Monday, 24 August 2020

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2002: Christopher Plummer in Nicholas Nickleby

Christopher Plummer did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Ralph Nickleby in Nicholas Nickleby.

Nicholas Nickleby is a fine, if just that, Charles Dickens adaptation about the titular young man coming to age while having to deal with different ills of Victorian England.

I have to say after watching The Man Who Invented Christmas, about Dickens writing a Christmas Carol it got me thinking what a fully fledged portrayal of Scrooge would be like. This as while Plummer played Scrooge in that film, it was a purposefully arch type portrayal, more for the generalized idea of the character, than really getting into the meat of who he was sort of beyond the page, again I believe this was entirely intentional. Thankfully it appears this thought was already realized in this film. Now, Plummer doesn't play Dickens's most famous miser in Ebenezer Scrooge here, but the character of Ralph Nickleby is definitely a classic miser in his own right. Now, as to be expected, Plummer's demeanor and voice couldn't seem a better fit for the world of Dickens already from the outset. He not only fits into the clothes like he was born in them, but Plummer's voice already is a perfect fit for the Victorian style vernacular. Unsurprisingly Plummer makes a striking impression from his first scene where the Nickleby family seeks help from their uncle after the death of their father. Plummer's performance delivering on the wanted sort of cold precision of manner as he speaks every word with a blithe disregard for nearly any sentiment for his father. Plummer presenting a general indifference towards his family's needs and more so the death of his brother. Ralph providing only basic leads for his niece and nephew, the titular Nick (Charlie Hunnam), for financial support. Plummer finds a wonderful balance in this moment though in that there is the slightest hint of warmth in recommending work for his niece, however for his nephew it is with a diabolical grin of a man knowing far more of the appointment than he is letting on.

This is quickly found by Nicholas as his job is at a horrible boarding school. His slight hint of warmth is even found questionable as Ralph subjects his niece to a creepathon in a dinner with a group of older men. Plummer showing that Ralph is perhaps the greatest creep of all as he presents Ralph as man unable to exactly interact with his niece that isn't somewhat questionable. Plummer plays this particularly well in he presents it as almost the man isn't quite aware of his own perhaps lecherous desire. This as he speaks with a calm support and apology to her, yet his eyes speak as though he is living within some sick fantasy. Plummer making for quite the horrible villain, though in the best ways, and quite frankly makes Ebenezer Scrooge look like a nice chap, even before he is reformed. Plummer though excels here in finding variety within the blunt villainy of the character. This as a moment where one of his clients comes to Ralph over his horrible treatment of niece and nephew. Plummer starting the scene with the smug assurance of a man whose always got what he's wanted and everything seemingly has gone his way. He's effortless though in the switch, and properly horrible still in the sheer disbelief when he sense the man has any distaste for his cruel actions. Plummer's face of being taken aback is properly cathartic, but also so effectively shows the nature of the man's state as he is so shaken by any disruption of his financial control. Plummer is just a delicious dastardly fiend here, in just with such confidence portraying the man's cruel nature with such ease. This again though with a delightful nuance for the material, for example finding humor in reacting to the rather grotesque bad boarding school master with a combination of withdrawn disgust hidden by a phony courteousness for a man he wishes to use against his nephew, this in contrast to another moment of so specifically altering his voice to the coldest tone when speaking of his most hated nephew. Plummer is fantastic here in making the most out of any given scene by never taking a single path in revealing Ralph's villainy.

Now as much as Plummer makes for a great miser villain here, I probably wouldn't even be mentioning this performance it were not for the climax of the film. The climax of this film following Nicholas as he uncovers some secret for a final confrontation with Ralph, where all is revealed in a classic novel serial style fashion. This also where he gets sort of his Scrooge moment, this in facing his past, though not through supernatural means but rather just Nicholas revealing an important thing about Ralph's past. Now before even this we do have a certain descent as everything is going against Ralph largely due to his questionable ways. This within just a great moment where we see Ralph alone reacting to his change in fortunes. It is satisfying in the sense of the man losing that smug confidence, but there is something more within his work. Again Plummer's performance grants something more intimate within the miser a real pathos even in the moment of the man facing ruin, a humanity within the pathetic reaction. Although he doesn't make you sympathize with Ralph in the moment, he so artfully elevates the potential archetype through the degree of depth of his portrayal. That is but a warm up for the revelation scene. The revelation being initially of a secret marriage of Ralph's that resulted in a son who was said to be sickly. Plummer's performance is outstanding in this scene, and really earned largely through even that greater nuance within his portrayal of the generally evil character we found in the rest of the film. This as even mentioning the marriage it is with a quiet recognized regret on Plummer's brow, however a greater somberness is revealed as he notes the death of his son as broken hearted father. A broken heart though long ago. As the story goes on though it is revealed the boy had lived for some time, and it is revealed to have been in fact a boy at the bad boarding school who had become best friends with Nicholas. Plummer's face filling with a dread as he grants such palatable emotion in the moment of Ralph recognizing that he had earlier sabotaged his own son to try to get to get Nicholas, having not known he was his son, though in turn perhaps helping to the early demise of the boy. Although this is not the redemption of Scrooge, Plummer is heartbreaking in that sense in revealing the moment of revelation that does create a change in the man. This in revealing the heart of the man only within sorrow. Plummer's work in this scene is astonishing at times as his expression not only shows the sense of regret but also in his eyes, the sense of man whose long held reality is shattering through these words. This with even though a moment of calling back to the potential love for his wife, and son, that is so beautifully performed as Plummer looks upon the boy's bed with a sense of love wrapped within despair. Plummer realizing his own Scrooge like change, though this time not for a man to renew his life but rather gives into his death. Although overall I'd call the film overall as just fine, Plummer goes above and beyond in his performance here. This by creating both a proper Dicksonian villain but also a genuinely tragic fool.

38 comments:

Luke Higham said...

Fuck Yeah Fuck Yeah Fuck Yeah!

Plummer's first ever five. :)

Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the cast.

Luke Higham said...

1. Day-Lewis
2. Hill
3. Newman
4. Walken
5. Plummer
6. Williams
7. Firmino
8. Gleeson
9. Spall
10. Fraser

Matt Mustin said...

Luke: Honestly, 4.5 is just right for Newman.

Anonymous said...

Finally, a performance he would've deserved an Oscar for.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Matt: Yeah, I always thought he was good, but they made way too much of a thing out of him. Granted, I also feel absolutely nothing watching that movie beyond a shrug. It’s pretty, the score is nice, and also could have went WAY farther on almost every single story aspect.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Also, Hanks is way better in Catch Me If You Can than Road. The accent is broad, but his scenes with DiCaprio are some of the most underrated he’s done.

Matt Mustin said...

Robert: OK, we disagree because I think the movie is great.

Robert MacFarlane said...

What am I not getting about it? Is some sort of Days of Heaven thing where we're not supposed to take it at face value? I kept getting annoyed by how toothless it was. Every time Hanks shoots someone, the camera goes out of its way to make sure he's never in the same frame as the shot. Hell, outside of Craig and Law, we see the fuzziest group of gangsters put on film. That saccharine narration feels like a studio mandate.

I'm not saying I need every gangster movie to be vicious or ultraviolent, but I wanted something more than just this self-conscious attempt at a tactful "prestige" gangster story. Honestly the more I'm talking about it, the more I'm disliking it.

Louis Morgan said...

Robert:

Well to offer my rebuttal...even though we seem to agree on Sam Mendes when it comes to the domestic drama, I suppose we must remain at odds for the epic. For me, I've always felt Road To Perdition is more so a samurai film in the guise of a gangster film, closer to something like Samurai Rebellion than The Godfather. This is to the point that perhaps some of that "meat" you were looking for is in the deleted scenes, particularly in terms of detailing the gangster world. For me, Mendes made the right choices in reducing that and focusing on the more grandiose, aided greatly by Conrad Hall, as the striking broad strokes of emotion, telling a far visual based gangster film than is usually the case, again more so Samurai in making so much of it in the action rather than what is spoken. Action that again is far more operatic than gritty. Now I'll grant one cannot love this approach, but for me I thought it offered something entirely new within the genre rather than trying to ape Goodfellas or the Godfather.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I think the operatic, quasi-impressionistic approach is what rubbed me the wrong way. I know that's hypocritical from someone who loves The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford with every fiber of their being, but everything about it feels risible. The only reading that made any sense to me was one that compared it to Days of Heaven, as a sort of unreliable perspective from a child who wants to think the best of his father.

I think maybe I just cannot give Mendes any benefit of the doubt. Something about his style strikes me as pompous and self-regarding. I don't think I'm destined to ever love his movies, and just bringing myself to like them is hard enough.

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: I mean, that's much more articulate than I would've been, I would've just said "It's just beautiful!" But your bang-on about the samurai comparison, and I agree that Mendes is at his best with epics as Road, Skyfall and 1917 are his best films. I used to love American Beauty, but I kind of...can't, anymore.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Not even sure I like Skyfall! It's just The Dark Knight if Joker had mommy issues.

(Wow, I *really* can't cut him some slack.)

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Lane - 3.5(Perfectly cast as a hammy actor. Mostly just doing his typical thing slightly adjusted per the needs of Dickens, and does it well. Just a fun performance with the right over the top bravado.)

Broadbent - 3.5(Properly grotesque and slimy turn from Broadbent. Really emphasizes just the sneering nearly drooling evil, and does so in an effective and entertaining fashion.)

Fox - 3(Does some fine creepy sneering.)

Bell - 3.5(Very much in his wheelhouse though offer the right sort of low key charm within the character's general pathos. Appropriately moving work to be sure.)

Spall - 3(Always enjoy a wild Spall when it shows up, and just fine, and fitting performance from him.)

Stevenson - 3(Less showy than Broadbent, though a fine partner in accentuating the nastiness of the character with every sneer and aching line delivery.)

Hathaway - 2.5(Although I imagine was less distracting when the film came out, mostly found her to be that here. She's fine, but doesn't really elevate a role that needs it.)

Courtenay - 4(Alright can we just get a great role for him again, I mean good job Andrew Haigh, but lets do it again, for who is actually the best of the British 60's young crop, despite being rarely heralded as such. Alright forgetting that digression, Courtenay gives another wonderful turn here. He too just seems to fit into the Dickens style so perfectly. Courtenay is wonderful here in bringing such an endearing quality in the character's sort of sloppy shyness, giving a sense of the warmth of the man just as he gives him his broken qualities as a drunk. He does so much off to the sides in just the ways he reacts to Plummer, giving such a quietly moving performance at times that slowly builds towards his final scene. Courtenay being great in delivering that intensity of his that makes a real impact, though he properly mutes it slightly to be fitting of his role.)

Matt Mustin said...

I think Christopher Plummer might be the most English non-English actor who's ever lived.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I wouldn't even give Haigh that much credit considering how much the camera undercut all the work he was doing in 45 Years. Like, I get that Rampling being every frame was the central conceit, but did he not realize Courtenay was giving such a haunting performance?

Robert MacFarlane said...

Matt: He should have played Dumbledore. Someone should have just lied to Rowling and told her he was British.

Luke Higham said...

Matt: Agreed. I honestly can't wait for his Remember review.

Matt Mustin said...

Luke: The movie is really not worth how great he is in it.

Louis Morgan said...

Robert:

Well I'll certainly agree there, both on Haigh (though at least he gave him a role that wasn't just "old man") and Plummer, who I think could've provided the right balance to pull off for what Dumbledore was in the early books to what he later became.

Calvin Law said...

I’m glad Plummer has a 5 now, and will definitely check that out.

Louis: Could you see Courtenay as a 90s George Smiley?

Louis Morgan said...

Calvin:

YES!

BRAZINTERMA said...

Hey Louis and whoever is reading this comment!

Tell me your TOP 5 or 10 of Brazilian films of all time? Just a warning: movies like Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985) and Blindness (2008) are not on the list because they are not spoken in Portuguese.

Calvin Law said...

Brazinterma: I haven’t seen enough to make a conclusive list of even 5 but City of God is definitely my #1 so far.

Calvin Law said...

Did enjoy Bacurau a great deal though.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Does anyone here watch House MD? Been rewatching the first season of the show, and Hugh Laurie is phenomenal in it.

Matt Mustin said...

Tahmeed: I watched some of it. Laurie is indeed fantastic, but I wish the show around him was as good as his performance. Not that it's bad, but it doesn't really match what he's doing.

Matt Mustin said...

And it would be a better show if the actor playing Wilson could keep up with him, but Robert Sean Leonard is completely left in the dust.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Matt: I actually think the fact that no one can seem to keep up with him is sort of the point of show, and is actually rather effective even though I understand what you're saying. 100% agreed on Robert Sean Leonard though, even if he has his moments too.

Matt Mustin said...

Tahmeed: I more meant that no one is as interesting as him. The characters themselves obviously can't keep up with him, I'm fine with that, but they're all one dimensional.

Bryan L. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

As someone who's watched all the episodes of House, no one quite comes close to Laurie in terms of acting. House as a character never really gets much of a development, save for a few episodes, unlike most of the other characters, but Laurie is always the spotlight. And, TBH, it is House, M.D., not “Princeton-Plainsboro General” (although Grey's Anatomy does have plenty of screentime for not-Grey [actually, now that I think about it, Grey is probably the least interesting character in the show, I can't even point out her personality for how bland and inconsistent she is]).

Anonymous said...

That being said, though, other than MMM in season 7 and the 2 new characters in the disappointing last season, I don’t think anybody is really badly acted in the show, yeah, Sean Leonard was pretty bland in the beginning, but he gets better, and is pretty good in the last season when he *spoilers* gets diagnosed with cancer. Heck, there were some great performances later on: Edelstein is GREAT in seasons 4-7 and should probably have gotten an Emmy nomination or whatever; Wilde is always compelling and understated, and is great in the limited time 13 has in season 7; Morse was the only reason the Tritter storyline wasn't a complete backfire; and Penn's comedic timing was so in tune with the show that his departure left a hole in it

Anonymous said...

Also forgot to mention: Dudek as Amber Volakis, second best performance in the show IMO, she was surprisingly great for an actress who had just got out of filming White Chicks

Tim said...

Tahmeed: Laurie was the definite MVP all through, but Omar Epps gets some pretty strong moments down the line too

Tim said...

Louis: have you ever given a ranking of Scrooge-Performances?

Louis Morgan said...

Tim:

1. Alistair Sim
2. Bill Murray
3. George C. Scott
4. Michael Caine
5. Henry Winkler
6. Albert Finney
7. Alistair Sim (Voice)
8. Guy Pearce
9. Alan Young (Voice)
10. Jim Backus (Voice)
11. Jack Palance
12. Seymour Hicks
13. Christopher Plummer
14. Reginald Owen
15. Simon Callow (Voice
16. Tim Curry (Voice)
17. Jim Carrey (Mocap)
18. Patrick Stewart

Anonymous said...

I'm glad Plummer is a new name on the "My Nominations" list.

BRAZINTERMA said...

After 2002, the next years I would like to see re-analyzes are: 1936, 1942, 1958, 1969, 1972, 1976, 1989, 1998 and 2016.