Alessandro Nivola plays one of the great thankless roles of drama, the other man that must be discarded in order for true love to prevail. These roles often rife with overacting, bland acting, or just being a forgotten note in the film. Thankfully though none of those things are the case with Alessandro Nivola's work here. Nivola is an actor who frankly is on a little bit of a redemption arc of an actor, which thankfully has been ongoing for awhile, as he began his career frankly as a bit of a bad ham. His work in recent years though has been one of a far more understated performer where his talents also seem to lie. That is certainly evident here as the other man who as we open the film is married to Ronit's former forbidden lover Esti (Rachel McAdams). Dovid is in an even greater predicament given his prominent place also as the chosen successor to Ronit's father. Nivola's performance for much of the film is this quiet, yet very eloquent realization of the history of his character within the community as well as his childhood friendship with Ronit. Nivola's work is very subtle, yet so effective in terms of creating the state of Dovid within the current still traditionalist community, while also wishing to remains friends with Ronit who is seen as pariah of sorts. Nivola's performance is initially is of this certain calm understanding and judgement of sorts. In that we initially see him somberly, yet warmly, greet Ronit, while also swaying her to avoid conflicts with others by delivering these moments as the most calm requests.
Nivola in his few interactions with Weisz creates the sense of a very old friendship, paused naturally by circumstances, yet still alive just in there quiet glances that suggest better times with an earnest affection. Nivola underplays this again though properly showing the man just trying to maintain his place as someone in the community with an understanding that she shirked it. Nivola though presents Dovid's methods as being as sincere as possible to respect her while also respecting her beliefs. In this though Nivola portrays this certain difficultly in this, as he physically moves away from her in these moments and looks away as to create as little tension as possible. This however is in contrast to his scenes within the community directly, where Nivola conveys this internalized tension. This in moments of speaking of the problems within it, or a hold to the required values. Nivola's work offers this palatable yet silent unease in Dovid that establishes well that he is not a blind zealot at any point. Dovid maintains this quiet dignity until it becomes evident that his wife desires Ronit and that the intention is for their relationship to continue. This is in the initial moment of anger that Nivola is terrific in as he presents as indeed a moment of sincere concern for his wife's mental well being as he asks Ronit to leave, in a pointed yet subdued delivery, however in his eyes conveying the unease at the definite personal wound the relationship creates. This comes to a head strangely enough at the ceremony for Ronit's father, where both women are in attendance and that Dovid must address.
Though Nivola's entire performance is necessary to the success within the realization of his character, I will say it is this scene that takes his work beyond being simply good. Nivola is outstanding in this scene as he embodies every complex emotion in the moment in his delivery of Dovid's speech to the congregation, but honestly directed to the women. Nivola is amazing as he doesn't portray this as an easy thing for him showing the weight in his brow, and his eyes that reveal the real pain, knowing what he is giving up, even though he knows he must do so. There is the right hesitation there, but then as he speaks Nivola delivers this true passion with his work. He finds the right combination between the words and power, of a sermon however with the intimacy of a tender message of love and understanding. Nivola makes this such a powerful moment as he offers only the strictest sincerity in his eyes, and within the words towards encouraging his wife to choose as she wishes. This with though a quieter moment briefly where he turns down any future promotion that Nivola conveys as a resignation realizing the end of those doubts that had woven within throughout his work. Nivola leaves such a lasting impact in this single scene as he expresses essentially the entire arc of his character a single relatively brief scene, that not only doesn't feel rushed, but instead feels wholly earned through this frankly beautiful moment. It is a striking performance, and I found the most poignant element of the film, as he realizes such convincing portrait of a man doing right by those he loves by letting them go.
31 comments:
Yeah it’s impressive how much he’s improved as an actor over the years. Used to always just mistake him for Joseph Fiennes lol.
The final ranking will be VERY interesting. I imagine Grant will definitely be in the top 5.
Also I’m glad that you might still be saving Cage. While I don’t think it’s one of his greatest performances, I do think the bathroom breakdown scene is one of the most heartbreaking moments I’ve seen him perform in awhile. Having said that I’d take priority over a couple other reviews over him.
He is very, VERY good here, in a role that, like you said, is normally a throw away. Though I'll probably re-watch "Disobedience" at some point, Nivola probably left the greatest impression on me during my initial viewing. It's an incredibly nuanced piece of acting on his part, and realizes the greatest tension and complexity within any element of the film.
Very interesting, i think he's pretty good and would give him the same rating although i thought you would like him more. I wonder if Hoult will get a 5.
More for a five i should say as this review is very positive. I didn't like the film at all but i have to appreciate what Nivola did.
Charles H: What didn't you like about the film? I'm not its biggest supporter but even I thought it was decent enough.
I thought it was a perfectly solid film too. Not as good as A Fantastic Woman, but still has many merits in its own right.
I'm not too keen on this film either honestly, although I thought the performances did elevate the film.
Mitchell: I don't think it builds the emotional power it's aiming for. Besides Nivola i had a detached feeling although it's not terrible or anything.
Great performance that’s honestly more impressive of a transformation than the two fromtrunners for Best Actor.
On a side note, has anyone started True Detective Season 3? I’m into it so far, and both Ali and (perhaps even more so) Dorff are impressive as hell.
Robert:
Yes, and I agree about Ali, and especially Dorff.
Louis: Now that Brolin and Hemsworth are out of the way, can I have your thoughts on the screenplay for Avengers: Infinity War?
I actually have an interesting question for everyone here; It's something that I've discussed before with a few friends, but have also seen sprout up on these kinds of sites from time to time. The question concerns one Emma Stone, an actress I'm sure most of us like, but that's beside the point.
I've noticed that one common complaint tying her detractors together, which seems to reappear for almost every prominent film she stars in, is the notion that she merely "plays herself" as every character. This is an observation I actually understand to an extent, particularly when going over her early career. Stone did get her start in comedies, after all, so anyone who's followed her from the start is probably aware of the bubbly persona shown in "Easy A", for instance. Nevertheless, the venom some people have when using this statement still takes me back a little bit, almost as a reminder of her "limited" range, despite what her recent choices might suggest. I've even seen people use it to describe her work from "The Favourite", which is....questionable, at the very least.
It does raise an interesting point, though, as to where do we draw the line about actors playing to their trademark personalities? How precisely do we differentiate those who consistently fall back on there usual personas, from those who still utilize there trademark screen presence, but find knew layers or areas to exploit in that defined image? It's all subjective, of course, and as someone who has followed Stone throughout her career, and has viewed the growth and maturity she's gained as a performer, I have to say - I don't have the same problem as her most vocal of dissenters.
Mitchell: I think saying that about Emma Stone in particular is very, very strange. I mean, who looks at La La Land, Battle of the Sexes and The Favourite and says "Oh yeah, same character"? Also, her performance in Easy A is absolutely nothing to sneeze at as she makes the whole movie work, which is particularly impressive considering she's really kind of miscast on a conceptual level.
Also to your point...I don't recall anybody complaining about someone like Clint Eastwood using his particular strengths as an actor in roles that could definitely be considered more alike than Stone's. I wonder why that is...(that's rhetorical).
Mitchell: I don't really see the point to that complaint, since I think she even managed to show some range in the first half of this decade, which is the period in her career I'm guessing her dissenters usually focus on.
To expand on my reasoning, I feel that for an actor applying there usual persona to a role, the very moment that it becomes distracting/detrimental to the effect of the movie - and your own perception of said persona, obviously - is when it doesn't work. One example I can think of is George Clooney's nominated performances from "Up in the Air" and "The Descendants". On the surface, Ryan Bingham from the former isn't that far off, honestly, from Clooney's character from those nespresso commercials. I felt that his cocky charm worked decently enough for the role, though, and so I went along with his performance for the most part.
"The Descendants" is a different story, though, as it was very much built up as Clooney's attempt to subvert is usual presence. The main problem, however, is that neither him nor the film found a way to do that cohesively or believably. There was just an awkwardness to seeing him town himself down so much, while struggling to hit the needed dramatic beats, leading to an uneven performance overall.
Mitchell: I always had a disdain for the "Actors playing themselves" argument. It's an argument that's been used on many many great actors like De Niro, Pacino, Brando, Mifune, etc. And for Emma Stone i see no different, as Matt mentioned just look at the differences in character and performance.
I think that people use the “they only take the same roles” argument far too much. Sometimes I fall into that trap, like when I disliked Gosling’s 2013 output for being too similar to Drive. Now I realized this is his style, and when given roles that lend themselves that internalization, you get something special like Officer K and Neil Armstrong. Everyone has a certain style. Even Daniel Day-Lewis, as varried his range is, does have a certain intensity even with his most low-key roles. It’s the way you can tell it’s him. I think Stone gets hit with it because of both a double standard (you’ll never hear people complain about Samuel L. Jackson that way) and also a generally limited view of just how wide of a net great acting can be.
It's also important to remember that recognizing what kind of roles you're able to play and then PURSUING THOSE ROLES is something that an actor *MUST* do, and if you've figured your range out, it's a sign that you probably know what you're doing.
To Matt’s point, Hugh Grant recently admitted that the reason he didn’t branch out until recently was his own doubts about his range. Then he started taking more challenging roles that still played to his strengths and found that he was actually more comfortable with that.
Mitchell: How do they even use that argument when Stone's performance in The Favourite is a subversion of her "usual persona".
I think it does depend on what the actor sees on the character. From the very little acting I've done in my life, that's at least what I'd look into. A question of "How much of myself do I see in this person?".
Philip Seymour Hoffman made a great point about this when talking about his approach to acting in an interview I can't remember.
Louis: Your thoughts on the cinematography of The Grapes of Wrath and Mad Love.
"All my characters are me..I relate to these characters because aspects of there personalities are me. And I just turn up the parts of myself that are them and turn down the parts that aren't".
Ryan Gosling
I'll admit to falling into the "playing themselves" pitfall myself, perhaps for roles that aren't especially complex, and can lend themselves to an actor repeating beats they've portrayed before. For an actor with an established repertoire that can be a slippery slope, and our response to that as film viewers can be equally complex and contradictory, I feel. At the end of the day, sometimes it does merely come down to a specific opinion about a specific actor, regardless about how many people actually concur on it or not.
Case in point, here's an excerpt of a review for "First Man", written by critic Alonso Duralde of 'The Wrap':
"..Gosling is fine here, although Armstrong's emotional armor mostly leaves the actor playing a variation on his character in 'Drive',..."
I'll just let that marinate for everybody.
That's probably one of the most frustrating lines I've ever read on a review. Something I admire of Gosling tremendously is his ability to be understated and reserved within roles for specific reasons, yet managing it to be feel different with each character.
The way I see it, The Driver and Neil Armstrong's silences are completely distinct.
Emi: I agree. Heck, I think he even managed to find a bit of variation with that type of character in The Place Beyond The Pines.
Although I can't say the same for Only God Forgives.
And it is a bit funny that we're using Stone and Gosling as two examples for this topic considering...well...you know...
Louis: Oh and I gotta ask: do you also love the scene in Mandy when the cult members just casually drive off after they burn Mandy and leave Red literally hanging? Not unlike something you see in Lynchs films
Bryan L: The burning itself might be one of my favorite scenes of the year. Which does sound kind of messed up when you think about it, but it's a well made sequence with great reactions and, in my opinion, the early peak of Cage's performance.
Mitchell: That criticism of Stone rings particularly false - and not to generalise, but I feel like those dissenters are probably the sort who feel threatened by young actresses willing to speak up and make their voices heard for change in Hollywood, of which she's fairly prominent (see also: the routine hate that flocks around Thandie Newton and Natalie Portman for being strong advocates of feminism, and the former in particular a POC, on the internet). But that's another matter. Anyway, even in her early roles she doesn't even come close to just playing one type of character, like I see absolutely no resemblance between her character in Easy A to say, Zombieland. Yes, there's elements of her own personality that she implements into the role, but frankly that's the whole idea of acting isn't it - imbedding a role with your own personal input? Are people going to start retroactively saying, 'oh Jimmy Stewart wasn't all that since he always played pretty swell guys and he seemed like a pretty swell guy in real life too'? Or that Clint Eastwood plays the exact same gunslinger in every Western he does?
And yeah, I concur with the rest of the board here too, in that even though, yes, it's cool to sometimes see actors 'branch out' and do something unexpected, having a particular 'type' or 'style' is far from a bad thing. Even the most chameleonic of actors have their own 'brand', and honestly that's part of the package deal sometimes, like even actors like Meryl Streep and Gary Oldman as much is made of them 'vanishing' into their roles, their presence speaks through those roles and there's nothing to critique about that, that's part of the reason why we watch them on film.
In fact it's just as impressive to see when an actor has really found a grasp on what really makes them 'click' so to speak. Stone's figured that out very early on in her career. Some actors take longer. And some never really find a particular niche but regularly try, experiment and see what pans out and what doesn't - some don't have that flexibility, but once they find something they excel at they pounce on it and make it their own. Nothing wrong with any of these, at the end of the day everyone has their own strengths and if one thrives in a particular style, just like any director, cinematographer, musician, etc. then that's great.
Also I saw The Hate U Give today. Solid enough film, and Hornsby deserves a strong 4.5 at the very least - he might get into my top 10. Reminded me an awful lot of Laurence Fishburne in Boyz N the Hood but with some pretty effective tweaks.
Stenberg - 3.5/4
Hall - 4
Hornsby - 4.5
Apa - 2.5
Common - 2.5
Mackie - 2.5
Rae - 3
Will get to all thoughts tomorrow, just tired now, and want to keep a relatively steady pace with the reviews.
Post a Comment