Friday 15 February 2019

Alternate Best Actor 2018: Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly in Stan & Ollie

Steve Coogan did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a BAFTA, and John C. Reilly did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a Golden Globe, for portraying Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy respectively in Stan & Ollie.

Stan & Ollie is a delightful film following the later years of the comedy duo as they embark on a European tour.

As a longtime fan of Laurel & Hardy, I'll admit I had a keen interest in seeing an eventual film to be made about the duo. Although I was well aware that there wasn't anything too "dramatic" within their lives, there was some potential within their later years of falling into semi-obscurity to only still found a resounding love of the public. In turn I'll admit I did try to imagine a dream casting for the pair, Stan was not one I could foresee easily but I never had anyone else in mind other than John C. Reilly in the role of Ollie. So naturally I was overjoyed to hear the frankly perfect casting choice come to fruition. I'll fully admit though I was less impressed initially at hearing Steve Coogan casting as Stan, feeling originally that it was a lazy choice merely based upon Stan & Ollie's director Jon S. Baird's previous collaboration with Coogan, Philomena. I'll admit I still wasn't quite convinced after seeing the trailer for the film, but things changed during the opening minutes of the film, where we see the pair in the prime, on the set of Way Out West, as they go through their personal lives and the slight tension between them, particularly Stan, and producer Hal Roach. Although the pair of Reilly and Coogan made two brief cameos on the awards trail, they were overlooked, meanwhile one performance also as a real person, also based around the imitation of a real person, has been reaping all of the awards glory. Well Coogan and Reilly's embodiment of these comedy legends frankly makes that awards winning performance look like a rank amateur.

Well in this opening scene the first thing that happened was that Reilly lives up to the promise of his casting quite immediately. He has a bit of help with some makeup, that he actually wears far better than most actors, as it seems so naturally part of his face, where he always did resemble Ollie to a certain degree. Well here he just simply becomes Ollie. Yes, yes one can always make this claim but honestly I just forgot I was watching Reilly here almost immediately. This is as he captures every aspect of Ollie so naturally and with such ease. This is with his so very specific voice of that slightly high pitched timbre yet with that sort of hidden deeply southern gentlemen bravado within it. It is such a specific that Ollie had that Reilly realizes not just as this surface imitation, but the fully textured voice of a person. It is so precise in just how accurate it is, yet so effortless in this approach. You just seem to meet the man, as even the way he greets his future wife the script girl Lucille (Shirley Henderson), with his oh so light and charming delivery of a "a sweet for my sweet" as he hands her a donut, I could only say "that's Oliver Hardy!". His physicality even in the role is simply of Hardy, which is a very specific, that frankly most other *ahem* husky comedians have tried to replicate. This being this lightness in movement and step despite heaviness of the personage. Reilly has this down pat in every little gesture of the hands, and even his walk is of this swim rather than a stomp. It is an amazing transformation that simply is Ollie.

Now how about Steve Coogan, who I had a my doubts about? Well he already has a bit of a tougher road in a certain sense in that he has no additional "help" so to speak in that his appearance isn't really altered in any great way. Coogan also is far less who I initially think of Stan Laurel at any point as his usual presence is typically far more cynical and harsh than would fit ole Stannie. Well, any doubts of mine for Coogan were dashed just as my hopes for Reilly were realized. Coogan too becomes Stan, which is particularly outstanding as it becomes almost impossible to describe exactly how. Coogan just tweaks himself in such a slight way to find the specific mannerisms of Stan, that it is absolutely fascinating. There is an even greater aspect of this that I will get to in a moment, but just every minor physical gesture too Coogan finds is just as Stan was. His voice even just is Stan's again, and again it is amazing. In that his accent just finds that certain lightness that evokes Stan's very airy English accent. Again though it is that physicality that is so specific to the once silent comedian that is so essential to portraying him, that again Coogan masters. This is as his walk and demeanor is just of that almost scarecrow esque manner, and a purposeful broad manner of his movements. It again just simply is the man in Coogan's hands, and like Reilly it is stunning how authentic it all feels. It never feels like an act as soon as this scene begins and both just are our Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy for the duration of the film.

Of course that is just step one in a sense, as both actors even manage to bring slight variations in this between their first scenes, and few flashbacks, against the older versions of the actors, where both, particularly Reilly, convey the wear of the years on the men. Not to some extreme degree, but with the right sense that reflects the age of the men properly as they embark on the tour. Of course the embodiment doesn't end there as the men are not the men as they were as the characters of Stan & Ollie. Stan being obviously much smarter, and also more introverted than the character of Stannie, against Ollie who was a whole lot less grumpy in reality, and technically was perhaps not leader of the two, as was the case in the films. The team of Reilly and Coogan, are also brilliant in creating the distinctions of the characters between the real people against the film versions of themselves. Reilly again masters this with the slight, though oh so hilarious, intensity found in the character of Ollie right down to the flustered breaking the fourth wall stare. That moment, where we see a fantastical creation of a never made film of Robin Good, with Coogan and Reilly, I'll be honest you could have told me it was lost real footage, as Reilly's moment as pure film Ollie, is absolute perfection of the recreation of a screen presence. The same is true for Coogan, who also masters that slightly changed manner of delivery of that of the simpleton with that sort lip smacking method of the dumb man slowly finding his words.

Now the film has the two specifically recreate the style of the performers in a several different scenes. This could have easily become tiresome if the two were not on point, and not believable as the duo. I'll admit I might have been okay with the understudy version of them, but I have to admit, as a giant fan of the two, Coogan and Reilly become the real deal. They have every bit of the physical comedy down pat, with that exact comedic timing in between the two that made them legends of the form. Also unlike some recreations from 2018, these two boys do their own singing, except for one instance where even the real Stan Laurel did not do his own singing. Their version of the "The Trail of the Lonesome Pine" is something I was quite looking forward to I'll admit since one of the reasons I knew Reilly would be great for the role is his magnificent singing voice. Thankfully we were granted Reilly singing again and once again it is wonderful to hear him belt out a tune. Although with the eloquence of Ollie, while Coogan offers some fine support, just as Stan did, the two are again a delight, though I will leave the note that we NEED Reilly to be put into a proper musical, that man's musical talents are underused, however I digress. Each recreation though carries that some splendid wonder as it does feel like a cheap imitation but a proper realization of the duo's comedic greatness. They do both go a bit further though as there are moments that are not one for one, and Coogan and Reilly still find the timing, and the spirit of the men. They are absolutely and consistently entertaining to the point I frankly want the two just simply fully Laurel & Hardy feature, they're that good.

Of course as much as this film is a nice trip down cinematic legacy lane the film does have some dramatic elements. I actually love this aspect of the film that it focuses upon, it doesn't treat it as a trite element. Now mind you there was not truly great tragedy about the men, yet what they do include here is a whole lot more pointed than that far more awarded biopic puff piece. This is in the way that the two men were very different in personality and perspective. Ollie being just a loving generous man, of perhaps too great of appetites but not in a way that alienated others. Reilly brings this to life with such immense charm but with the right balance as he conveys the sense of darkness only within the frustrations that naturally come from his life, and the results of his weight. Reilly finds the right balance in the interpersonal personality of the man being so warm and endearing, that is his basic setting. I love one moment where we see his frustration at losing money on one of his bets as he tosses away a paper in anger, before see a group of kids watching him. Reilly's switch to a oh so pleasant little wave of his tie with big bright smile. Reilly doesn't play this as a jump into a facade, but rather the way of the man falling upon really his inherent nature. This is opposed to Coogan as Stan who shows that he certainly has a certain charm, but this is within a certain intense driven manner. Coogan finds really the right incisiveness of the man fitting to a man with a fixed artistic vision. There is the right passion in it, that is properly internalized by Coogan's work that shows it as something that creates a frigid quality at times though as side effect of that need to bring his ideas to the world.

The two then develop this very specific chemistry between the two. I love Coogan and Reilly together as Stan and Ollie, being the people they were off stage. The two find a low key loving quality that is given the right understated quality to the point you could forget about it. The years of working and really being together just are exuded in every understanding interaction. They in the same though realize the right tension, of course in the end the type of tension that can exist in any great friendship, with Reilly finding that passive attitude in Ollie that contrasts against the intensity Coogan brings with Stan. We finds something similar when we see the two with their wives, Ollie with the openly affectionate Lucille, and Stan with the rather direct Ida (Nina Arianda). Both women firmly love each men, just the two go about it with very different personalities. Again Reilly and Coogan are great in realizing these separate relationships. This with Reilly having such a sweet chemistry with Henderson in this nearly uncompromising care the two share that is so convincing and wonderful. Meanwhile with Stan, Coogan and Arianda show a newer relationship, and again fitting to his personality, a rawer more intense infatuation between the two. Both though just create a vivid understanding of each relationship and just show that little more of each man. Now the major conflict then comes in their personalities clashing, which again is not a dramatic break up but a fight that really a proper friends will have at one time or another. This coming just from earned pent up frustrations of the years that Reilly and Coogan bring such an honesty to. Their fight scene is absolutely fantastic as they each play it as these earned anger of old wounds. Stan for Ollie having worked with another partner in an undermining move against Stan by Hal Roach, and Ollie against Stan for Stan always seeming more occupied with their legacy as performers than their friendship. Their fight simply feels real as the two call upon the personalities with such a sadness evoked in Reilly in his expression of the heartbreak in the colder Stan, against the anger that Coogan brings out of a man feeling burdened by the lack of ambition of his partner. I especially adore the heartbreaking little face of betrayal in Reilly as he turns around, after Stan throws bread at him at the end of their fight. Again though this is not earth shattering for them but rather more release. It does take a bit of recovery which again feels genuine. I especially adore the moment where Coogan plays Stan, playing the character of Stan, trying to build the bridge back between the two. Coogan effectively showing that he puts on a facade of the act, thought trying to use it to to be more outgoing in the moment. After Hardy falls ill though the two do come together again such a tender moment as they forget their differences and share their very real mutual love. Both in the moment again earn by just calling upon this sense of understanding even in their difference as each so quietly deliver their apologies so authentic to two life long friends. I can't praise these performances enough, because they did something I didn't think could be done. They brought back the great duo and did so with such loving detail. They capture it all in their timing, their specific mannerisms, their banter, their physical comedy, and even in that certain of joy performance you could always sense from the duo. Although this film isn't the Amadeus, of comedians, it doesn't need to be, as the two express what was great about the duo as cinematic performers, well giving the chance to meet them as people. Coogan and Reilly both did the legends proud and there's no more I could ask for. 

42 comments:

Mitchell Murray said...

I'm glad to see Reilly and Coogan both getting such a warm response.

It's also funny how you mention Reilly's aptitude for musicals, Louis, since I wouldn't mind seeing that side of his talent either, especially since his first attempt at it worked our rather nicely for him.

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Do you think this film would've made a bigger splash in next year's awards season? Its a shame that other lesser biopics got all the buzz this time around.

Charles H said...

They would both be fives for me. They're two performances that you could watch many times and enjoy it the same each viewing. Their work is an achievement to say the least.

Bryan L. said...

Wait, which performance are you alluding to in the first paragraph?

"These two boys do their own singing."

Ah, got it.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Holy crap I need to see this. They might both make the top 5.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Also, the serious amount of shade you kept throwing at Rami Malek's performance in Bohemian Rhapsody almost made it seem like you didn't even want to give him a 4, if that makes sense.

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Also, is this film now in your Top Ten for the year? Because it sounds like you don't have any major reservations about it.

Mitchell Murray said...

Tahmeed: I, for one, will still stand by my 4.5 for Malek. The fact that he didn't actually sing his songs didn't bother me NEARLY as much as everyone else, it seems. Personally, I think when lip syncing is obvious, you can attribute a good amount of blame to bad editing, because it can actually be done well Ex, Penelope Cruz singing "Volver".

As for his film's superficial view of its subject - though that's putting it mildly - I do think Malek ran with his performance as well as many actors realistically could've. It was never an incorrect effort for myself, and I did buy into the presence he employed and the needed subtlety in his characterization, and after a little bit, I did see a lot of Mercury's shades in his work.

So in the end he is a 4.5, a low 4.5, but still a 4.5, and if Malek wins the oscar as he's predicted, I won't be particularly salty primarily because of two of the biopic turns he's competing with.

Matt Mustin said...

They're definitely gonna be in the top 5.

Luke Higham said...

Mitchell: You should watch Walk Hard. He's fantastic in it.

And so happy to see the two get fives.

Calvin Law said...

They were both great and I knew they’d get the same rating. I’m glad you pointed out how Coogan just as wonderfully slipped into the role despite not really looking like Stan and the differences between their onscreen and offscreen personas were beautifully done. I’ll be interested to see where they end up in the rankings.

Calvin Law said...

Bryan: Nah, too ‘slight’ for the Academy’s tastes, and not generic enough a biopic.

Charles H said...

I never loved Reilly as an actor before 2018. I always found him to be "that one guy with a distinctive face who played a small role". But than again i haven't seen Walk Hard.

Calvin Law said...

Charles: really? He’s always been one of my favourite actors.

Calvin Law said...

RIP Bruno Ganz.

RatedRStar said...

RIP Bruno Ganz

RatedRStar said...

Greatest actor from Switzerland ever? I think he surely has to be.

Álex Marqués said...

I think Reilly has been great for years. In fact he's my supporting actor win for Magnolia.


RIP Bruno Ganz

Anonymous said...

Louis: I'm curious, have you seen The Tick cartoon from the 90's? If so, what do you think of Townsend Coleman's performance as the title character.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

RIP Bruno Ganz.

Louis: Could Laurel and Hardy go up to a 5 for Way Out West?

Lezlie said...

R.I.P., Herr Ganz.

Bryan L. said...

RIP Bruno Ganz

Robert MacFarlane said...

It's perfectly okay if you want to lower Malek's score.

RIP Bruno Ganz

Luke Higham said...

RIP Bruno Ganz :(

Your performance in Downfall was one of my all-time favourites.

Calvin Law said...

Louis: your thoughts on the whole sequence where Stan is in the waiting room of the movie producer? I thought that was a brilliant scene where Coogan flitted in and out with the more businesslike Stan and the playful Stannie when doing the trick with his hat and his reaction at the end when the news was revealed to him was pitch perfect.

Calvin Law said...

And giving it some thought I’m going to bump the chaps up to 5’s apiece.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: If you've seen it, Thoughts on Destroyer and ratings & thoughts on the cast.

Also, Which 10 actors do you think really deserve a chance to expand their abilities in major roles.

Bryan L. said...

Luke: Safe to say that Ganz is your win for 2004? And perhaps...Top 10 for that decade?

Luke Higham said...

Bryan: Yes, but Cruise and Considine are phenomenal as well. :)

Luke Higham said...

What helped Ganz for me is that I've seen Downfall countless times since I was 13, (My dad being a WWII fan has a great attachment to it and he had it on DVD when I first saw it) whereas I've only seen Collateral and Dead Man's Shoes twice.

Emi Grant said...

Awful news to come back to. I'm glad I got to see his performance in Downfall just 2 weeks ago, truly masterful work.

R.I.P. Bruno Ganz

Bryan L. said...

Luke: I must watch Downfall ASAP! Also, if you don't mind, can I have your Top 5 Bale and Crowe performances, with ratings? You seem to be quite fond of those two.

Bryan L. said...

The Academy is now (thankfully) reversing their decision to hand out four of the awards during commercial break.

Luke Higham said...

Russell Crowe
1. Master And Commander (5)
2. L.A. Confidential
3. Boy Erased
4. The Nice Guys (4.5)
5. 3:10 To Yuma
6. The Insider
7. Gladiator
8. Romper Stomper
9 A Beautiful Mind
10. Noah (4)
11. Cinderella Man
12. The Water Diviner

Christian Bale
1. Out Of The Furnace (5)
2. The Prestige
3. Rescue Dawn
4. American Psycho (4.5)
5. The Machinist
6. Hostiles
7. Empire Of The Sun
8. The Fighter
9. The Dark Knight Rises (4)
10. 3:10 To Yuma
11. Vice (Like everyone else here, fucking hated it)
12. The Dark Knight
13. Batman Begins

Bryan L. said...

Luke: Shame on McKay for denying Bale a chance at getting a 5. And I kind of suspected that would be your reaction to Vice.

Luke Higham said...

Saw The Kid Who Would Be King, perhaps abit overlong but I really enjoyed it.

Serkis - 4/4.5 (Gollum's baby boy has talent)
Imrie - 4
Stewart - 3
Ferguson - 2/2.5 (Doesn't make much of an impact here)

Matt Mustin said...

R.I.P. Bruno Ganz. Great actor.

Mitchell Murray said...

Rest in peace, Bruno Ganz

Louis Morgan said...

Bryan:

Unfortunately no, though its release strategy and campaign did it no real favors, so where it did show up certainly were notable. I think though if it had gotten a better push in general it could've at least shown up a few more places, maybe gotten an original screenplay nod or makeup. I think both the boys were doomed though given they were sharing a category, and neither was favored. Calvin is right though in that it is too light (Not in a bad way as a film, but in a "Non-awards player" way), with no phony delusions of grandeur, to have been a major player.

I do think, however, if they had committed category fraud for Reilly I think he could've been nominated, which would have been no more egregious than Ali's nomination in supporting. It also would've helped Coogan's chances as well. I'll give them merit points though for being honest with their placements though.

No, since I have no major reservations about any of the films currently in my top 10 either. It would be in my top 20 though.

Tahmeed:

It does make sense, however I'll admit part of that comes from just finding that it is going to be such an uninspired eventual win.

No to the question, but like Chaplin in Modern Times, they're kind of the strongest a 4.5 can be without going over.

Anonymous:

I have but I don't really remember anything about it.

Calvin:

Wonderful moment, and again plays into his approach of showing that when Stan puts on the charm, it is playing the character. A delightful bit of the character to be sure with the hat trick that is so eloquently done in the way, as you said, goes in and out of the character there. In addition in his disheartening reaction is a wonderfully low key, yet moving moment thanks to Coogan's reaction.

Luke:

Destroyer I thought frequently bordered on being completely awful. It has moments of inspiration yet its attempts to be so hardened and gritty, that it nearly became unintentionally comical in this approach at times. The story definitely has potential but has some major flaws throughout. The main one being the plotting that just isn't quite concise enough, something also brought upon by the often disjointed and muddled editing. It also is burdened by two downright horrible performances, and the worst makeup I've seen on a major star since the ending of For the Boys (in case you haven't watched that film, know that is very very very bad.). I didn't hate the film though, as more than anything it just felt like a lot of potential that didn't add up.

Louis Morgan said...

Kidman - 4.5(Okay that makeup on her is just atrocious and the fact that anyone approved it is utterly mind boggling. It looks so ridiculous to the point that it consistently took me out of the film, which is a shame. Kidman to her credit does her best to overpower that ridiculous mess upon her face to actually give a rather stunning performance at times. Now there is some inconsistent to this, in that she's partially miscast in the early scenes, and the makeup is a constant problem in the later ones. When she is great though here, she's truly great in granting such a needed raw intensity to the part that conveys the burdens of years of pain within her soul. She also brings the right urgency in the search, and the strict manner fitting to a hardened cop. She goes all in and for the most part it pays off on her front anyways. I'll admit some of the scenes seemed to exist solely for an actress to be described as being "brave" for doing them, but Kidman does bring a real conviction and honesty to them even with the contrived elements in there. It is an often powerful turn in itself even if the weaknesses of the film do weigh her down to a certain degree. I would've loved to have seen this same performance without the ludicrous makeup, and just working with a tighter script.)

Stan - 3.5(Well after giving the most underappreciated performance of 2017, Stan once again delivers here. Although the power of his scenes are diminished by the film's scattered narrative Stan brings, along with Kidman, a real conviction in creating the sense of weight of their undercover position and the emotional connection the two create with this intensity. He's consistently good even if the film doesn't use him perfectly.)

Maslany - 3.5(She's terrific in her one major scene, that honestly is probably the best scene of the film as it just Kidman and Maslany being allowed to act against each other. In that moment you get a such a vivid sense of their past together to the point I wished we could've just had Maslany as the gang leader instead of......)

Kebbell - 1(My goodness he is terrible here. Once again he's not at all believable as an American, but that's not really the problem here. What's worse is how he seems to be just a boy playing dress up as the least menacing and convincing gangster I've seen in quite some time. Kebbell is just awful in the role as every moment he is onscreen rings false, as I think he's trying to be like Gary Oldman in True Romance, but fails miserably in this approach.)

Pettyjohn - 1(Speaking of awful, my goodness is she terrible. Every single scene between the mother and daughter rings completely false, despite Kidman's best efforts, because of her work without depth. There is nothing here as she just seems out of place in every scene she is in.)

McNairy and Whitford are both good in their brief roles.

Glenn Howerton
Liev Schreiber
Simon Pegg
Barry Pepper
Alfie Allen
Paul Bettany
Byung-hun Lee (English Language work)
Matthias Schoenaerts (English Language work)
Nicholas Hoult (Sadly Tolkien looks like another standard "pretty boy" turn)
Dave Bautista
















RIP Bruno Ganz

Anonymous said...

Louis: what are your thoughts on rocky's speech to his son in rocky balboa

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

It is probably the best scene in what is otherwise a decent if somewhat forgettable Rocky film. It is certainly a "speech" however it just so beautifully sums up the Rocky from the very first film, where it isn't about being the best fighter at any point, but rather just a man giving it his all.