5. Eddie Axberg in Here Is Your Life - Axberg gives a largely reactionary turn, however it works in creating the right naturalism within his character for his film.
Best Scene: Date.
4. Anatoly Solonitsyn in Andrei Rublev - Although very low key Solonitsyn's often observant turn effectively still realizes his character's quietly striking arc throughout his film.
Best Scene: After the bell rings.
3. David Warner in Morgan - A Suitable Case for Treatment - Warner effectively gives a wild comic yet intense turn, even if his film doesn't use him all that well.
Best Scene: Trying to assassinate someone.
2. Donald Pleasence in Cul-De-Sac - Pleasence brilliantly captures the suffocating neurosis of his character and its degradation throughout the story.
Best Scene: Final breakdown.
1. Per Oscarsson in Hunger - Oscarsson performance naturally captures the tragic state of his character while doing so with a remarkable levity.
Best Scene: Hunger.
Updated Overall
Next: 1966 Supporting
37 comments:
Note: It is only logical to review Hudson with Randolph.
Thank you Louis.
Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the rest of the ranking.
Your Female Lead and Supporting top 15s with ratings and other 4+ mentions.
Your 66 wins.
And add Eddie Axberg to the labels.
Hudson/Randolph
Pleasence
Burlyayev/Lapikov
Hackman/Harris - Hawaii
Huston/O'Toole - The Bible: In The Beginning.
I see no big changes in the academy's 1966 line up, which I more or less expected since Louis' opinion on those performances seems pretty sound.
Also, on a more random note, I re-watched "Fighting With My Family" last night. I pretty much enjoyed it as much as my first viewing, because it's one of those films that proves you don't always NEED to do anything "out there" - you can work just fine if your fun/earnest with what you have.
Oh, and if we can have another star vehicle for Pugh any time soon, I'd be more than pleased.
Louis, what's your director top 5.
Louis: Your thoughts on The Battle Of Algiers, Nayak and War & Peace I and II.
I'll wait on Seconds once you've done the review.
And pleased to see your appreciation for Persona has gone up. Just happy to see Bergman continue to grow on you.
Saw your director top 5 and damn, it's gotta be one of the all-time great years for the category. For Zinnemann to not even make it in shows how great it is.
Your 6-10.
Luke:
Kumar - 4.5(I mean one should just praise all I can about Nayak which feels so modern in its examination of an actor. Kumar's performance is essential in this, this in his wholly un-melodramatic yet powerful portrayal. This as we get so many essential sides of the man in the character. This in we get his exasperated yet slightly affable presence within the present, his charm that he occasionally wields a bit more or a bit less. This against seeing the man coming up from his beginnings. This as the passionate young man with some determination of various values but also a lesser confidence in his manner. Kumar's portrayal creates such an honest sense of every phase of the man's career but also the changes in the man we see therein. This as the more confident he seems to become as the actor, we see closer to the slightly indifferent man who has come accustom to his fame, but also has to deal with it. He's fantastic in each of his interactions on the train in he grants a sense of the way the man both plays to the crowd well plays himself in a way of never quite being himself, or at least struggling to break the sort of barrier.)
Bondarchuk - 4(Well it is fair to say that the man knows how to frame himself quite well. His performance is so much internalized and he knows exactly how to draw himself. Although my favorite moment of his performance actually is in his technically supporting work of part II, where we see in just a brief frame his feelings for a character. Bondarchuk's performance though plays upon the idea of the surface against the overflowing of emotions that are beating within the man. This granting so much power within the unsaid of his performance. Look forward to watching the rest of his work both as an actor and director.)
von Sydow - 4(A weird period I guess for von Sydow I suppose where he was being pushed as a leading in Hollywood where he ended being more character actor there while leaving his leading work typically to his home. Sydow though is very good in the role though in that he is someone who can sort of bring that bluntness of belief so effectively. This while also finding a charm within the character's awkwardness. I will say though he balances this best in terms of showing the sense of belief, forceful but almost hollow, this hollowness lessening though as he becomes more connected to his people. Although the film is very messy, particularly in whatever its message is supposed to be, von Sydow is a rock solid anchor in the center of it.)
Ventura - 4(Very similar to Jean Gabin's earlier work as an aged gangster doing "one last job". I think though he suffers just a little bit in creating a protagonist in that he isn't as naturally charming as Gabin was. Ventura though is good though certainly here in bringing sort of the hardboiled presence of the man, creating a force dynamically within the personality. This though extends though further as he does create a minor sense of sort of the wear of his job and the emotions there in, even if brief. It's a good performance, though you never quite like his character, and I think it would've helped if you did.)
McDowall - 4(A companion piece to Warner's performance in every way, McDowall is also enjoyable in portraying madness with no real purpose other than to be crazy I guess. He does it well though, it is a shame he's just kind of randomly doing it but there is some entertainment to be had there.)
Martin - 4(Very much a director's film however Martin is good in being the one professional actor that offers the presence to his character, and the right sort of sense that he will be make quick progression in terms of crushing the rebellion. His consistency makes the right sense of this type of almost detached conviction just to get the job done. His portrayal though also offers some nice moments of nuance that grants the character's beliefs in the situation even if this is never focused upon.)
Tikonov - 4(The less overtly emotional of the two I think, however his performance is quite good in portraying sort of the slow increase in hollowness of the man. This creating in that the sense of the wear of the war on him in the first part, as you just see him taking in all the losses and in turn we see him slowly becoming less emotional in his performance.)
Cleef - 3.5(Did watch the version with his actual voice I'm pretty sure, Cleef though doesn't really have much to work with here. Just needs to be a badass, which he is at the very least.)
Neckar - 3.5(It is an enjoyable performance by portraying just this consistency of a guy who seems totally lost in every one of his endeavors. The performance works by just how out of it he seems the entire time.)
Caine - 3.5(Moderately charming Caine)
Millan - 3(Dubbed version however I did think he brought the right sort of unwieldy bravado for his bandit. It's a film though I think would've been helped if the leads could've developed more chemistry.)
Garner & Montand - 3(Grand Prix is a slog by some technically impressive racing scenes being surrounded by overlong and standard melodrama. Montand and Garner are both fine in portraying their characters within these extremely basic roles and arcs. They do what they can but the film is just paced terribly.)
Hadjadj - 3(Only sort of lead, but he gets the job done in portraying sort of the quiet fervent conviction of his character's endeavor.)
Cook - 3(Mildly amusing Cook.)
Caine - 3(Mildly charming Caine)
Kastner - 2.5(This film is pretty bad, despite Page and Hartman being enjoyable, and is strange film from Coppola. Kastner is a far less impressive Richard Dreyfuss in presence and fails to make much of an impression of any kind. He's not terribly but he really doesn't do much.)
Travers - 2(Boring though not terrible performance in a pretty forgettable film.)
Additional side note: Hudson is definitely lead, but he and Randolph play the same character, hence best to review them together.
1. Bib Andersson - Persona
2. Liv Ullmann - Persona
3. Maya Bulgakova - Wings - 5
4. Lyudmila Savelyeva - War and Peace Part II
5. Elizabeth Taylor - Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf - 4.5
6. Audrey Hepburn - How To Steal A Million
7. Lynn Redgrave - Georgy Girl
8. Tuesday Weld - Lord Love a Duck
9. Margaret Leighton - 7 Women
10. Anne Bancroft - 7 Women - 4
11. Vanessa Redgrave - Morgan
12. Anouk Aimee - A Man and A Woman
13. Shirley MacLaine - Gambit - 3.5
14. Francoise Dorleac - Cul-de-Sac
15. Julie Andrews - Hawaii - 2.5
Supporting
1. Machiko Kyo - The Face of Another
2. Charlotte Rampling - Georgy Girl
3. Wendy Hiller - A Man for All Seasons
4. Vanessa Redgrave - Blow Up
5. Susannah York - A Man For All Seasons
6. Sumita Sanyal - Nayak
7. Geraldine Page - You're A Big Boy Now - 4
8. Jessica Walters - The Group - 4
9. Simone Signoret - The Deadly Affair
10. Gunnel Lindblom - Hunger
11. Elizabeth Hartman - You're A Big Boy Now - 4
12. Ulla Sjoblom - Here is Your Life
13. Shelley Winters - Alfie - 4
14. Shirley Knight - The Group - 4
15. Sharmila Tagore - Nayak
And:
Frances Reid - Seconds
Damn, shouldn’t have changed my predictions after Solonitsyn’s review.
Luke:
The Battle of Algiers - (Just a brilliant film in completely committing and excelling in the documentary style approach to telling its story. It takes the right sort of "cheats" with this in it grants such a gritty and detailed picture, yet the figures don't feel just like that. It finds even within that still a sense of the people, even if it presents it in this blunt way, that is extremely effectively done. It's particularly remarkable when compared to the star studded, yet largely dull, Paris is Burning, that tries a similar approach. Algiers takes a technically detached approach, yet everything is so tangible, while Paris is Burning tries to do both and fails at both.)
Nayak - (As mentioned before really feels extremely modern in its look at the life of an actor. Just wonderfully done though in that it is a moving portrayal of a man losing itself to fame, yet never makes it simplistic through melodrama. It has funny moments, moving moments and just feels an honest look at the man. This with such a powerful sense of place with, sense of multiple people on the train that offers a real life to the proceedings and just a clever look at an atypical life. I am definitely coming to be quite impressed by Satyajit Ray's work, and I'll admit I got a particular laugh out of it commenting on the typical Indian song sequences.)
War and Peace - (I mean on the technical merits alone the adaptation is just stunning. The battle sequences are frankly still impressive to look at, along with the lush costumes and production design. This though with a balance for character, where I found it quite remarkably used the "text" so to speak through the inner monologues, that never felt out of placed. It doesn't over use them, finding the right balance in informing us through that, and through the dynamic visuals created within the film. It knows exactly when to push its hand and when not to in that regard. Loved Part I, as the procedure of the war, then against Part II, as basically the examination of this one woman in this period, and a brilliantly portrayed examination. There are so many brilliantly realized sequences in both parts, its just incredible work.)
Best director is extraordinary this year, as I can go out of top ten to include what I would say are brilliantly directed films.
6. Kihachi Okamoto - The Sword of Doom
7. Fred Zinnemann - A Man For All Seasons
8. Sergei Bondarchuk - War and Peace Part II
9. Satyajit Ray - Nayak
10. Larisa Shepitko - Wings
Louis: Is Savelyeva a 4.5 or 5 and who's your lowest 4.5 in Lead Actress.
Luke:
My view on Persona actually didn't change, always thought it was great, I'm not sure why I placed it so "low" originally honestly.
Luke:
4.5, that's why she's below the noted 5.
Hepburn is the last 4.5.
Louis: Your thoughts on the rest of the cast of Nayak, I'm really glad that you're taking to Satyajit Ray's films.
Louis: Your thoughts on Bulgakova, Savelyeva, Hepburn and the 4s from 7 Women, You're A Big Boy Now and The Group.
The cast of Hawaii.
And what are the cinematography contenders for To Be Determined.
Hey Louis and whoever is reading this comment!
Say your TOP 7 of 1966 in the categories:
- SCORE
- POSTER
- EDITING
- SCREENPLAYS (original and adapted)
- CAST
- CHARACTER. In case you don't remember my definition: there is nothing to be at the top of the overall rank, the most memorable characters for the general public; say the names and your movies. Some examples of mine: Sheriff J.P. Harrah (in El Dorado), Mademoiselle (in Mademoiselle), Tuco (in TGTBTU) and Martha (in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?)
Louis: Thoughts on this interview with Lancaster:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw4xGf-Wka4
Louis, is Kyo a 4.5 or 5 for The Face Of Another.
Louis, and have either Hiller, Redgrave or York gone up to 4.5s.
Tahmeed:
Sanyal - (A one scene wonder, and an incredible one at that. This as she goes from being this seemingly ill-used actress just creating an emotional need in the moment. This then she turns it on its head instantly to show a display of any kind of emotion she needs in such a powerfully controlled way where she wholly controls the scene. A brilliant brief bit of work that honestly I wouldn't have minded if we had gotten more of her character.)
Tagore - (Quite the opposite though terrific in creating the right sort of low key chemistry. This in she effectively shows the way that she is too star truck but in a way that is less overt creating the right shyness with it. This in showing that her manner towards him is genuine even when she is also still interested in both the star and the man that she is talking to.)
I quite liked the rest of the cast, who unfortunately are harder to identify.
Luke:
Bulgakova - (Her performance is a tricky one, something that is easy I think to underplay too much, which is just general sort ennui, one that isn't too connected with an obvious trauma but something more generalized. This is much of her performance where she finds a fantastic balance between a naturalistic depiction with still being able to grant a viewer the state of this former fighter pilot reduced to basic duties as a principal. She has a great sense in creating the sort of state where she carries herself with this generalized military presence, but diffused by peacetime. This though is contrasted with the few moments where we see her within her "prime" as the fighter pilot where she brings such a captivating charisma and sort of conviction of manner of someone wholly within her element. It is terrific nuanced work from her, as you feel her particular, yet still so tangible struggle so powerfully, even if often so silently.)
Savelyeva - (Just an incredibly charming performance from the outset. This in finding the right sort of balance between naivety, shyness while still being absolutely captivating in her allure. She's terrific in portraying sort of the stages within her character. This in creating early on the childlike wonders of trying to find romance within that being these phases of what the consequences of that are. Her performance effectively emphasizes the balance between really the girlhood notions of this with the more womanly accentuation of her stance. This in the maturity she realizes beautifully but also so poignantly in this state of being both all the more confident within her self while also struggling with the results with associating with certain sorts within this world.)
Leighton - (Her usual later thing, however yet another example of just being a particularly incisive jerk.)
Bancroft - (Very much emphasizes her Americana however does it well in making for a particularly unusual hero. In a film that is pretty wonky, however she really delivers in finding a charisma and even humor in the part that carries the film.)
Page - (This role has been seen before, as the easily effected mother and who always seems petrified by every development. Well she does it incredibly well, making the most of often risible material. This in her own performance, in her reactions, are the comedy in themselves as she is aggressively over the top in the right way, finding the right tone for the material to make it work.)
Hartman - (More than anything it is just a nice show of range from her since the character could not be more different from the typically shy characters she portrays. She effectively reinvents her entire presence though and succeeds in being quite the alluring yet extremely cold actress/model of sorts. Her performance though too finds the comedy in this by being just so extremely and randomly dismissive in her manner. A good performance that shows it is a shame she might've not gotten enough chances to show what she really could do overall.)
Walters - (Honestly an audition for her eventual work in Arrested Development, and well she excels in this. She's a deliciously horrible cutting chatty Kathy sort. It isn't the most in depth role, however she is terrific in just saying the worst things consistently. She is wonderfully horrible.)
Knight - (She's good in creating sort of the opposite of Walters in portraying a strict empathetic manner in her character. This that she excels with her reactions often being the most important moments in her performance. This in creating a real sense of the right warmth for her character, that also conveys the manner in which she sees the hardship her friend is going through.)
I probably covered Hepburn before, as she's not new to the ranking.
Andrews - (Honestly doesn't just have much of a role to work with. She brings her usual charm in creating the "spirit" of the character, but it's a thin role.)
LaGarde - 3.5(She doesn't quite get over the sort of "non-professional" gap as there moments where I do think you can sense sort of the hesitation to bring more. She is good over though in bringing this sort of combination of an affable, seemingly harmless, charm along with a more overt type of command with her performance. I think the film falters in the exploration of the character a bit, but she is good with what she has to work with overall.)
In no order:
The Good The Bad and the Ugly
The Sword of Doom
Andrei Rublev
Closely Watched Trains
Seconds
Anonymous:
She's a 4.5.
Anonymous:
No.
Brazinterma:
Score:
1. The Good the Bad and The Ugly
2. The Battle of Algiers
3. Seconds
4. The Big Gundown
5. The Bible In the Beginning
6. The Professionals
7. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Great year for Morricone.
Poster:
1. Mademoiselle
2. Persona
3. A Man for All Seasons
4. The Endless Summer
5. One Million Years B.C.
6. Seconds
7. How to Steal a Million
Editing:
1. The Good the Bad and The Ugly
2. The Battle of Algiers
3. The Professionals
4. Persona
5. Cul-De-Sac
6. War and Peace Part I
7. El Dorado
Adapted Screenplay:
1. A Man For All Seasons
2. The Sword of Doom
3. War and Peace Part I
4. War and Peace Part II
5. Seconds
6. The Professionals
7. Le Deuxiem Souffle
Original Screenplay:
1. The Good the Bad and the Ugly
2. Persona
3. Nayak
4. Andrei Rublev
5. The Fortune Cookie
6. Wings
7. The Battle of Algiers
Cast:
1. Seconds
2. A Man for All Seasons
3. The Good The Bad and The Ugly
4. Nayak
5. The Professionals
6. The Sword of Doom
7. War and Peace Part II
Left off Persona for obvious reasons.
Characters popular with the general public:
1. Batman - Batman
2. Blondie (Man with no name) - The Good The Bad and the Ugly
3. Joker - Batman
4. The Penguin - Batman
5. The Riddler - Batman
6. Catwoman - Batman
7. Robin - Batman
Hm to Django, Alfie, Tuco, Angel Eyes, Martha and George.
Louis: Could I have your thoughts on a scene from Marty, where Clara comes home and talks to her parents? It was in the cut of the film that I happened to see, and I was surprised that it was deleted in the original cut.
Louis: Also, on that note, could Blair go up to a 5 for it?
Louis: Your top 5s for Costumes, Production Design and Makeup.
Anonymous:
Just a very articulate interview from Lancaster in terms of detailing Carol Reed's visual minded methods, while complimenting Visconti's ways with actors. More than anything shows Lancaster's talents as an actor, given his ability to describe his director's talents.
Luke:
Costumes:
1. War and Peace Part II
2. A Man for All Seasons
3. Blow-Up
4. The Sword of Doom
5. Andrei Rublev
Production Design:
1. War Peace Part I
2. The Sword of Doom
3. Andrei Rublev
4. The Good the Bad and The Ugly
5. A Man For All Seasons
Makeup"
1. The Face of Another
2. Andrei Rublev
3. The Sword of Doom
4. The Good The Bad And The Ugly
5. War and Peace Part I
Tahmeed:
Never had seen the scene either. It's an wonderful scene for Blair, and would make the later non-phone call scene later all the more heartbreaking. This in she so sweetly describes really the bad and the good that came from the evening with such a pure optimism. I also like her parents reactions though that have a nice balance between a sense of concern and support for her as she tells the story.
Yes.
Louis: The only performance I would add that hasn't been mentioned is John Saxon for The Appaloosa, definitely not for a review but just out of curiosity because he got a Golden Globe nomination for it and you never know.
Louis: After all I love being a Lestrade to your Sherlock and giving you mysteries to solve =D lol
Louis: Whow! Batman characters I didn't expect, but that's okay. Thanks for answering.
Louis: I was thinking about this the other night, and I was wondering- how much weight should a possible audience reaction be given when a film screenplay, or any other art form is made? While I do feel that art should be unregulated in most cases, (unless the content is tasteless or adds nothing to the film in question), I do think there is a legitimate discussion about the responsibility that artists have.
When it comes to examples, I found out that A Beautiful Mind changed some events (ie Nash being said to be on the 'newer medications', when in reality he stopped using them entirely), as they didn't want to send off a message like that to the public.
Tahmeed: That's a tricky one to answer, honestly. Though as always, I do think context plays a role in how your target audience will respond.
Take the MCU, for instance. At a certain point, the creative teams behind those films obviously knew what their audience were expecting to see/hear. As such, it became a balancing act of allowing for a healthy dose of fan service, while testing the limits of what they could do within those individual films, and within the grand scheme of the franchise. One could make the argument that "Endgame" had a lot of fan service done right, and for me at least, also delivered the heft one would expect for a series finale.
When it comes to biopics, its a little different. The best case scenario is that the viewers who would be most interested in a biopic would be those already familiar with it's particular subject. If you go into "A Beautiful Mind", for instance, and are well versed in John Nash's life/significance, than it's the responsibility of the film to show him in as honest of a light as possible. Even then, I think the general film goer is smart enough to know when a story is being simplified, even if they have little knowledge of the figure being portrayed. Something to consider, as well, is the very nature of the subject, and who might be supportive/critical of their deeds. It's one thing if it's an older figure (Ex. The Marquis de Sade in "Quills"), but for someone like Chris Kyle in "American Sniper", who's role in the current geopolitical climate is still in contention....well, all I can say to the filmmaker can say is tread carefully.
Thanks for the additional 1966 recommendations now, Louis. What did you make of Wings and Closely Watched Trains then overall, besides the latter being the most artfully shot sex comedy (which I agree with incidentally).
RatedRStar:
The game's afoot.
Tahmeed:
I personally don't believe an artist should have any given responsibility in terms of creating their own work. Having said that, I don't think that means that should be given the means by others in order to distribute their art if it is in some way irresponsible, or even be free from consequences via the reaction of others. For an extreme example, say an artist wants to make a pamphlet to give to children about how to set forest fires, any attempt to block that from happening is legitimate. That's as much as I believe in the Artist's right to expression, the expression of others potentially against that expression, if in some way problematic, also is a right.
To go further there is a danger to "deem" a piece of art dangerous as it is very easy for the standards to become selective and broad, as needed per the group that determines the standard that suits their narrative. Again if say someone makes a piece of art that is clearly hateful, everyone can choose to boycott, decry it, and limit its exposure. Therein lies the balance.
Calvin:
Wings - (Quite the impressive character study, this as it naturally captures the story on the sense of the character's journey from the life of excitement to that of normalcy, but also in capturing this as a commentary in the changing generation from a war generation to a peace generation. It's a calm, and often fascinating examination, while maintaining itself clearly with its protagonist and the striking central performance.)
Closely Watched Trains - (I don't think I loved every tonal shift, yet I still found the film a fascinating experience through just how at odds, yet still effective, the juxtaposition between content and style. This in that we do mainly have the hijinks of the sex crazed train attendants, which often is very funny, against its beautiful and moody cinematography and the fact that it depicts Nazi occupation. A weird film with this juxtaposition, can't say I've ever seen a film quite like it, but unlike many films with this distinction, it was quite captivating in that idiosyncrasy.)
Post a Comment