Sunday, 7 June 2020

Alternate Best Actor 2014: Ethan Hawke in Predestination

Ethan Hawke did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the bartender in Predestination.

Predestination follows a temporal agent as he attempts to find a criminal that has consistently alluded him throughout time. While I don't think the film is bad, its potential seems far greater than its result, particularly in terms of its attempt to blend genre tropes with an attempt at an insightful examination of self.

Ethan Hawke is an actor that I have consistently praised on this blog, which was a less popular opinion initially, however thankfully the most recent completed decade has seemingly improved his status in general. I personally don't know why that was ever in question, as even though he didn't always give great performances his work was typically good often leaning towards greatness, and arguably has only improved with age. Hawke is someone who tends to always seems to care regardless of what he's working with, which actually makes his dismissive comments for Logan a little silly, since Hawke is obviously someone who knows that one should take any material seriously. This takes us to this film which is science fiction, though in many ways an interpersonal drama in its examination of the story of the character of John/Jane (Sarah Snook). Hawke, despite his presence on  the poster looking like a time wizard, is the secondary lead here. Hawke though from the outset suggests that same sort devotion to his work as one would typically expect from him. This even in the odd opening where it seems he's a man, working for some shadowy government institute, with a new face. Hawke's eyes grab that mental anxiety, but also the strange almost eerie conviction as the man takes upon his mysterious mission even with grave consequences if he falls outside of the strict confines of the mission.

The opening scene, and the synopsis of the film gives a bit of the wrong ideas as it takes a backseat almost immediately to that interpersonal drama as the agent, posing as a bartender, listens to the story of a patron John/Jane who tells of  a rather unusual life story. Hawke's performance in this sequence, which focuses on Snook, I suppose more than illuminates his ability in acting as a largely more literal supporting manner. This as Hawke delivers a certain empathy within his reactions, but there is a bit more than that. Hawke's performance throughout the story showing concern, but more with shades of a knowing or understanding that goes beyond just listening as a bystander. This until he begins to reveal himself a bit more to the patron. Hawke immediately fashioning perhaps the more expected sense of what the poster alludes to, this in a domineering and curious manner. Hawke delivering an offer to the patron to kill the man that wronged John/Jane, this as this professional but with a stylish riff within his delivery. Hawke making this shift with such ease and granting this immediate sense of gravity towards the odd proposition as the bartender reveals himself to be a time traveler. Hawke both playing it as procedure for the bartender, but also spoken with that utmost expected condition as he explains the method. This technical perposterousness of it all made most digestible through Hawke's ease within the role, and that conviction in every word of the conceit...well except for maybe the moniker of the criminal "the fizzle bomber" but that one is tough.

Of course time travel isn't so easy and naturally more than a few things get a bit confused. The emotional material is largely left to Snook, where Hawke remains this seeming deuteragonist of sorts stuck in his twilight zone episode (don't mean that in a bad way), against what's going on with Snook. This is as Hawke largely needs to sell the concept with just vague shades of a character. This what Hawke does more than what he can with, creating an undercurrent of emotion within his character largely through his performance as a man purposefully crafting a paradox. Unfortunately for me I found the film, which is 66% a first act, then the other two acts squeezed int 30 minutes, turns into less of the characters dictating motion in the plot, and more of the plot dictating the acts of the character, less per natural motivation and more so per need of satisfying the twists of the narrative. Twists that shouldn't be too obvious but will be as the amount of characters determines the fates in this regard. So naturally spoilers the bartender is the fizzle bomber, with all that time you'd think they could've come up with a better name. Anyway though we get the determined agent finding his future self, which is Hawke giving his best unabomber impression. The scene feels hollow mainly because the development is paced with such immediacy, and as rules of reduced characters enables on a single path. Having said that Hawke is terrific in the anxiety of understanding the situation, where as the extremist, I'd say he's more fine, though this in part the introduction is instant. Hawke though has a sense of mania within it to be sure, but the concept is something more interesting, well in concept, than execution, though no way in terms of being the fault of Hawke. Sadly the revelation doesn't strike into something extraordinary, rather causes one to think of a Rube Goldberg machine. This limiting what Hawke can do, still this is a nonetheless a good performance from the remarkable actor.

72 comments:

Aidan Pittman said...

Thoughts and ratings for the rest of the cast?

Calvin Law said...

Looking forward to Cruise next.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Well I may as well ask, even though I know the answer: Any possible chance he could go up for Boyhood? Or at least move up to a high 4.5?

Mitchell Murray said...

Yah this movie was a wierd one for me. I admired it's premise to a degree, and a lot of the rising section was mildly interesting. But the ending seriously dropped the ball and I was left feeling strangely cold, by a film that I initially wanted to like a lot more.

As for Hawke, he was solid as expected, if a bit overshadowed by Snook.

Matt Mustin said...

Haven't seen this, although I should because I like time travel and I like Ethan Hawke.

Mitchell Murray said...

I guess I should also mention that I watched "Rounders" for the first time; It really struck me as one of those films that's never actively bad, but at the same time, never becomes anything that special either. It certainly pails in comparison to much better gambling/addiction movies.

Damon - 3
Norton - 3.5
Landau - 3.5
Turturro - 3
Janssen - 2.5
Malkovich - 2

Michael McCarthy said...

I would have liked this movie a lot more if it hadn't feel the need to include so many "big reveals" at the end. Also thought Hawke was kinda bad as the fizzle bomber to be honest, which is a shame because th rest of his performance is really solid.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Could Norton go up to a 5 for Birdman?

Matt Mustin said...

I watched the first episode of Watchmen, which I thought was genius, but I won't give any thoughts on the cast or anything until I've finished the whole show.

Calvin Law said...

Louis: could Pattinson go up for The Rover?

Tim said...

out of the movies that were nominated for Best Screenplay at the Globes but for neither writing category at the Oscars, what are some that you say should have been nominated and what are some that you hate?

And while we're at it, some of your least favorite "Best Picture - Drama" winners that did not win the Best Picture Oscar?

(I predict James Cameron twice …)

Tim said...

what would you say about Kyle Chandler as Carl Hanratty?

Luke Higham said...

Tim: Titanic won both.

Tim said...

i was referring to Avatar

Luke Higham said...

Tim: You said Cameron twice yet Avatar's the only one of his films that won the globe and lost the oscar.

Tim said...

Yeah, i meant for the first part of the Question too. With Avatar winning Motion Picture - Drama and Titanic nominated for Best Screenplay

Luke Higham said...

Tim: Okay then, with that out of the way, yes I fucking hate the majority of Titanic's screenplay.

Louis Morgan said...

Aidan:

Snook - 4.5(If the film didn't ironically fizzle honestly she could have been a 5 here. This as she is pretty exceptional for much of the film before the film runs out of things to do with her character. This as foremost she is more convincing at playing a man, despite the film even saying she's not supposed to be entirely convincing, than some similar performances where it is supposed to be entirely convincing. Her manner in becoming essentially Dane Dehan is impressive on its own, though she doesn't play two characters, and is terrific in each representation of self in this way, by transferring it. She being fascinating from the outset in a compelling portrayal of the difficult situation of her character where she manages to bring an effortless quality in being both desperate yet having this agency all the same. This manner of conviction in one's self, even while showing a lack of conviction in her own abilities entirely. This in her second phase where she conveys the sort turmoil of the life and the sense of anxiety of an in-between by the changes not chosen but thrust upon her. I will say though once the time travel begins her work is sadly just sorta forgotten oddly. This as the idea of the relationship with one's earlier self isn't really explored, it is just a given when it really shouldn't be, which is a shame as Snook's performance seems game to explore it. She is terrific with what she has however I wish the film had been a bit better for her to take that next step, as she comes close even with the material not quite being there.)

Anonymous:

I plan on re-watching the film, but probably not.

Calvin:

No. I think he's good there, and for me was a show of his potential beyond what he seemingly had gotten trapped in. I think the performance though got a bit overpraised though, particularly when Pearce's performance is right there.

Robert:

He could go up in the ranking just a bit.

Tim:

Screenplays (Top five for each):

Deserving nominees:

Mulholland Drive
Blue Velvet
Nashville
The Man Who Wasn't There
The Day of the Jackal

the opposite:

Nocturnal Animals
The Towering Inferno
Love Actually
Titanic
Mr. Holland's Opus

Least Favorite Best Picture Drama Winners (that didn't translate):

1. Bohemian Rhapsody
2. Bugsy
3. Avatar
4. The Turning Point
5. The Cardinal

Lucas Saavedra said...

Louis: how well would Henry Winkler do as Mark Rumsfield (The 'Burbs)

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your cast for a 2010s "On the Waterfront" (with foreign/European actors), a 2010s "Tender Mercies", and a 2010s "My Beautiful Laundrette"

And, your five modern film directors of actors (as in, directors who excel in getting great performances from actors of any calibre).

Louis Morgan said...

Lucas:

I think he'd be a better choice for Dr. Klopek or Ray honestly. I think you need some with more of an overt military vibe.

Anonymous:

On the Waterfront:

Terry: Robert Pattinson (Hardy/Schoenaerts would be late 2000's)
Father Barry: Damian Lewis
Johnny Friendly: Stephen Graham
Charley Malloy: Paddy Considine
Edie: Carey Mulligan

Tender Mercies:

Mac Sledge: Woody Harrelson
Rosa Lee: Alison Lohman
Dixie: Gretchen Mol
Harry: Pruitt Taylor Vince
Sue Anne: Analeigh Tipton

My Beautiful Laundrette:

Omar: Riz Ahmed
Nassar: Om Puri
Papa: Irrfan Khan
Johnny: Jack Lowden

Mitchell Murray said...

Anonymous: In terms of "actor directors", I can think of a few...

Paul Thomas Anderson
David Fincher
Damien Chazelle
A.G. Inarritu (At least in regards to "Birdman" and "The Revenant")
Debra Granik



Tim said...

Again, how about Kyle Chandler as Carl Hanratty?

Matt Mustin said...

He's never thought of as "actor's director" but I actually have to put David Lynch near the top of that list, maybe number 1.

Calvin Law said...

Ingmar Bergman is easily the best actor director imo.

Calvin Law said...

Tim: He’s given his thoughts on him before. Just do a site:actoroscar.blogspot.com

Bryan L. said...

I think Tim is asking how Kyle Chandler would fare in that part.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

I know I've done that list before, with I believe both work and all time (Bergman indeed an easy #1 for the latter).

Tim:

Yes, given he essentially played a more hostile version of Carl to DiCaprio in Wolf.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Is Chastain a 4 or 4.5 for Eleanor Rigby: Her.

Bryan L. said...

Luke: He gave Chastain a 4.5 here

(actoroscar.blogspot.com/2014/11/alternate-best-actor-1998-anthony-wong.html)

Anonymous: He gave a Top Ten both for All-Time and Working here

(actoroscar.blogspot.com/2017/07/alternate-best-supporting-actor-1954.html)

Luke Higham said...

Bryan: I keep thinking she maybe a 4 now because I recall Louis doing a 2010s Lead Actress top ? (Can't remember the number and I think the list was made in 2016) and he had Felicity Jones or Julianne Moore on the list when in the original 2014 Lead Actress ranking, Chastain was ahead of both of them.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Shifts within lineup happen, particularly upon reflection all the time. She's still a 4.5, after-all Jones and Moore are 4.5's.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Luke, since you rewatched There Will Be Blood the other day, what are your overall thoughts on that film, plus ratings for the rest of the cast?

Tim said...

I believe most People here would agree with me that Matt Damon as Dr Mann in Interstellar in miscasting incarnate. Who would you say would have been a better choice?

I'm thinking either an older character Actor in the realms of Richard E. Grant or somebody like Cillian Murphy (kind of obvious because of his Nolan track-record, but i think he still would have done it well). Now that i think about it, my choice might actually be Guy Pearce.

Calvin Law said...

Tim: Pearce would’ve been PERFECT, great choice.

Mitchell Murray said...

Tim: Well I personally never hated Damon in "Interstellar". Was he miscast? Sure. At the same time, however, the role itself wasn't particularly well written. Damon could've certainly been more believable in his character's choices, but that would've still been a challenge for any actor given the abruptness of Mann's change.

All that said, a performer with a more storied, aloof screen presence would've been better for the role, and Pearce would've been a ideal choice in that regard.

Matt Mustin said...

You know, I wanted to go with you on Guy Pearce cause on first glance that seems perfect, but then I remember his track record in playing villains and I have to rethink it.

Calvin Law said...

I would've probably suggested not playing Mann as a villain, to be honest. He is of course, but I feel like it's a role that could be played in a more 'heroic' fashion to create a more complex and unnerving effect.

Mitchell Murray said...

Also, I just have a random question for everyone here; When your watching a film that's not in your native language, is there ever a point for you where you pay less attention to the subtitles, and you don't seem to process it as a different speech?

I'm an English speaker myself, but I've also seen a fair amount of French films. And without fail, there always seems to be a point in my viewing experience where something just "clicks" in my head, and I'm just able to take in the meaning of the lines without them even registering as another language. Now this could just be me becoming more experienced with French, or forming some other connection to the film's story/characters, but this has happened with other languages as well (Ex. Spanish in "Roma", Japanese in "Spirited Away", etc...) Perhaps this is just me tapping into the overarching human connection that film often allows for...or something of that sort, anyways.

Yah...I just wanted to get all your guy's opinion on that, because I find it most intriguing.

Matt Mustin said...

Mitchell: Well, any of the Studio Ghibli films I don't pay super close attention to the subtitles, because that's not really what they're about.

Mitchell Murray said...

Matt: Bad example, then, but my experiences with Japan's live action cinema still adds to the question.

Calvin Law said...

I’ve always used subtitles for anything I watch at home including English language releases (I realised from a young age that it was a good way to improve my English overall) so I never really notice it overall I guess.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Mitchell: I've mentioned this here before, but I always watch everything (English language or otherwise) with subtitles. I'm not a native speaker, so the subtitles ensured I wouldn't miss anything, particularly with differing accents in different films.

As to your question, I've noticed that the same thing happens a lot whenever I watch Japanese films. Perhaps it's due to the fact that I've seen a fair share of animated Japanese films and anime. I wouldn't say I'm proficient in Japanese by any means, but I'd definitely say that anyone with a bit of exposure to it can pick up bits and pieces relatively easily.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Aside from Pacino for Lead Actor, was Dog Day Afternoon close to taking the win for any category in 1975? Just find it rather fascinating that the film is your runner up for the year, yet has no wins, whereas Cuckoo's Nest has 4 wins in spite of being your #5.

Emi Grant said...

Mitchell: I watch almost everything with subtitles. Mostly because of the fact that I more often than not like to eat something while watching a film and at times, I can't listen to the dialogue over the sound of my fat-ass munching away on my dinner...

That said, I never bother with subtitles for films on my native language, which is Spanish.

Luke Higham said...

Anonymous: An incredible film. Has an all-time great performance from DDL, The Cinematography might just be my favourite (The burning oil derrick would definitely be in my top 5 shots of all-time) and the production design and score are brilliant (Jonny Greenwood is undoubtedly a genius).

Day-Lewis - 5
Dano - 5
Freasier - 4
Hinds/O'Connor - 3

I do tend to put on subtitles whenever I can so I won't miss any of the dialogue.

Anonymous said...

Luke, What are you looking forward to most about 1966 and 2002 if they are indeed coming after 2014.

Luke Higham said...

Anonymous: I'll do top 3 reasons for both.
1966:
1. ANDREI RUBLEV (This along with Stalker are the two Tarkovsky films I'm most excited to get Louis' opinion on. Also, along with Fanny And Alexander, it's one of Robert Eggers favourite films)
2. Donald Pleasence's last two reviews (hope he gets a 5 for one of them, Cul-De-Sac the most likely)
3. Axberg/Oscarsson

2002
1. Day-Lewis re-evaluation
2. Both lineups (Ejiofor in particular)
3. Upgrade for Paul Newman

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on the Bill & Ted 3 trailer.

Matt Mustin said...

Luke: Is Ejiofor lead or supporting?

Luke Higham said...

Matt: He's undeniably lead.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Well it would be the runner-up for Editing and Adapted Screenplay (I know it won the Original Screenplay Oscar but it was based on a specific article). The latter of which I had been undecided on initially, to the point I read the screenplay for it, Jaws and "Cuckoos" to decide, with the last being the one where I felt the quality of the film was most evident within the screenplay...not that it was lacking in the other two.

Luke:

Pretty gnarly dude.

Seriously, I liked it, particularly since it seems Winter and Reeves haven't lost a beat regarding their chemistry. Could still fall of the thin rail its on, but already looks like it won't be an abomination like say the other late sequel for a not too intelligent duo...Dumb and Dumber.

Michael McCarthy said...

Luke: I wouldn’t count on 1966 being Pleasence’s last two reviews, I have a strong feeling he’ll be in the 1967 supporting lineup.

Calvin Law said...

Matt: 100% Lead. I’m really excited for him, hoping he’ll get a 5 and that he’ll take to Okonedo, Wong and Tautou.

Luke Higham said...

I don't see a lineup happening for 67 supporting, was difficult enough coming up with one for lead. I don't really mind his Blofeld being reviewed as it's the most iconic version of the character but are you really sure he'll go up to a 4 for it.

Michael McCarthy said...

Luke: Not for You Only Live Twice, for Will Penny. He’s fantastic in that.

Luke Higham said...

Michael: Oh, ok then, I'll endorse that. What did you think of Heston.

Michael McCarthy said...

Luke: He’s really good. Brings his typical strong presence and gravitas in all the “western-y” scenes but I think what I liked best was the endearing sheepishness he displayed in his scenes with Joan Hackett.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uXa1R2e4a8

Matt Mustin said...

I watched Jacob's Ladder. Pretty good psychological horror. It's directed well, but what makes the whole thing work is Tim Robbins, who's definitely deserving of a review.

Aidan Pittman said...

Watched The Maltese Falcon. A very good noir flick and an impressive directorial debut from Huston, though I don't quite adore it as others do. I'm sure it'll grow on me in the future, though.

Bogart - 5
Astor - 4.5
Lorre - 4.5
Greenstreet - 4.5

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Could I have your updated top 20 Aaron Paul acting moments?

Emi Grant said...

Louis: Also, your updated Top 20 Bob Odenkirk acting moments?

Luke Higham said...

Michael: Your ratings for Heston and Pleasence.

Tim said...

taking all the movies into account, who do you think was the best Dumbledore? I think that Half-Blood Prince makes me look past "calmly" and makes me prefer Gambon

Matt Mustin said...

Tim: I still don't think, Half-Blood Prince included, that Gambon ever really *quite* got there, whereas Harris was perfect right from the beginning.

Luke Higham said...

Harris' interpretation is exactly how I'd imagine Dumbledore to be. Gambon was rather bad in Goblet Of Fire though Mike Newell should get some of the blame for that, he was very good in Half-Blood Prince though but would've been greater if Harris managed to live another decade.

Michael McCarthy said...

Luke: Probably a 4.5 for Heston and a 5 for Pleasence.

Luke Higham said...

Michael: You're making me feel really excited for Pleasence. Who's your winner for 67 Supporting.

Michael McCarthy said...

Luke: I've always been a huge fan of Alan Arkin in Wait Until Dark and I've just seen Will Penny for the first time recently, so I'm not positive who my pick is. It's definitely between the two though.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

As someone who has no affection for the film, this would've made it far worse. This as the framing device is the worst part of it, so more of it would've bad, and just everything is bad about it. This being focusing on the lame mcguffin, which had more screentime than it needed to begin with. What's even worse is spelling out the message of throwing away the "heart" is absurdly atrocious and ridiculously on the nose. A terrible scene.

Tahmeed:

1. Problem Dog
2. Killing Gale
3. "What now?"
4. Confronting Saul
5. Finding Jane
6. Peekaboo
7. "Wire"
8. After the shootout
9. Duel - El Camino
10. Drug Bust gone right
11. Asking for a recheck - Eye in the Sky
12. Recovery Meeting
13. Go Carts
14. Confronting Walter about the Poison
15. Burial - El Camino
16. Todd visiting Andrea
17. Ending
18. You're the guy
19. Fight with Walter
20. Having nothing

Emi Grant:

1. Parking Garage - Better Call Saul
2. Confronting Chuck the first time - Better Call Saul
3. Almost Dying - Better Call Saul
4. Confrontation with Lalo - Better Call Saul
5. Telling Chuck his fate - Better Call Saul
6. Appeal - Better Call Saul
7. How to exist after desert - Better Call Saul
8. Attack on Mesa Verde - Better Call Saul
9. Destroying the tape - Better Call Saul
10. "We're done when we say we're done" - Breaking Bad
11. Marriage Night - Better Call Saul
12. Negotiation with Tuco - Better Call Saul
13. Final Talk with Walt - Breaking Bad
14. "It's never stopping me again" - Better Call Saul
15. Entrance - Breaking Bad
16. click - Better Call Saul
17. Confrontation with Jesse - Breaking Bad
18. Cross examining Chuck - Better Call Saul
19. Advising Badger's "Uncle" - Breaking Bad
20. Tough Love - Better Call Saul