Saturday 2 February 2019

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2018: Peter Bogdanovich in The Other Side of the Wind

Peter Bogdanovich did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Brooks Otterlake in The Other Side of the Wind.

The Other Side of the Wind is the final, initially unfinished film, by brilliant egomaniac Orson Welles about a brilliant egomaniac, Jake Hanneford (John Huston), failing to finish his final film.

Keeping in mind that this synopsis that leads to a meta exploration of the nature of filmmakers,  their acolytes and film analysis, we have Peter Bogdanovich in the role of Brooks Otterlake, Brooks a former film critic/historian, protege of Hanneford turned commercially successful director, meanwhile Bogdanovich was a critic/historian, protege of Welles, turned commercially successful director. Bogdanovich obviously is not known as an actor, typically only featured in cameo roles, sometimes to his own detriment in the case of his work in his own film Targets. Bogdanovich in turn was not the original choice for this role, replacing impersonator Rich Little who originally played the role, for reasons that differ depending on the source, though if you've seen Little's impersonathan take on the Christmas Carol you'd probably say it is for the best. Bogdanovich was moved out of his original bit part as one of the interested cinefanatics, and instead was cast as a version himself, to the point Welles told him to evoke their relationship with his performance. This perhaps helped then in Bogdanovich gives a strangely far more committed work here than his nearly abysmal work in his own earlier film, of course the old hand wave of playing himself can be wrongly lobbed as always,  especially since what Bogdanovich gets at here is far more than a surface examination.

Although the film is ostensibly about Huston's Jake Hanneford you perhaps are granted a far more intimate insight into Brooks. This in part is helped from Bogdanovich giving the only bit of acting that is from beyond the original bursts of filming in the original production, this is through the opening introduction where Brooks offers the  introduction to the "documentary" to the viewer. Bogdanovich, though servicing a need to the film's introduction, doesn't cut short the character finding his delivery these years of exasperated pain in trying to uncover the exact truth of his old mentor though with a resignation in regards to letting his and Hanneford's legacy be as it may. In the actual film though we open up to a very different Brooks seemingly in his hay day having fun along with the large entourage of Hanneford. Bogdanovich carries himself magnificently as we see him in the initial press light portraying Brooks seemingly in his element of discussing Hanneford. Bogdanovich successfully delivers a unique charisma and confidence of these moments, with this just the right touch of smug assurance, as though he is the alpha dog, though of the hangerons. This though with the bright badge of honor of his success, which Bogdanovich carries with this casual calm, that he illustrates sometimes in an old Hollywood impersonation. Evidently this was Little's main approach in the part, playing each scene with a different accent which seems a touch broad, however Bogdanovich uses these rather brilliantly as these naturalistic little asides that suggest Brooks as he is so well into his element, but also an allusion to his state as essentially a living impersonation.

At the arrival to Jake's party, and where there will also be a rough cut showing of the film, we are given a series of circumstances that reveals every toxic interaction and relationship created by Hanneford over the years. This puts upon pressure on all specifically Brooks who is pushed by all including other filmmakers. Although we initially are granted Bogdanovich still carrying that certainty, with his delicious delivery of "Jake's surrounded by disciples, I'm the apostle" as this creed that grants a superiority well also is clever admission of the truth of the man. Bogdanovich is quite effective as he wears away, and he manages to convey this certain ease up of the excessive confidence. It rather becomes nearly this defense mechanism as he hears criticisms of himself as essentially a copy of Hanneford, and nothing but an imitator in the end. Bogdanovich is especially effective of this wearing away of the overly clever facade. This even in his brief, public, back and forth with Hanneford who makes many passive aggressive remarks to which Bogdanovich usually plays against an eye roll, though an eye roll that hides more than he initially lets on towards the nature of Brooks. One particularly remarkable moment in this is where he recommends, jokingly, to have a fight with one of his "critics". Bogdanovich delivers the recommendations of fisticuffs with a jovial spin, however now in his eyes bringing this greater desperation in the moment of actually having to defend his relationship with Jake beyond a certain point. Bogdanovich has a surprising depth in his work as he slowly dissolves the nature of Brooks in the progression of the night to essentially reveal a failure of Brooks. Bogdanovich is excellent in the way of playing around with the confidence, depending on the audience, showing the man trying to keep his pride, by making the act all the more pathetic as it goes on. This is until finally he essentially reveals himself fully in a private moment with Jake. All that bravado is gone as Bogdanovich plays the moment as essentially this quiet, even shy, little fanboy who is hesitant knowing his disappointment in the eyes of the mentor, as despite his success can't help him fund his film. Bogdanovich, despite being the last addition to the film, provides the most human element, even within his deeply flawed character. That is obviously not going to come from the delusional Hanneford, instead Bogdanovich surprises with his rich textured work of a man living his own delusion while still within the shadow of another. Bogdanovich, in his efforts to release Welles's final work director, actually helped to uncover an artifact of a greater ability as a performer, though perhaps that was because he uncovered a real pain within himself through this self-portrait of sorts.

43 comments:

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Where would you rank The Other Side Of The Wind.

And I'll stick with Guve.

Calvin Law said...

I still don't 'get' this film - don't hate it or anything, just left me cold - but I will say I'm happy he was reviewed, if only that this has been one of your most interesting reviews to date insofar as exploring both a performance and the context behind it - so thank you, Louis, another cracking read. I expect likewise when/if we get a Huston review.

I will say also that it's pretty cool that such an artistic/experimental flick can be easily accessible on Netflix for just about anyone with an account.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Louis: To respond to something you said on the last page, you didn’t think Bohemian Rhapsody’s editing was that bad? I consider it the worst edited movie of the year.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Well if I cheat, and pair it with the companion documentary "They'll Love Me When I'm Dead", it'd probably be in my top 20 with ease, as the two together are absolutely fascinating.

Calvin:

Thanks.

Robert:

Watch Gotti...actually don't. But compared to a film edited as that one is I wouldn't describe Bohemian Rhapsody as incompetent, the word I used, as something like Gotti is how I would define incompetent. Rhapsody's editing isn't remotely noteworthy, but at least I can tell what's going on in a scene and the general structure of the film is at least logical.

RatedRStar said...

Is it weird to see a film come out in 2018 that was made in the 70s? because it is so surreal to see a youngish Peter Bogdanovich.

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: Is Gotti "fun" bad or "I'm wasting my freaking time" bad?

RatedRStar said...

Louis: If its possible to give thoughts on a film like this, what are your thoughts?

Bryan L. said...

RatedRStar: Sure is. It's even weird seeing Bogdanovich in the lineup page haha.

Louis: Your thoughts on the three ladies in The Favourite as a potential alternate cast for In Bruges (as I suggested in the previous post). And do you think the film could eventually start picking up some momentum before the big night?

Calvin Law said...

The worst edited film of 2018 I've seen has to be The Predator. Would not recommend.

Calvin Law said...

And just in case that doesn't put you off it, it literally tries to use 'weaponising autism' as a plot point. As someone with a sibling on the spectrum (though I'd have been offended regardless), it was the most tasteless depiction of such a subject matter since 'I Am Sam' (and at least that sort of had the inklings of its heart in the right place). Frankly I'm surprised I haven't been spewing more vitriol on the film here, but I guess most of you haven't seen it. So don't.

Matt Mustin said...

Calvin: Oh, I can't stand that! That's why I hated The Accountant. Well...it's not "why", but it didn't help.

Calvin Law said...

Matt: Trust me, I had problems with The Accountant too in that regard...but the way it comes into play in The Predator thanks to Shane Black is even worse. I'm starting to think that he's kind of losing his way as a writer in particular, since both this and The Nice Guys (which I do like) have their worst elements rooted in an outrageously tone-deafness.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Peyton Reed spent a year at Fox developing a Fantastic Four film that was set in the 60's. The film would not have the origin story and in terms of structure, it would be like The Beatles' A Hard Day's Night.

He wanted Alexis Denisof for Reed Richards, Charlize Theron for Sue Storm, Paul Walker for Johnny Storm, John C. Reilly as Ben Grimm and Jude Law as Dr. Doom.

Thoughts on this? Also, thoughts on Donald Sutherland as Deathstroke in a 80's Batman film.

Louis Morgan said...

Matt:

The latter, even the "ghost of John Gotti" framing device is funnier in description than actually seeing it.

RatedRStar:

Well it is possible, I gave some thoughts here: http://actoroscar.blogspot.com/2018/10/alternate-best-actor-1987-joe-mantegna.html though it isn't the easiest film to "review" and in some regards I think it deserved more discussions than just reviews, just by its very nature and how it relates to Welles's final years. That's why I can't recommend enough the companion documentary.

Bryan:

Yes to the first question, though I'd say have Stone as the obvious, Weisz as Harry equivalent, and Colman as the Ken equivalent.

I hope so, the ace win isn't a bad start, and Original Screenplay is getting more and more likely, it could go further but I really don't want to get my hopes up, given it's far and away my favorite (no puns) out of the major contenders.

Bryan L. said...

Calvin: I'm passing on The Predator, so thanks for the heads-up. And Id also wager that Blacks direction also holds back The Nice Guys, since he couldn't hold a consistent tone for the film in my view.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Well I'd taken any alternative take given how the no budget Corman version is still the best version by most accounts. I like the idea of a 60's set version, however A Hard Day's Night comparison is somewhat concerning, as that film is a difficult trick to pull off. Doing a superhero film as such, could work, but could also be pretty bad. That being said I would rather have seen that, and that cast, especially Reilly as Grimm, than what we got with the extremely bland film by Story.

In regards to Sutherland...sure in terms of the acting chops and general look, less sure about pulling off the action chops.

Calvin Law said...

Compared to the Josh Trank shitfest, Story's version is masterful. And not that they're the absolute nadir of the film by any means, but if you ever dare watch it, Redmayne will have some nice snug company at the bottom with Miles Teller and Toby Kebell.

Anonymous said...

Calvin: Trank actually based the castings oF his film on the Ultimate Universe version of the F4. In that continuity, the Fantastic Four are teenagers. And believe it or not, that's where we got Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury.

The MCU Spider-Man is also based on the Ultimate version.

Personally, I was never a fan of any of those comics. And besides, they made Captain America into an asshole.

Matt Mustin said...

Anonymous: Yeah, that's not what the problem was.

Bryan L. said...

Louis: I hope the film does pick up some steam, and maybe it will if starts winning awards in the technical guilds.

Also, apparently Robert de Niro, John Turturro and John Travolta were all considered for Andrew Dice Clays' part in A Star is Born. Thoughts on those alternates? I'm glad Clay got to show a new side of him though.

Matt Mustin said...

Bryan L: I can see all three of them working.

Louis Morgan said...

Bryan:

Out of those choices...I'm glad Clay got the part. As on a bad day De Niro can be boring, and Turturro and Travolta can be over the top. Clay brought just what was needed there honestly.

Matt Mustin said...

Okay, let me rephrase that. I can see all of them working if they were directed well.

Bryan L. said...

Matt: Maybe Cooper could've gotten them in line, though I'm quite content with Clay.

I wouldn't have minded seeing Clay receive a couple of notices for his work in the film as well, since its good, semi-atypical work from him.

Matt Mustin said...

Alfonso Cuaron wins the DGA, as expected.

Bryan L. said...

The Favourite (!), Black Panther and Crazy Rich Asians all win awards for Period, Fantasy, and Contemporary Art Direction at the ADGAs.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

1. Waits
2. Nivola
3. Hoult
4. Hornsby
5. Bogdanovich

1. Yeun
2. Bridges
3. Crowe
4. Henry
5. Roache

BRAZINTERMA said...

My Overall Rating Bets for Best SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
1º Sakura Ando in Shoplifters
2º Claire Foy in First Man
3º Zoe Kazan in The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
4º Regina King in Of Beale Street Could Talk
5º Elizabeth Debicki in Widows
6º Milly Shapiro in Hereditary
7º Thomasin McKenzie in Leave No Trace
8º Tilda Swinton in Suspiria
9º Michelle Yeoh in Crazy Rich Asians
10º Andrea Riseborough in Mandy


My Overall Rating Bets for Best LEAD ACTRESS:
1º Toni Collette in Hereditary
2º Karine Teles in Loveling
3º Melissa McCarthy in Can You Ever Forgive Me?
4º Olivia Colman in The Favourite
5º Rachel Weisz in The Favourite
6º Natalie Portman in Vox Lux
7º Nicole Kidman in Destroyer
8º Lady Gaga in A Star is Born
9º Joanna Kulig in Cold War
10º Yalitza Aparicio in Roma

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your top 10 film editors.

Deiner said...

Louis: Your rating and thoughts on Doris Day in Love Me Or Leave Me

Luke Higham said...

I hope we're getting Crowe next.

Omar Franini said...

1. Waits
2. Nivola
3. Hoult
4. Hornsby
5. Bogdanovich

1. Yeun
2. Bridges
3. Roache
4. Crowe
5. Henry

Michael McCarthy said...

1. Bridges
2. Yeun
3. Crowe
4. Roache
5. Henry

Luke Higham said...

Saw How To Train Your Dragon 3 yesterday, it was a decent threequel with a fairly poignant ending but unfortunately it doesn't do anything that we haven't seen already from 1 & 2 and Abraham's villain is so disappointingly one-note.

Bryan L. said...

Luke: Wasting the man and legend Salieri himself? A cinematic crime!

Louis: As for the other Best Picture nominees, apparently Kate Winslet was cast as Sarah in The Favourite before she was replaced by Weisz. Thoughts?
I think everything worked out in the end though.

Mitchell Murray said...

Bryan: Could've gone either way, considering the great tonal of the script and plotting, but on the other hand, Winslet's recent outings haven't been the most impressive. I'm just glad that Weisz, an actress who can be rather artificial at her worst, showed a terrific energy and enjoyment playing Sarah, and thus offered one of, if not the richest performance of her career.

Bryan L. said...

Mitchell: Now that I think about it, I think Winslet in that part may have resulted in her delivering the same performance she did in Revolutionary Road, so all's well that ends well indeed haha.

Calvin Law said...

Louis: what are some good examples of lip syncing in film? Three that come to mind for me are Angela Bassett in What’s Love Got To Do With It, George Clooney In Where Brother Art Thou, and Marion Cotillard in La Vie En Rose.

Charles H said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the cinematography of Letters From iwo Jima

Anonymous said...

1. Waits
2. Nivola
3. Hoult
4. Hornsby
5. Bogdanovich

1. Bridges
2. Yeun
3. Crowe
4. Roache
5. Henry

Louis: Your thoughts on the cinematography of The Grapes of Wrath and Mad Love.

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: What's your rating and specific thoughts on Bogdanovich in Targets?

GM said...

1. Waits
2. Nivola
3. Hornsby
4. Hoult
5. Bogdanovich

1. Yeun
2. Bridges
3. Crowe
4. Roache
5. Henry

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

1. Thelma Schoonmaker
2. George Tomasini
3. Walter Murch
4. The Coen Brothers
5. Akira Kurosawa
6. Dede Allen
7. Gerald Greenberg
8. Anne V. Coates
9. Michael Kahn
10. Pietro Scalia

Deiner:

Day - 3.5(It is a little bit of a curious performance in that the film is dark yet never is willing to go that dark. This is reflective in what Day gets to do in the part. The big traumatic moments are not focused upon though Day is good in the brief glimpses we get of her doing that she does deliver. More often than not she is just there to deliver old standards, which does do, but her work is always limited here.)

Bryan:

Winslet, could've delivered, or she might've not given some of her recent performances. Then again I could say the same about Weisz who was perfection as Sarah, so I'm glad we got what we got either way.

Calvin:

Fine examples, but how could one forget Dean Stockwell in Blue Velvet, though if we are only referring to the non in-universe overdubbing, then those examples, Deborah Kerr in The King and I (Hepburn and Wood fairs less well with Nixon), Christopher Plummer in the Sound of Music.

Charles:

An example where Tom Stern's particularly limited use of colors and lighting in general actually works. This is in part in that it effectively alludes to the sort of ash filled sky, and the innards of the various underground tunnels. It goes further than that though in it is just some dynamic, and fantastic framing and composition throughout. This is in creating such remarkable shots both in moments of creating a claustrophobia of the cave, and the occasional grandeur of the setting such as when we see the General walking the sands.