's over the top but not completely terrible at this. There are hints of some genuine emotion in there, but that is often diminished by just how much he oversells every one of his lines as well as all his facial expressions. He leaves nowhere for his character to go, and remains almost a cartoon the entire time. The role itself I do think had potential if there had been a degree of restraint as the idea of his character trying to see his wife again could have been moving. It fails though because of just how big he goes the entire time. There are at least some minor glimpses of a decent performance but for the most part Liu Kai-chi's performance makes Jabber nothing more than a forgettable caricature.
Liu Kai-chi plays the previous titular stool pigeon before Tse takes up the job, and we first meet him in the film's opening where a sting is bungled. That leads Jabber on the wrong end of several machetes when the gangster he was working for becomes aware of his treachery. Liu kind of goes full on manic desperate fool, that you often see in a Hong Kong crime thriller, and it is perhaps a touch over the top. He becomes less sympathetic and more ridiculous in this early scene which is problematic because it is suppose to set up the guilt inspector Lee must suffer. Unfortunately that is made all the more underwhelming by Nick Cheung's bland performance. This is suppose to be an underlying and important plot point however I sort of forgot Liu was even in the film much of the time. He occasionally pops back up as now a deranged homeless man hiding from the criminals and constantly fearful for his life. Again Liu's performance is excessive, and it actually might have been somewhat forgivable if he was a little more subtle in his opening scene. His performance instead goes from an 11 to 11 so the change really doesn't leave any impression. Instead we get more of him reacting in an outrageous fashion to everything. Now he's over the top but not completely terrible at this. There are hints of some genuine emotion in there, but that is often diminished by just how much he oversells every one of his lines as well as all his facial expressions. He leaves nowhere for his character to go, and remains almost a cartoon the entire time. The role itself I do think had potential if there had been a degree of restraint as the idea of his character trying to see his wife again could have been moving. It fails though because of just how big he goes the entire time. There are at least some minor glimpses of a decent performance but for the most part Liu Kai-chi's performance makes Jabber nothing more than a forgettable caricature.
Thursday, 7 December 2017
Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2010: Ben Kingsley in Shutter Island
Ben Kingsley did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Dr. John Cawley in Shutter Island.
Shutter Island was perhaps slightly misunderstood it seems in its initial evaluation where some seemed to view the tale of two federal marshals investigating an escape from a mental institution as far more prestigious than it is meant to be. Martin Scorsese directs the film purposefully as a much more heightened thriller with overtone closer to the exploitation wing of the horror genre than any real analysis of mental illness.
In that sense I find this film to be a smashing success all outside of a single performance, unfortunately that is Leonardo DiCaprio's leading turn as the federal marshal investigator Teddy Daniels. DiCaprio is the one actor who doesn't seem to understand the tone oddly enough with his excessively intense performance. His work is miscalculated in that it doesn't properly embrace the style but it also gives away the twist through how unhinged he is from the opening scene. A more astute turn for example should have portrayed his opening distress slightly more vague as one should have been able to interpret it as just sea sickness or something else, not obviously something else. Thankfully though DiCaprio is the only off-turn in the film, meanwhile the rest of the film has a terrific ensemble with a particularly brilliant bit of casting as you have various cinematic villains suggesting something is off on this psychiatric island, and not just the patients. There's the Zodiac killer and Buffalo Bill leading the guards, Freddie Kruger hiding in the dark, with Ming the Merciless and Don Logan leading the doctor which brings me to Ben Kingsley.
Kingsley though he originally made his name playing renowned pacifist Mahatmas Gandhi his latter career has often been as the heavy which leaves him in good company with Ted Levine, Jackie Earle Haley, Max von Sydow and John Carroll Lynch on this strange island. What is notable about all those performances, along with Patricia Clarkson, Michelle Williams, and Emily Mortimer as various mysterious women Teddy meets is their mastery of the tone the film is looking for. Kingsley excels best in this which is in part to bring just the right touch of flamboyance, not too much, just the right amount and natural to the character. Kingsley certainly does this in giving the right style and grace of proper psychiatric doctor. There is an emphasis on measure of class in the doctor's manner that is wonderfully realized by Kingsley that adds so well to a bit of his more stylized lines that also makes them natural to the character. I have particular affection for the way Kingsley delivers the line "It's as if she evaporated straight through the walls" when describing the possible method of escape for the missing patient. Kingsley takes that heightened style and makes it all the more vibrant without going over the top, rather amplifying it in the right way.
Of course this being a twisty thriller, and Kingsley playing a man of good nature just doesn't seem right. There is something off about Kingsley's performance but only as it relates to realizing the twist though not in the way one would initially expect. With all these villains you have to be sure that the good Dr. Cawley must be evil, and Teddy's onto something when he thinks there may be unlawful experiments going on the island. Kingsley is brilliant in the way he maneuvers this aspect of the character. On initial viewing he is rather off-putting in a low key way. Kingsley has this certain eeriness in the way he speaks of past psychiatric measures, and the way he interacts with Teddy. Kingsley portrays this keen interest the doctor has in Teddy as though he is perhaps looking for some sort of weakness, and the way he speaks to him Kingsley exerts this gentle persuasion that carries a certain menace within his genial matter. The doctor never seems phased by the lost patient and there is something seemingly quite disturbing in this and something seems to be increasingly not right about the good doctor as the film continues.
Kingsley seems all set for the classical revelation of the attempted comforting paternal figure turning out to be evil not unlike James Cromwell in L.A. Confidential. There just seems to be something about his warmth that doesn't seem quite like it is placed correctly. As the story continues and the situation on the island seems to become more dire though Kingsley seems to tilt his hand in the revelation as Dr. Cawley almost openly threatens Teddy. Kingsley touches towards the absurd in his rather sinister ,overtly if not ridiculously even, way of speaking of his institute as something important something that he will not allow to be destroyed by anyone. That is of course because it suppose to be ridiculous the twist here is not that Kingsley's Cawley is evil, it's that Teddy is in fact delusional and in fact the "missing" patient. Re-watching the film I noticed just how outstanding Kingsley is in the way he offers all the clues yet doesn't give it away. The false give away towards the revelation Kingsley in fact portrays as a purposeful give away in the character of Cawley trying to get Teddy to see that his paranoia is false and frankly absurd. The real truth of Cawley is that he's a good man, simple as that.
Kingsley never hides this either, except in his aforementioned major role play scene. The way he pays so much attention to Teddy, particularly when talking of water torture, Kingsley's reactions are off putting if he was doing it to a stranger, but make perfect sense for an observant doctor trying to help his patient. Kingsley is in fact throughout giving this portrayal of a devoted man tirelessly trying to help the man break from his delusions. His eyes are searching for a break, or some way to try to help the man. On re-watch his speech about being a special kind of doctor who seeks to respect and understand his patents is genuinely moving as Kingsley offers it so earnestly as the true nature of Cawley. Kingsley in fact makes it all natural to the final revelation scenes which are of Cawley trying to directly confront Teddy with the truth. I love Kingsley in this scene as he brings such an incisiveness to the words. He importantly doesn't play this as a vicious attack on man, but rather infuses every word with such palatable emotion of a man striving hard to break the man from his false world as well as save his life. Kingsley offers a real warmth and tenderness in these scenes particularly in his final shot where it seems Teddy has regressed. Kingsley reaction is quite powerful as he finds the man's heartbreak at his failure to save his patient despite his tireless efforts. This is a great performance by Ben Kingsley as he not only offers an entertaining turn by realizing the film's specific tone, yet he still manages to bridge this towards a needed substance and depth required for the film's final act.
In that sense I find this film to be a smashing success all outside of a single performance, unfortunately that is Leonardo DiCaprio's leading turn as the federal marshal investigator Teddy Daniels. DiCaprio is the one actor who doesn't seem to understand the tone oddly enough with his excessively intense performance. His work is miscalculated in that it doesn't properly embrace the style but it also gives away the twist through how unhinged he is from the opening scene. A more astute turn for example should have portrayed his opening distress slightly more vague as one should have been able to interpret it as just sea sickness or something else, not obviously something else. Thankfully though DiCaprio is the only off-turn in the film, meanwhile the rest of the film has a terrific ensemble with a particularly brilliant bit of casting as you have various cinematic villains suggesting something is off on this psychiatric island, and not just the patients. There's the Zodiac killer and Buffalo Bill leading the guards, Freddie Kruger hiding in the dark, with Ming the Merciless and Don Logan leading the doctor which brings me to Ben Kingsley.
Kingsley though he originally made his name playing renowned pacifist Mahatmas Gandhi his latter career has often been as the heavy which leaves him in good company with Ted Levine, Jackie Earle Haley, Max von Sydow and John Carroll Lynch on this strange island. What is notable about all those performances, along with Patricia Clarkson, Michelle Williams, and Emily Mortimer as various mysterious women Teddy meets is their mastery of the tone the film is looking for. Kingsley excels best in this which is in part to bring just the right touch of flamboyance, not too much, just the right amount and natural to the character. Kingsley certainly does this in giving the right style and grace of proper psychiatric doctor. There is an emphasis on measure of class in the doctor's manner that is wonderfully realized by Kingsley that adds so well to a bit of his more stylized lines that also makes them natural to the character. I have particular affection for the way Kingsley delivers the line "It's as if she evaporated straight through the walls" when describing the possible method of escape for the missing patient. Kingsley takes that heightened style and makes it all the more vibrant without going over the top, rather amplifying it in the right way.
Of course this being a twisty thriller, and Kingsley playing a man of good nature just doesn't seem right. There is something off about Kingsley's performance but only as it relates to realizing the twist though not in the way one would initially expect. With all these villains you have to be sure that the good Dr. Cawley must be evil, and Teddy's onto something when he thinks there may be unlawful experiments going on the island. Kingsley is brilliant in the way he maneuvers this aspect of the character. On initial viewing he is rather off-putting in a low key way. Kingsley has this certain eeriness in the way he speaks of past psychiatric measures, and the way he interacts with Teddy. Kingsley portrays this keen interest the doctor has in Teddy as though he is perhaps looking for some sort of weakness, and the way he speaks to him Kingsley exerts this gentle persuasion that carries a certain menace within his genial matter. The doctor never seems phased by the lost patient and there is something seemingly quite disturbing in this and something seems to be increasingly not right about the good doctor as the film continues.
Kingsley seems all set for the classical revelation of the attempted comforting paternal figure turning out to be evil not unlike James Cromwell in L.A. Confidential. There just seems to be something about his warmth that doesn't seem quite like it is placed correctly. As the story continues and the situation on the island seems to become more dire though Kingsley seems to tilt his hand in the revelation as Dr. Cawley almost openly threatens Teddy. Kingsley touches towards the absurd in his rather sinister ,overtly if not ridiculously even, way of speaking of his institute as something important something that he will not allow to be destroyed by anyone. That is of course because it suppose to be ridiculous the twist here is not that Kingsley's Cawley is evil, it's that Teddy is in fact delusional and in fact the "missing" patient. Re-watching the film I noticed just how outstanding Kingsley is in the way he offers all the clues yet doesn't give it away. The false give away towards the revelation Kingsley in fact portrays as a purposeful give away in the character of Cawley trying to get Teddy to see that his paranoia is false and frankly absurd. The real truth of Cawley is that he's a good man, simple as that.
Kingsley never hides this either, except in his aforementioned major role play scene. The way he pays so much attention to Teddy, particularly when talking of water torture, Kingsley's reactions are off putting if he was doing it to a stranger, but make perfect sense for an observant doctor trying to help his patient. Kingsley is in fact throughout giving this portrayal of a devoted man tirelessly trying to help the man break from his delusions. His eyes are searching for a break, or some way to try to help the man. On re-watch his speech about being a special kind of doctor who seeks to respect and understand his patents is genuinely moving as Kingsley offers it so earnestly as the true nature of Cawley. Kingsley in fact makes it all natural to the final revelation scenes which are of Cawley trying to directly confront Teddy with the truth. I love Kingsley in this scene as he brings such an incisiveness to the words. He importantly doesn't play this as a vicious attack on man, but rather infuses every word with such palatable emotion of a man striving hard to break the man from his false world as well as save his life. Kingsley offers a real warmth and tenderness in these scenes particularly in his final shot where it seems Teddy has regressed. Kingsley reaction is quite powerful as he finds the man's heartbreak at his failure to save his patient despite his tireless efforts. This is a great performance by Ben Kingsley as he not only offers an entertaining turn by realizing the film's specific tone, yet he still manages to bridge this towards a needed substance and depth required for the film's final act.
Tuesday, 5 December 2017
Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2010: Armie Hammer in The Social Network
Armie Hammer did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss in The Social Network.
The idea of playing identical twins seems to be a challenge an actor may relish. This often though is used two give two wildly different if not dramatically opposed performances. The most interesting portrayals of twins are not so extreme, just as identical twins in real life tend to not be Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Armie Hammer takes this more realistic approach in his portrayal of the Winklevosses or as titled by Jesse Eisenberg's Mark Zuckerberg the Winklevii. On a cursory glance the two men do appear to be almost exactly the same. They are both notable physical specimens that is further emphasized with an excessively upright posture from Hammer fitting for a pair of Olympiad level rowers. Their diction seemingly stemming from a sliver spoon deep in both of their throats. Hammer, who already has a rather refined articulation, seems to go just a little broader than even his normal accent to reinforce the background of the men, but also their nature. Hammer has the twins speak as men whose voices are usually heard, but perhaps more importantly as men who expect themselves to be heard.
The two are proper representations of privilege in every sense, and there is an inherent danger in playing such a type of character, particularly in an Aaron Sorkin screenplay, to veer towards caricature if the actor is not careful. This is not due to underdevelopment of characters in Sorkin's writing rather in his dialogue which is as treacherous as it is rich given its often flamboyant nature. There is almost this idea of Sorkinese which in the wrong hands can easily sound ridiculous and overwritten if not delivered properly. Hammer has a particular challenge there then in that he's already depicting an often simplified type of character with dialogue that could potentially exacerbate this. Hammer wholly avoids this while also making Sorkin's dialogue sing like few other actors have. Hammer in both performances is a master of every little colorful flourish by so effectively realizing the style of both men as natural to these words, and just delivering the lines so well. Hammer perhaps gives the funniest performance, or performances, in the film by making the most out of every line while also by having just the right type of fun with these very particular sort of men.
Now as amusing as Hammer is when pondering between the Winklevi if Zuckerberg offended one of their girlfriends or scoff at the the Prince of Monaco he's careful not to become two caricatures walking around. This is perhaps best seen through the ways he does distinguish the two twins from one another in nuanced and pivotal ways that actually helps to take them beyond simple figures of entitlement. Hammer portrays Cameron and Tyler differently in their personal styles that attaches to their personal belief in their use of that entitlement, however that isn't to say that is all there is to them or to Hammer's performance. Hammer presents Cameron as a man who very much believes, yet deludes himself, in sort of this honor that comes from his position that requires a certain attitude beyond even the mannerisms he has inherited along with his brother. Hammer shows Cameron as a man ready for every party, every general meeting or otherwise in the future in the way he speaks with such certainty towards his beliefs. Hammer grants this a touch of naivety even foolishness however not dishonestly through the character. There is some fun to be had at this expense, but this is part of the beauty of Hammer's performance. He allows you to have fun watching their plight, but he doesn't make them some sort of villain. They are still people.
On this point you can look at the way he depicts Cameron in two contrasting scenes. The first being one of his very best scenes where the two brothers go to lob a formal complaint about Zuckerberg to the president of Harvard. Hammer is downright hilarious in portraying Cameron's genuine disbelief at the president being completely unimpressed by his candor, and part of what makes this funny is how earnestly Hammer delivers every moment as a self-expressed "gentleman of Harvard". This can be contrasted against the series of court deposition scenes where we see a similair earnest disbelief in Hammer, however he garners a real sympathy when reacting to Zuckerberg's words of extreme disregard for the brothers. Now this is interesting as he iw distinguishing that against his portrayal of Tyler who has fewer pretensions over his position that Hammer realizes in subtle yet brilliant ways. Right in the disposition scenes for example it isn't the disbelief of a proper gentleman that he portrays rather fervent anger of someone ticked off who feels he was screwed out of a billion dollars. This idea Hammer directs throughout his work as Tyler that effectively differentiates between the two twins. In every moment of Cameron's assurance of proper manners of privilege, Hammer offers a terrific contrast through the more blunt of the two men who has no shame in using his wealth but also has no delusions around it either. One of my favorite deliveries of his in the film is " I broke your 335-year old doorknob" after tearing off one of Harvard's valued furnishings, that perfectly exemplifies Tyler's attitude towards frankly sentiments of his own class. This is a great pair of performances by Armie Hammer as he excels as a combination of the two yet makes them distinct. He never falls to any pitfalls in playing twins and most importantly succeeds in crafting two entertaining characters yet still humanizes them perhaps beyond what is even their intended purpose within the story.
The two are proper representations of privilege in every sense, and there is an inherent danger in playing such a type of character, particularly in an Aaron Sorkin screenplay, to veer towards caricature if the actor is not careful. This is not due to underdevelopment of characters in Sorkin's writing rather in his dialogue which is as treacherous as it is rich given its often flamboyant nature. There is almost this idea of Sorkinese which in the wrong hands can easily sound ridiculous and overwritten if not delivered properly. Hammer has a particular challenge there then in that he's already depicting an often simplified type of character with dialogue that could potentially exacerbate this. Hammer wholly avoids this while also making Sorkin's dialogue sing like few other actors have. Hammer in both performances is a master of every little colorful flourish by so effectively realizing the style of both men as natural to these words, and just delivering the lines so well. Hammer perhaps gives the funniest performance, or performances, in the film by making the most out of every line while also by having just the right type of fun with these very particular sort of men.
Now as amusing as Hammer is when pondering between the Winklevi if Zuckerberg offended one of their girlfriends or scoff at the the Prince of Monaco he's careful not to become two caricatures walking around. This is perhaps best seen through the ways he does distinguish the two twins from one another in nuanced and pivotal ways that actually helps to take them beyond simple figures of entitlement. Hammer portrays Cameron and Tyler differently in their personal styles that attaches to their personal belief in their use of that entitlement, however that isn't to say that is all there is to them or to Hammer's performance. Hammer presents Cameron as a man who very much believes, yet deludes himself, in sort of this honor that comes from his position that requires a certain attitude beyond even the mannerisms he has inherited along with his brother. Hammer shows Cameron as a man ready for every party, every general meeting or otherwise in the future in the way he speaks with such certainty towards his beliefs. Hammer grants this a touch of naivety even foolishness however not dishonestly through the character. There is some fun to be had at this expense, but this is part of the beauty of Hammer's performance. He allows you to have fun watching their plight, but he doesn't make them some sort of villain. They are still people.
On this point you can look at the way he depicts Cameron in two contrasting scenes. The first being one of his very best scenes where the two brothers go to lob a formal complaint about Zuckerberg to the president of Harvard. Hammer is downright hilarious in portraying Cameron's genuine disbelief at the president being completely unimpressed by his candor, and part of what makes this funny is how earnestly Hammer delivers every moment as a self-expressed "gentleman of Harvard". This can be contrasted against the series of court deposition scenes where we see a similair earnest disbelief in Hammer, however he garners a real sympathy when reacting to Zuckerberg's words of extreme disregard for the brothers. Now this is interesting as he iw distinguishing that against his portrayal of Tyler who has fewer pretensions over his position that Hammer realizes in subtle yet brilliant ways. Right in the disposition scenes for example it isn't the disbelief of a proper gentleman that he portrays rather fervent anger of someone ticked off who feels he was screwed out of a billion dollars. This idea Hammer directs throughout his work as Tyler that effectively differentiates between the two twins. In every moment of Cameron's assurance of proper manners of privilege, Hammer offers a terrific contrast through the more blunt of the two men who has no shame in using his wealth but also has no delusions around it either. One of my favorite deliveries of his in the film is " I broke your 335-year old doorknob" after tearing off one of Harvard's valued furnishings, that perfectly exemplifies Tyler's attitude towards frankly sentiments of his own class. This is a great pair of performances by Armie Hammer as he excels as a combination of the two yet makes them distinct. He never falls to any pitfalls in playing twins and most importantly succeeds in crafting two entertaining characters yet still humanizes them perhaps beyond what is even their intended purpose within the story.
Saturday, 2 December 2017
Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2010: Michael Lonsdale in Of Gods and Men
Michael Lonsdale did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying brother Luc in Of Gods and Men.
Of Gods and Men is a powerful film that depicts the true story of a group of monks deciding whether or not to remain while under threat of fundamentalist terrorists in Algeria.
Veteran french actor Michael Lonsdale portrays one of the monks of the monastery brother Luc who is also the doctor among the group. The film itself takes a reserved approach to its depiction of such a harrowing story as it quietly examines them attempting to continue their lives and duties in their faith even while the barbarians appear to be at the gate. Lonsdale's Luc is perhaps the most modest of the men who are simply trying to mind their faith and help the locals in their small ways. Lonsdale early on offers the presence of a man who has been living this life for a long time. Lonsdale's whole being is one of earnest empathy to those around him, and there is just such an abundance of natural warmth in his work. Lonsdale is particularly remarkable in the way he brings this with such an ease that reflects those years of this state. This is a pleasant state that Lonsdale reveals in brother Luc, as he offers the assurance of a life of fulfilling his duties as to his belief. There is particularly effective scene by Lonsdale early on where he describes the feelings of love to one of the local teenagers and Lonsdale in his gentle delivery and understanding eyes creates such sense of the caring nature of Luc.
Lonsdale's performance as the film continues is one of consistency and grace even while the world seems to crumble around the monastery. Now this is actually what is so notable about Lonsdale is what he does within potential limits of the role which could have been vague with the wrong actor in the part. Lonsdale while having that grace doesn't make brother Luc someone beyond who is which is a loving person. Lonsdale portrays his moments of dealing with his asthma, and the hardship of the danger of attacks as just that a hardship. Lonsdale's reaction depict the way he takes these things into himself but also takes them in stride. Lonsdale importantly always makes it feel wholly genuine with the man Luc is which is in this calm of his very being. Throughout the film though he is perhaps the least troubled by the impending threat on all of them which may result in their deaths. In every discussion Luc is quick to show his support for staying, and unlike the other monks is never truly conflicted by the choice. Lonsdale again doesn't use this as though Luc is detached, but rather aware of his own state of being.
Lonsdale realizes this elegance in his thoughts which is that as an old man with his health issues he knows he doesn't have long on this earth in any circumstances. Londsdale is tremendous in the way he creates this sense of this understanding that creates perhaps somberness of it, but never a sadness. There is rather where there is that calm in his being, that calm of a man who has lived his life the way he believed to be right. As the film continues then Lonsdale in this portrayal of this acceptance of fate is the most comforting presence in the film. Unlike the other men Lonsdale shows this sort of confidence of a man who can see his end, but rather than being fearful of it readies himself for it with a quiet embrace. As much as this is a place of lasting warmth in the film, particularly in the final moments the monks spend together, the impact of Lonsdale goes even further than expected as the story reaches its end. Lonsdale's work becomes incredibly poignant in never creating a unapproachable martyr, but rather creating this portrait of honest goodness. The final shots of the film of him bearing a storm well slowly moving towards his end are haunting showing the real power of Lonsdale's unassuming yet potent work.
Veteran french actor Michael Lonsdale portrays one of the monks of the monastery brother Luc who is also the doctor among the group. The film itself takes a reserved approach to its depiction of such a harrowing story as it quietly examines them attempting to continue their lives and duties in their faith even while the barbarians appear to be at the gate. Lonsdale's Luc is perhaps the most modest of the men who are simply trying to mind their faith and help the locals in their small ways. Lonsdale early on offers the presence of a man who has been living this life for a long time. Lonsdale's whole being is one of earnest empathy to those around him, and there is just such an abundance of natural warmth in his work. Lonsdale is particularly remarkable in the way he brings this with such an ease that reflects those years of this state. This is a pleasant state that Lonsdale reveals in brother Luc, as he offers the assurance of a life of fulfilling his duties as to his belief. There is particularly effective scene by Lonsdale early on where he describes the feelings of love to one of the local teenagers and Lonsdale in his gentle delivery and understanding eyes creates such sense of the caring nature of Luc.
Lonsdale's performance as the film continues is one of consistency and grace even while the world seems to crumble around the monastery. Now this is actually what is so notable about Lonsdale is what he does within potential limits of the role which could have been vague with the wrong actor in the part. Lonsdale while having that grace doesn't make brother Luc someone beyond who is which is a loving person. Lonsdale portrays his moments of dealing with his asthma, and the hardship of the danger of attacks as just that a hardship. Lonsdale's reaction depict the way he takes these things into himself but also takes them in stride. Lonsdale importantly always makes it feel wholly genuine with the man Luc is which is in this calm of his very being. Throughout the film though he is perhaps the least troubled by the impending threat on all of them which may result in their deaths. In every discussion Luc is quick to show his support for staying, and unlike the other monks is never truly conflicted by the choice. Lonsdale again doesn't use this as though Luc is detached, but rather aware of his own state of being.
Lonsdale realizes this elegance in his thoughts which is that as an old man with his health issues he knows he doesn't have long on this earth in any circumstances. Londsdale is tremendous in the way he creates this sense of this understanding that creates perhaps somberness of it, but never a sadness. There is rather where there is that calm in his being, that calm of a man who has lived his life the way he believed to be right. As the film continues then Lonsdale in this portrayal of this acceptance of fate is the most comforting presence in the film. Unlike the other men Lonsdale shows this sort of confidence of a man who can see his end, but rather than being fearful of it readies himself for it with a quiet embrace. As much as this is a place of lasting warmth in the film, particularly in the final moments the monks spend together, the impact of Lonsdale goes even further than expected as the story reaches its end. Lonsdale's work becomes incredibly poignant in never creating a unapproachable martyr, but rather creating this portrait of honest goodness. The final shots of the film of him bearing a storm well slowly moving towards his end are haunting showing the real power of Lonsdale's unassuming yet potent work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)