Russell Crowe did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Marshall Eamons in Boy Erased.
There is this perspective that Russell Crowe's career has been on a downward slope ever since the end of his Oscar run with a win for Gladiator, and a last second loss for A Beautiful Mind. It is certainly true that Crowe did not maintain the critical/commercial and awards success that he found in his initial American breakout, however that sort of consistency of success would be nearly impossible for any actor to maintain. This may also stem from the view of the fallen star so to speak in terms of fading from his status of the leading man. Although even that isn't entirely true given his collaborations with Ridley Scott, which while haven't been as successful as their first, they are in no way true blemishes. Crowe certainly has made the wrong choices here and there, though they are only here and there. Contrasting that perspective Crowe has found ways to effectively adjust his choices to honestly reflect his age. This has become especially evident most recently in his delightful turn as the schlubby fists for hire in The Nice Guys, and here where the film almost seems to accentuate his gut in the clothing choices given to. Of course this is not really something that necessarily matters however there is clear commitment here, and decided lack of vanity from the outset with his performance here. A very tricky character within the scheme of a film about a young man, Jared (Lucas Hedges), who is sent to a conversion therapy camp by his parents played by Crowe as Marshall, and Nicole Kidman as his mother, Nancy.
This role is a challenge for several reasons, as so many elements of the character would be easy to get wrong, especially given the type of character. One being he's playing an American southerner, and a baptist preacher at that, a role that is easy to become overblown. Crowe avoids this entirely though giving a nicely restrained, though thick enough, accent that reflects the character's heritage. This is a particularly strong accent as it just is telling of who is rather than at all distracting from the character. Crowe importantly just quietly embraces every aspect of the role in the scenes set early on chronologically. There is no great bluster, or anything even in the preaching sermons we see. Crowe portrays them with a definite passion, but understated as a convincing portrayal of a man delivering essentially weekly sermons. In his eyes Crowe expresses that every sermon is clearly important to him, however they are still of someone who is doing this week in week out for some time so not every one is this earth shattering event by any means. This is not a criticism, as it is nicely sets the nature of the character as the sermons themselves just exude an honest lived in quality. Crowe's preacher isn't THE preacher, he's just a preacher who is certainly devote, but very much so as a man who lives in a real day to day world.
Now making a convincing southern preacher is step one, step two is perhaps the even greater challenge in the film, as Crowe frankly does not have great deal of screen time to pull it off in. This being that Marshall makes the terrible decision to default to the recommendation to send his son to a conversion therapy camp suggested by other people at their family's church. This is as the character is decidedly unsympathetic to the son's plight in discovery he is gay. The whole trajectory of the character here could be easily and very much overblown. Instead Marshall's journey becomes perhaps the most powerful element in the film due to Crowe's work. This is first and foremost established in the early scenes of the film before the issue of Jared's sexual orientation comes up. Crowe is wonderful in these moments in just exuding essentially this most honest hospitality to his son. He delivers such honesty in every glance of affection, and even in his words of caution involving potential premarital sex, Crowe delivers the lines with an earnest warmth of a father believing he is giving some sage advice to his son. Eventually though the issue arrives, via technically a lie, that the family is told Jared has been engaging in homosexual behavior at college.
Crowe is outstanding in the confrontation scene as he finds this very specific balance in the scene. In that he certainly finds the unease and worry in his physical unrest, and harried delivery, of a man frankly dealing with something he doesn't know how to handle. I love though the moments where in the argument Jared swears, and Marshall asks his son to watch his language twice. This is interesting in that these little outbursts would be easy moment to curse to the high heavens and frankly turn Marshall into the cartoon. These moments though most humanize him actually as in this we see essentially the same values pushing Marshall in the moment. When he asks Jared to watch his mouth it is intense, but not really an anger that Crowe conveys. It is rather almost a sadness in seeing his son breaking his values in this way. Crowe in these moments reveals this stress that he plays as this state of near confusion of the father not really knowing what to do or really exactly how to react, fitting to a man who has lived his life with always a strict understanding stemming from his upbringing. This initial fight, which is briefly calmed by Jared revealing the nature of the lie against him, comes a second moment where Marshall attempts to find some mediation with his son. Again this scene would be easy to go over the top with, as Marshall, a salesman, is essentially trying to sell his son on the idea of traditional relations. Crowe benefits the film by resisting such an approach, as even portraying this desperate moment, as difficult as in his eyes he shows this weakness not in his beliefs but in rather what he prodding him to try to sell the idea to his son. In his words within his beliefs though Crowe finds a pure passion within just the central idea of essential childbirth, though weakened by its use in the moment.
When Jared comes out to them, Crowe's reaction is brilliant in that he is able to capture this very subtle unease, and heartbreak without falling into an idea of hatred. It is rather almost of this break in a break of a worldview he's held for a long time. Crowe is able to show a man not doing the wrong thing because he's motivated by any form of hate, but rather is doing the wrong thing firmly because he believes it is the right thing to do. The therapy of course does not work leaving to a strife between father and son that lasts for several years. Crowe essentially is the film in the last final minutes as Jared and his wife press him to read about Jared's experience. A moment that initially leaves a strained scene between father and son, where Crowe is simply incredible This in his physical portrayal of a definite shame in the man as he delivers his lines weakly as a man without any real passion, something completely against the man that we've seen in the rest of the film, showing firmly that he holds no convictions in his former choice. He still tries to explain and deflect, but Crowe shows so well the weakness within as well as essential the strain as he tries not to connect within his son in the moment. Marshall does eventually read about Jared's experience leading to the two to meet one more time. Marshall imparts Jared a gift, but Jared pushes back against his distance as well as his inability to recognize his past actions. Crowe is absolutely heartbreaking in this scene as he initially portrays just a bit of the old fatherly love of Marshall as he gives him a parting gift a special pen. It's a reduced with still that shame as he speaks recognizing that conflict and history. This is also with again a speech about his motivation, which is again with this earnest passion, though now no longer created as persuasion towards Jared, rather Crowe plays the words almost internally to try to explain it to himself. As Jared gives the ultimatum of either accepting for who he is, or just becoming estranged, Crowe finds such a poignancy within his quiet portrayal of Marshall's breakdown showing just in this silent reaction how must love he shares for his son, and that this idea would be impossible for him to accept. I love what Crowe does here in that he does not show this as an immediate change in the father but rather a most important step. A step he so naturally and powerfully realizes through the foundations of his entire performance where Marshall's love for his son was simply an unquestioned fact, though ingrained values got in the way of this. This is a great performance by Russell Crowe as he delivers such a genuine turn that humanizes every moment of his character from his scenes of devoted love, and those of a carelessness of faith.
35 comments:
Always pleased to see a top rating for Rusty.
He was astonishing. Having said that, even though Crowe and his character’s journey seemed to stand out to you the most, I notice you don’t mention Hedges directly much in this review which hopefully bodes well for his potential rating. Both performances have been staying beautifully for me.
Glad he got a five. Which would be your updated Top 10 Crowe moments, Louis?
Here Here!
The more I think about this performance, the more I've come to respect it on a number of fronts. Firstly its just nice to see Crowe in this form to begin with, in pulling off a complex dramatic performance much like what he was doing in his prime. Even beyond that, though, there's a considerable achievement in Crowe's entire approach to Marshall, in how he doesn't turn him into a broad caricature, or a one dimensional bigot. Instead he portrays him as an average man in many respects, who makes a horrendous mistake only with the best intentions at heart, however misguided he eventually understands them to be. This is conveyed so effectively in such a short time, and in such a believable but understated fashion, and that's primarily thanks to Crowe's great turn.
Can't believe that I failed to realize Bo Burnham won best first time film at DGA. I'm ecstatic.
For those that haven't seen it, by the way, my review for Melissa McCarthy is up on my blog: https://leadactorawards.blogspot.com/
Calvin: In regards to your own blog, do you plan on going over the acting nominees in detail, or are you fine with the synopsis's you have posted?
Glad to see another five for Crowe, this is his best work since Master and Commander. I don't think he's been on a downward spiral considering since his 1997-2003 success he's done very good work such as 3:10 to Yuma, The Nice Guys and now his great work in Boy Erased.
Louis: Your top ten Colin Farrell acting moments.
Louis: Your thoughts on this scene from Gone with the Wind? https://youtu.be/GKHzeKnFEdw
While I quite liked it, I think it was a missed opportunity to not have seen Gable perform a few of those scenes to show Rhett's state.
Charles:
Farrell:
1. "I want to be a dead man" - In Bruges
2. Shootout discussion - In Bruges
3. Killing gone wrong - In Bruges
4. Tipping the scale to culture - In Bruges
5. Heeeting the Canadian - In Bruges
6. Taking drugs - In Bruges
7. Breakfast - In Bruges
8. Getting on the train - In Bruges
9. Arriving at the hotel - In Bruges
10. Stitching up the blind boy - In Bruges
Extremely happy with Crowe getting his 3rd five. :)
And I can't wait for Hoult's review tonight. :)
Also, I sincerely hope this is the beginning of a major comeback for Crowe. Could see him in Globe and Emmy Contention for The Loudest Voice and hopefully Justin Kurzel will return to form with True History Of The Kelly Gang (Would be great to get something similar in tone to The Proposition or The Assassination Of Jesse James).
I really hope Hoult gets a 5. His work only got better for me in rewatch, and he really elevated that Parliament subplot to something special.
Mitchell: I’m just going to leave acting nominees as they are but I’ll go into my own in more detail.
Calvin: Knowing that Huston's very likely to be reviewed, Who would you rather see take the last spot. Stanfield or Hedges.
Hedges in terms of personal preference but I think the blog in general would prefer Stanfield, which I’m more than happy with too.
I'd want Louis to go his own way, and review all of his 5's.
Tahmeed: I agree, though I am getting the feeling Hedges is a 4.5.
Right now, I predict 8-9 5s in Lead, 9 if he's indeed really enthusiastic about Huston.
It appears that Avengers: Endgame is going to be 3 hours long.
I think his definite 5’s will be, alongside Dafoe:
Gosling
Hawke
Yoo
Reilly (The Sisters Brothers)
Cedergren
Others that are up in the air are Redford, Stanfield, Huston, Hedges, maybe Phoenix if he liked him just as much/nearly as much as Reilly. And I could easily see Marcelo Fonte getting a 5 too.
Calvin: What about Foster.
Luke: Oh yeah. I’m not sure about Galveston, but I think since I’m the only one on here who seems to go beyond a 4 for him (he’s still a 5 for me and in my top 5) in Leave No Trace, I don’t even know if Louis will grant that. But let’s hope.
Anonymous: Completely fine by me.
I honestly would rather see a Hedges review instead of Stanfield, since I think you could sum up what he does in a paragraph.
And I think Fosters getting a 5 for Leave No Trace, but a 4.5 for Galveston
Personally, I don’t need to see a Foster review this year. He gave two strong turns, but I don’t think either of them were earth-shattering. I would much rather see the likes of Hedges, Stanfield or even Coogan, who all gave wonderful performances this year and haven’t gotten nearly as much love in the past on this blog as Foster has.
Reilly, Hawke, Stanfield, and Gosling are the only Lead Actor reviews I care about.
I really just need Cage, honestly.
I just care about seeing the locks, Gosling, Yoo, Reilly and Hawke for lead. Anyone else is up to Louis. Although i wouldn't mind a Foster review.
I would love a Foster review, since I think his work in Leave No Trace is a lot more powerful and complex than a lot of you are giving it credit for.
I mean, Louis gave McKenzie a 5 & i would say they're both equally great. The last 15 minutes of his performance are very powerful. I can't imagine Foster not getting reviewed.
Matt: agreed. The scene where he’s doing the psychological test is just some outstanding acting, period.
So I just re-watched Burning and boy does it more than hold up. I still don’t quite know what the purpose of the Jong-soo father scenes are but I certainly didn’t mind them this time around, the strength of the cinematography, screenplay and score stood out all the more, and all three performances have only grown in my esteem. With Beale Street on Friday to go and a few more to catch up on, I feel like my acting lineups are pretty secure now.
Calvin: The father scenes didn't annoy me and perhaps were there to add to the complexity of Jong-soo and his mental state. The subplot i found the most unneeded was with the mother. But the screenplay is outstanding.
Bryan:
As the detractors of the film have said Avengers Infinity War's screenplay is more akin to say the final episode, or perhaps the penultimate episode, of a season of a successful TV series. I don't think this is necessarily negative as the film is suppose to exist as this culmination, of other films, is not intended to stand alone. It is written with the other films in mind, and that is much of the fun of the film. This being the clashing of the characters which I found the film did rather well. This is not just in the bit of quips and comedic moments, which certainly are there, but in finding enough of dramatic elements. These are isolated moments but again they effectively build up on the other films. Whether this be Dr. Strange's loss of ego, Tony's ever growing weight of the world, and of course Thor's losses from Infinity War. The film doesn't unleash a full exploration or even arc of any of these, but the borrowed elements create a natural progression, much like a good climatic season finale. The one additional element, that also is boosted by prior elements, though less so is in the effective development of Thanos throughout the film that makes him, and his plan far more potent than just some random evil scheme. The film's screenplay is not some grandiose dramatic achievement, particularly as a stand alone piece, but it is quite the entertaining document of essentially one successful use of sort of a collective film making.
Anonymous:
Mad Love is a testament just to the talent of Gregg Toland since the film is just awful, and it is perhaps one of the best shot, z-grade films of all time. We get facets of his work that he would eventually take further with Welles realized brilliantly in his dynamic shots using the techniques of deep focus. There is a distinct vibrancy of the camerawork that adds that depth to the frame that was especially extraordinary for the time, and makes for a compelling looking film, even when the drama is decidedly not.
Grapes of Wrath is perhaps a better use of Toland's talent as he also is backed up by a great visually minded director in John Ford. It is a fascinating combination though as Ford was known for the grandeur of the west, and this film seeks to show the desolation of it. Toland's work here is frankly incredible in his focus of the lighting these harsh grays, bright whites, and particularly lurid darkness. Although it's beautiful in the sense of the talent behind it, it creates such a sense of a grim devastation. This with such a powerful mood especially the scene with Muley that is essentially shot as a horror film, with the specific lighting that creates such a haunting quality to it. Every sequence though has this careful mind to it, where essentially Toland grants just the right amount of "light" to either evoke a desperate hope, or such vivid atmosphere. This of course is also with a notable exceptionalism in terms of the composition of shots, that again feature this grit, and detail that evoke the real photos of the dust bowl. Downright brilliant work at every turn, and just amazing work to behold.
Bryan:
Just a brilliant scene honestly of really what is a subdued horror, in that it is decidedly not graphic, however horrifying in its focus on the emotions of Jeremiah and Red, and there is extreme differences of their "love".
Louis: Here's some other projects that Hitchcock never made:
At some point, Hitchcock wanted to film John Buchan's sequel book to Thirty-Fivve Steps, Greenmantle and he wanted Grant and Bergman to be in the film, but the rights for the book were too expensive, and he never made it. He felt that Greenmantle was far superior to Thirty-Five Steps as a book.
In 1956, he wanted Jimmy Stewart to star as an adventurer who finds a concentration camp for Communist agents in South Africa with Grace Kelly as the live interest. The project was scrapped because of the politics in the script and budget problems. He decided to do Vertigo.
And before Psycho, he wanted Audrey Hepburn to play a barrister who has to defend her father, played by John Williams, who has been accused of raping a prostitute with the help of a thief played by Laurence Harvey. The screenplay was written by Samuel A. Taylor, and it included a scene where Hepburn would disguise herself a prostitute and fend off a rapist.
Thoughts on these projects?
Post a Comment