Viggo Mortensen received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Frank "Tony Lip" Vallelonga in Green Book.
Green Book tells the story of piano virtuoso Dr. Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali), and his new driver Tony Lip, as they undergo a tour in the deep south.
Viggo Mortensen is one of the very best working actors today. Even in small roles like Carlito's Way, Witness, and Crimson Tide, Mortensen manages to make an impression. His work in the LOTR films is of a proper leading man. Even when the film doesn't work, like A Dangerous Method, Mortensen is always on point with such a considerable range as a performer. His performance in The Road is all time great, his last Oscar nominated in Captain Fantastic turn was a brilliant nuanced depiction of a character that could've easily become one note in the wrong hands. Sadly that Mortensen I write of, is not all that evident in his turn here as Italian stereo...I mean Italian American Tony Lip. Now given Mortensen's prior work I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of being steered into the wrong direction by his director, Peter Farrelly, who is better known for his broad comedies than the prestige drama Green Book aspires to be. I say this because in many ways Mortensen's work here would be far more fitting to such a comedy than a serious realization of the man Tony Lip was.
This stems from a problem with the film, as I mentioned in Ali's review, which it really is broken into that attempt at prestige, with Farrelly falling unto his comfort zone in the world of the buddy comedy films. In fact one can argue it has as much in common with Dumb and Dumber, as it does with say Driving Miss Daisy, as perhaps a more accurate name, given the titular green book plays little into the overall narrative, would've been Dumb and Proper. Mortensen's performance is to mak em rilly Italian, you know, what'che I'm sayings here? His accent would be right at home as the overblown Italian character of a wacky comedy. I would say kind of like Peter Seller's accent as Inspector Clouseau in A Shot in the Dark, that ridiculous French accent, while Mortensen's really isn't far off from that. This isn't an instance though where I feel that Mortensen just decided to go rogue and troll the film. This is rather Farrelly's incompetence when it comes to controlling the tone of the film. This is as Mortensen's work in this way is attuned, by how Farrelly depicts nearly all the Italian material. Everybody's a loud talking, big eating goodfella, or proper workin class fella, whose also big eating. There's not a lot of subtlety given to anything in between, it's a big loud and brash, which in turn is Mortensen's performance, for the most part.
It is easy to see why Mortensen is on this path as a lot of his scenes, especially his early ones, emphasize Tony as this big broad caricature. As we see him punching out punks, eating the largest meals possible, usually comically large, and just espousing himself in a way one describe as lacking a great deal of dignity. Mortensen's work in turn tries to bring this to life I suppose, as I would ask how does one deliver the line "titsburg" when wondering about the size of women's breasts in Pittsburgh, in a particularly subtle way. The character of Tony Lip very much exists within the confines of the broad comedy roots that Farrelly does not shed. Mortensen's work really does just play along with that in his boisterous line delivers, and swaggering around like he's a leaning tower of pizza (wocka wocka). He is an extreme desired to be the extreme odd couple pairing with Ali's Shirley who is a proper, sophisticated individual, who prefers to speak softly. Mortensen plays it up as to be desired, to create the what one would be to assume is the "comedy" of the situation. As I mentioned in Ali's review, the best thing to come out of these scenes, though are just the most casual interactions due to Ali and Mortensen having chemistry with one another. They can carry a conversation even if it isn't always worth having. Again though their depiction of growing warmth between the two isn't half bad, and does depend on both actors.
Sadly though the film has much higher ambitions than its odd couple pairing, which is a problem for Mortensen when he's playing a broad character in what suddenly tries to be a serious drama. He's essentially stuck with the over the top mannerisms, and voice, throughout, though I guess I do have to give him credit for his consistency in his mannerisms. Of course this I suppose is the way to approach as the film just jumps back and forth in these moments with no real rhyme or reason in its tone. There are even some slight indications of a desire for a more dramatic narrative in a few of the Tony only scenes, though only hinted at. These being moments where he is offered jobs, that obviously are criminal in nature, that Tony turns down, and Mortensen, does covey the reservations of such a life. This isn't focused upon in the slightest, and it is a potentially interesting detail just left hanging there. The even worse example of this is the racism of the character that we see initially when he throws away two of his own glasses that black workers drank out of. This essentially never really even comes up. It frankly seems like something from an earlier draft of the script, since there is no point in which it is dealt with. I guess the film just wants you to assume his casual racism went away once he started working with Shirley, however the idea of it isn't really even touched upon in his interactions with Shirley.
That whole component of the film is just a mess as written, therefore Mortensen can't do anything with it, because there's nothing there to work with. There's no transformation in Tony, because they wrote a point A (throwing the cups away) to point Z (telling a relative not to call Shirley by a derogatory term), and no stops in-between. As even the sort of distance between the two shown in their "buddy road movie" scenes, are written based upon their difference in personalities not their races. It is just a mind boggling moment to introduce than to barely even hand wave it away by the end of the film. The film clearly is far more comfortable with its personality based dynamic, which again there is a nice chemistry between Mortensen and Ali there. Now although his overarching performance is broad, the talent of Mortensen can be seen in fits and bits, sort of outside the stricture of the character. These in some purely reactionary moments, hey look at the chosen screen capture, that is a face of some nuance, as he looks upon Ali's dramatic in the rain speech. There are other moments of some nuance mainly in reaction, however they sadly don't add up within the character who from his first scene is a broad caricature, and remains as such to the very last scene. Mortensen almost seems to throw those into just remind us of the great actor he typically is. Mortensen's performance here is essentially sabotaged by a film that wants two completely incompatible elements of a broadly comic character at the center of film that is a self-serious story. Mortensen tries his best to try to do something that fulfills that impossible request, I don't hate it, nonetheless, from what I've seen in his typically very impressive oeuvre, this is the worst performance he's ever given.
93 comments:
I see you changed the Plainviews slightly.
Well not every performance makes Plainview happy.
1. Cooper
2. Dafoe
3. Malek
4. Bale
5. Mortensen
Louis: And my request is Temuera Morrison in Once Were Warriors (1994 Lead)
Ok.. I'll reluctantly say he'll be last in the line up. Damn it.
5) Mortensen
4) Bale
3) Malek
2) Cooper
1) Dafoe
I’m more positive on the performance than you, but mainly because I gave him more of the benefit of the doubt as not treating Tony Lip as having any real arc. I dont really have any arguments against your review or rating though; I found him entertaining but will most certainly agree on all counts about the criticisms. Maybe a 4 is a bit too high.
Oh dear.
1. Cooper
2. Dafoe
3. Malek
4. Bale
5. Mortensen
Louis: Will you be using a shot from All Gold Canyon for the 2018 background image.
And I'm sure you gave Mortensen a lower score for Van Sant's Psycho.
By the way anyone hear about the twist in Serenity, apparently our Collateral Beauty came early this year.
Luke:
Yeah, but that has to do with the non-role that is Sam Loomis rather than his performance, he's actually better than Gavin is in the part.
Louis: Lastly, please do Bale or Malek next.
Poor McConaughey, Just when we all thought he had wholly proven himself as a great actor, he's back to being in God-Awful films again. The Sea Of Trees and now this.
Also, because "At Eternity's Gate" is the only movie in contention that I can't seem to find a decent copy of, I'll probably review Mortensen tommorow myself.
Afterwards I'll move onto 2018 best actress to save some time, and review Dafoe whenever I can watch his film.
Just thought I'd let everyone know.
*Looks up twist*
Uuhhhhhhh...........
Can someone please cast McConaughey in a good film again?!
Louis: Your thoughts on the production design of The Strawberry Blonde and The Roaring Twenties.
Also not helping: Literally every single thing he said on the awards trail. Good lord, never would have expected him to such a clueless tool.
Lol, expected this. Poor Mortensen.
1. Cooper
2. Dafoe
3. Malek
4. Bale
5. Mortensen
Louis: Out of curiosity, in an alternate universe where you reviewed actresses instead and stayed with your method, would you have saved de Tavira in Roma when you first saw the film? I know you definitely would have saved Aparicio. Just wondering, since she didn't show up in any of the precursors.
(Although you did save Letts for a bit last year for Lady Bird just in case haha, and he didn't make much noise either)
1. Dafoe
2. Cooper (could go either way with the top two)
3. Bale
4. Malek
5. Mortensen
I think At Eternity’s Gate is being released on iTunes and Amazon Prime on the 29th.
That Plainview face is everything.
I don't harbor the sheer disdain for Mortensen's performance (or the man himself) as many do. Yes, it's the most stereotypical Italian-American performance of all time and has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the noggin, but having heard Nick Vallelonga talk and having actually seen Tony Lip himself on The Sopranos, I don't blame Viggo too harshly. The guy was just that wildly outsized, and Viggo actually did a surprising job in layering a character who is such a caricature. Doesn't make it Oscar-worthy, but it's far from the nadir of the Best Actor category this decade.
The DVD for At Eternity's Gate comes out on February 12, and digital releases usually come out two weeks before, so that makes sense.
Psifonian: Thanks for recommending The Guilty btw!
Psifonian: I mean, there have been worse Best Actor nominees this decade, but he’s pretty down there. I’d say he along with Garfield, Cranston, and Danish Girl!Redmayne kind of round out an unholy quartet of biopic performances for me.
This is a pretty interesting year for the lead actor reviews. I figure Cooper will get at least a 4.5 and I knew Mortensen wasn’t getting more than a 3.5, but Bale, Malek and Dafoe are pretty much all wild cards.
1. Cooper
2. Dafoe
3. Malek
4. Bale
5. Mortensen
Robert: I have to ask, in regards to the quartet you mentioned; I understand your dislike of Redmayne, and its been established many of us were quite taken with Garfield, but why Cranston? What did you find so terrible about his performance, because I thought he was fine, if hammy, for his type of film.
Wow, Blunt wins...random, but hey a much better choice than Adams.
Interestingly, the Stallone year, which King doesn't want to fully replicate, also went to a non-Oscar nominated performer.
Anonymous:
The Strawberry Blonde has some fine, unassuming work. It's good though in terms of being sort of the not an obvious set sort of thing. It isn't that overly impressive, it helps that Walsh knows how to shoot sets properly, but it's fine lightly period work.
The Roaring Twenties is a bit more with the World War I scenes, and just creating a general sort of gangster glamor so to speak. Not overly notable in this regard either, but certainly well done in making sort of the false pristine style.
Mitchell: Cranston was the worst of the ones I mentioned. Just an unbearable stream of mugging devoid of anything resmembling good acting. It single-handedly made me lose faith in him as an actor and, worse yet, made me even question if he was that great to begin with.
Can’t complain about that, especially after she missed out on the Oscar. Kills some of Adams’ momentum too.
Ali wins. Ugh.
Eh, looks like Ali's getting Oscar #2, poor Grant.
My God, Ali is reaching Peter Dinklage levels of open embarrassment at winning awards.
Seriously, on what token does anyone think Grant will win now?
Charles:
Unfortunately BAFTA "owes" Ali as well, so probably close to nil.
Charles: He might be able to pull off a Rylance, since he didn't win either at SAG or Golden Globes, but did win BAFTA and of course, the Oscar. But I'm not confident that Grant wins at BAFTA.
Robert: In terms of my unholy quartet for worst best actor nominees of the decade, it would probably be Bardem, Clooney, Washington (Flight) and Redmayne (Danish Girl).
Mitchell: I actually kind if love Washington in Flight. The movie is an embarrassing mess, but I thought he massively rose above it.
I personally thought Washington was great and in retrospect more deserving than Jackman and Cooper. And I liked Bardem. Agreed on the other two though.
And I suppose the only way for Grant to gain any more momentum is if more scandal comes Green Book’s way. Though I suppose that really won’t have any effect.
Bryan: I would agree with you and Louis. Things are not pointing towards Grant winning Bafta.
For the 3 worst nominees of the decade i'd say Bridges in True Grit, Clooney in the Descendants, and Redmayne in Danish Girl.
I honestly don’t understand people’s problems with Bridges in True Grit, but I suppose each to their own. Personally it’s one of my favourite turns by him.
Robert and Calvin: Washington was fine, honestly, but the movie really didn't help him that much. Jackman and Cooper were both considerably stronger, in my opinion. Bardem's performance, meanwhile, was - if I may quote you, Robert - a stream of dull glances with little emotional core behind him. Not bad, but rather monotonous in approach.
For my record there’s been no flat out awful nominee this decade besides Redmyane in Danish Girl (regret ever defending that performance), but I will say Steve Carell in 2014 was a terrible choice over Oyelowo, Gyllenhaal, Fiennes who all might’ve gotten in otherwise.
As for Bridges I'm kind of in the middle of the two camps for his performance; Fun and charming at points, but lacking in a true substance that would have made his characterization that much richer.
Calvin: Carell is a wasted choice for sure, but your right.. comparing the 2010s to the 2000s, for instance, there are few nominees in the past 8 years that are flat out terrible.
Don’t care what else happens tonight so long as Bohemian Rhapsody doesn’t win ensemble.
My issue with Bridges is his paper thin characterization, some of his problems were also present in Wayne's portrayal. I don't find either funny. Overall i think my issue towards Bridges is more of a let down considering i wanted to see a truly great performance of Cogburn.
Bateman over Odenkirk is disappointing.
Sandra Oh is a great choice though.
If Adams had won tonight, I could see BAFTA following suit, since it's her sixth nomination there too. But now... I do think Weisz has the edge - not only The Favourite is up for Picture and Vice is not, but also she didn't win for The Constant Gardener and won both BIFA and London Critics Circle. Adams could still win, of course, but really crazy it would be if Foy wins there (or Robbie, though I think Foy is more likely).
Calvin: Having seen "Ozark" and not "Better Call Saul", I quite liked Bateman, and I hope he continues to explore dramatic material after his great performance in "The Gift", and his very good performance from the show.
What puzzles me more is nominating Bill Pullman from "The Sinner" but not Carrie Coon. Pullman's decent, but Coon not only has the most intriguing character on the show, she also utilizes a greater emotional range than her "Fargo" role, for instance.
Well Malek has this in the bag now I think.
Calvin:
Probably, Bale can slow him down slightly at BAFTA, though I think Malek can win there, and Cooper has just the smallest of outside chances, however it doesn't seem likely.
Close wins, as i expected.
Well Actress is probably over, I could even see BAFTA being really lame and just defaulting here too.
Fuck.
Well I guess A Star is Born probably won't be taking a single precursor.
Here's an interesting question for you guys: Of the 20 oscar nominated performances this year, what would be your favorite 5 overall, regardless of category?
If Black Panther is the compromise vote to prevent Green Book or Bohemian Rhapsody, than I am more than willing to take it.
Black Panther huh? Can’t complain about that.
Mitchell:
McCarthy
Grant
Weisz
Stone
Colman
Feels like the love for A Star is Born is diminishing over time.
Mitchell:
1. McCarthy
2. Weisz
3. Stone
4. Grant
5. Gaga/Cooper (on the same level)
Mitchell: Haven't seen Dafoe or King yet, but I'll bite:
McCarthy
Colman
Grant
Stone
Weisz
Louis: Does the Black Panther win mean anything come Oscar night? Or this is it for them?
Charles: Which is a shame, honestly, given three of its fellow best picture nominees specifically.
Mitchell: In no particular order-
McCarthy
Cooper
Grant
Stone
Weisz
Robert: Seconded. Although I wish The Favourite had received a nom in SAG.
My favorite 5 of all the nominees:
1. McCarthy
2. Grant
3. Weiscz
4. Stone
5. Colman
Bryan:
No, probably not. Remember the voting bloc is gigantic now since its SAG/AFTRA, so the biggest box office success winning should not be too much of a surprise. Like Hidden Figures two years ago, its a nice thing for the film itself, but I don't think it will translate to best picture. Especially since Panther did well, it got into best picture, but it was not a top five contender in terms of that nomination, no Director, Editing or acting nominations. It more than anything just hurts Blackkklansman, though I didn't expect that to win there.
I'm beginning to notice a pattern...
Mitchell:
- Still have to watch McCarthy/Grant, Dafoe, Close (I won't unless she wins the Oscar) and King.
Stone
Weisz
Cooper
Colman
Eliott
This year's SAGs have been disappointing to me (Besides Malek and Blunt). If you guys don't mind me, I'm going to contemplate going to sleep without waking up.
Question for anybody who's seen Bohemian Rhapsody (which I'm actively putting off doing), at any point in the film is Roy Thomas Baker's name ever even mentioned?
Matt: Don't recall him being mentioned, and even if he was, it would've been a throwaway line most likely. The movie is thinly-written.
Bryan L: To put it mildly.
Bryan L: That's what I figured, which is more than a shame, because he was the producer of all those albums, and brought their sound together. He deserves the recognition.
Although maybe being associated with that movie wouldn't have been so good.
1. Cooper
2. Dafoe
3. Malek
4. Bale
5. Mortensen
My resquest: Innokentiy Smoktunovskiy in Hamlet
1. Dafoe
2. Malek
3. Cooper
4. Bale
5. Mortensen
Any 2018 viewings Louis
My name is Mr. Português Brasil. And this is my ranking of nominees:
5. Mortensen
4. Bale
3. Malek
2. Dafoe
1. Cooper
The italian voice Viggo uses here reminds me of Shaddap You Face by Joe Dolce
Oscar Nominations, Resident Evil 2, Siskel and Ebert website returning, Barcelona signing Frenkie de Jong and now.... the game of my dreams Kingdom Hearts III plus four days off work to play it, work has been terrible, all of this has been basically my medication lol.
This blog as well, this blog works decently as medication as well lol.
RatedRStar: I hope you get better, although I doubt that most of this year's noms count as beneficial medication hahaha
Louis: Your rating and thoughts on Whoopi Goldberg in Soapdish
And Sonia Braga in Moon over Parador
Well Glass was pretty bad. Wouldn't recommend it to the rest of you lot, especially since there don't actually seem to be too many Unbreakable fans to begin with.
Willis - 3 (hey, he's trying although the writing is dreadful)
Jackson - 3 (he's trying too but honestly it just makes me appreciate his original work more)
McAvoy - 3.5 (he's trying and again it works for the most part, the new personalities are pretty fun)
Paulson - 2 (she's really not trying at all and I can't really blame her)
Joy - 2.5 (competes with Alison Sudol in Crimes of Grindewald with some of the worst re-writing of a character in recent memory)
Woodward - 3 (trying to invest some emotion out of that Shaymalan script is an impossible feat but she kind of manages it)
Also just another plug, did Makeup/Hairstyling and Visual Effects choices on my blog (trying to do categories where I think I can leave off If Beale Street Could Talk for now since it’ll be a week or so before I can see if) - https://reelandroll.blogspot.com/2019/01/reel-and-roll-awards-best-makeup-and.html?m=1
Louis: your thoughts on the direction, screenplay, cinematography and score of the straight story
Serenity sounds like a case of so bad it's good. Some of the reviews are hilarious.
Anonymous:
A Private War
Illang: The Wolf Brigade
Game Night (Needed a good dose of good Plemons after watching Vice again.
Deiner:
Goldberg - 3.5(It's a good performance from her as her comedic sensibilities work well for the part. She brings the right energy to the proceedings, and is particularly enjoyable in her scene where she joins in on the soap ever so briefly.)
Braga - 2.5(A pretty lame role for her as just this generic love interest for Dreyfuss. She has enough of an allure I suppose, but it just does not add up to much. She is mostly there just to look pretty which is a shame given her talent.)
Post a Comment