Warren Oates did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Jacob "Jake" Remy in Barquero.
Barquero is a decent, if largely unremarkable western, about a showdown between a group of bandits trying to transport their booty who need to cross a river and a township sorta led by a classically individualistic barge owner of that river, Travis (Lee Van Cleef).
Warren Oates was a character actor, who really put the character in character actor. Just someone who was distinctive just by his mere existence. Of course he also was quite capable of putting the actor in character actor as well. This is a striking display of that particularly when considered against his work in Sam Peckinpah westerns, or his masterful leading turn in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. Those performances often playing a memorable lout, or in that leading turn, a especially memorable turn of a man riding a desperate edge in every imaginable way. Here Oates gets the chance to play someone a bit more put together than his characters often are, at least initially, this as a bandit leader, and doesn't lose a step from those other turns of him. In fact it is remarkable how his very essence seems to change a little as there's such a innate confidence in his presence here, if perhaps even a certain "cool" to him. This suggesting right off the bat that if Oates's costar here, Lee Van Cleef, had not been available, Oates would have been a more than worthy alternative for the titular bad in The Good the Bad and The Ugly. This while his Jake here is a considerably different character from Angel Eyes the bad in that film, Oates carries a similar presence that Van Cleef had in that film. This sort of dominance of personality that is rather remarkable. This as he launches his men into a massacre to steal rifles, or even spends time with a woman, Oates carries an innate and palatable confidence within it. His blaring within an innate intensity, and as innate of a strength of his personality.
Oates dominates here magnificently and quite powerfully within the scene of his initial victory with his men. What I love is though that Oates wields within this early on just the right degree of unpredictability within his performance, that suggests well where his Jake might be going later on. This when he finds one of his men sleeping with a woman rather than part of the fight, Jake's near instant killing of the men is with a brutal and cold efficiency. Oates portrays though moment with just this quick glint of a madness but also a fascinating almost reflective quality in his delivery as though the man is pondering his violent state, if for a moment. Afterwards we see the man as a true leader as he goes along his parade of success, though there is the slight complication in that Jake is essentially the leader of the muscle though with the technical leader of the expedition, the soldier Marquette (Kerwin Mathews). This relationship being an essential aspect of the character, which Oates will develop throughout his work. In his prime though Oates exudes the power of a true leader as he goes along with the men. This as Oates doesn't just portray the confidence but there is also a sense of camaraderie and joy as he looks along the men. There is the sense of shared weight of the victory and the sense that he sees the men, and they see him, more than just their current boss, but as their leader. It really though connects to what Oates's work here is, which is one that feels above the call of duty here. This as well this isn't a bad film by any measure, it's not a great one, but Oates seems intent on treating the material with the intention that it will be.
This as Oates honestly doesn't waste a moment of his work here. This as he's compelling even when just in scenes. For example the beginning of the showdown, where Travis will not lend the gang his barge, every one of Oates's stares are worth a 10 lines of dialogue at least. There's so much that he brings more than just a grimace, though he certainly conveys the frustration there. There's a hint of almost admiration in the reaction and a curious interest in the nature of the man who will take this stand. Oates simply never just "looks" in a scene rather he always not only conveys what is needed for the tension of the scenes, but also what is going on with Jake in these moments. The film then becomes this showdown of will as much as force even, as Jake is called upon to find a way to win. When discussing the intention with Marquette, Oates presents a man burdened with position and ambition. His delivery of insisting on taking the river not just anger over the present situation, but also a palatable sense of pride in a hope of advancing in some way. Again I think what needs to be noted throughout is the detail that Oates brings and tries to really grant an idea of this man attempting to lead within the moment. There's moment where Jake bluntly disciplines another of his men, and again Oates just powerfully controls the moment. Now Oates is often playing dangerous characters, but more so in a "what he might do" wild way, here he shows a man who "will do" something. This in the innate determination he carries within the character's eyes, even as things begin to fail. This as Jake begins taking drugs as progress is not made, and we are given the one great flashback into the character, where we see him being almost killed by the Imperial Mexican army, which Marquette was a member of. Honestly the scene just makes me wish the whole film was about Jake, as Oates brings such a sense of the vicious beat down, but also the dogged conviction of Jake in the silent moment of just barely saving his life by killing Marquette's former leader. Oates's whole performance though conveys the idea of a man built up by this experience of finding his ways to claw to the top. This as the next step, the barge, seemingly cannot be overcome and Oates depicts the natural state of the man's mind's degradation from it.
Oates's wild ferocity as Jake is unable to break Travis's resolve is striking, but the best moment is the calm in Oates's portrayal as he embraces then shoots the river after a mad ramble. I almost wonder if the scene in the script only because it so much more brilliant than the rest of the film. Of course Oates is essential in this either way, this as attacking the river, that is the bane of him, creates this quiet and broken satisfaction in his expression and delivery of "I shot the river" with a slight grin, is perfection of a man being destroyed from the inside out through his predicament. This leaving the climax, which is mostly fine, but what stands out about it is Oates basically riffing on the whole thing in his performance. This as he portrays Jake on a whole different wavelength than everyone else throughout, with this strange detachment to the experience. Oddly the strongest emotion throughout the film is actually Oates's genuinely heartbreaking reaction to the death of one of his men, whose pleading with him, as Marquette's plan has failed. Oates showing the genuine leader in the moment as he's affected by the man's words, while also displaying the growing mental break still as his violent reaction towards the loss, is presented in this amazing combination of directness and detachment in Oates. This as he speaks as man's mind is wavering though still with the eyes of a man of intention, even if he's lost it. This as even when he kills one of Travis's allies, Oates does so with this curious expression of the man almost gone from the normal frame of mind as he looks with analysis of the event more so than even hate towards the man. It is an incredible portrayal of a breakdown, and so much greater than the ambitions of his film otherwise. Although Barquero is not a great western, Oates treats it as such, and delivers a great western villain. This as not just treating Jake as a throwaway menacing black hat, but genuinely giving a sense of the man underneath the hat.
39 comments:
your thoughts on David Warner as an actor?
I just saw A Simple Plan for the first time today, and loved every minute of it. Adored the great characters, the fascinating plot and the very good acting, even though it was actually just servicable from a technical standpoint.
Paxton: 3.5
Thornton: 5
Briscoe: 3
Fonda: 4/4.5
I also watched The Remains of the Day for the first time in years. And even though i do not really like Ivory-Merchant-Jhabvalla, this one hooked me really well. I just think that the road-trip scenes in the second half spoiled the flashbacks a bit too much (concerning Fox' character)
Hopkins: 4.5
Thomson: 4.5
Fox: 4
Reeve: 2.5
Maester Aemon: 3
Grant: 3
Chaplin: 3
Headey: 2.5
Tim: Yah..."A Simple Plan" is easily my favourite Sam Raimi film, though I'd go slightly higher for Paxton.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTge-hrbU30
Also, what do you think about what is said in this video between 12:46 and 14:00? Since i have heard it some years ago i apply this "Tarantino-test" to every new movie i watch and thought of it because i think Remains of the Day is just what he means and Simple Plan is how he is saying it should be done.
That's a question for everyone if you want to.
Mitchell: yeah, he was kin of on the verge of a 4 for me, but i wasn't entirely sure ....
Screw it, 4.
Tim: About what I expected from a Tarantino interview; Obtrusive and self congratulatory, to be sure, but most certainly passionate. As for his overarching argument of story vs character, in regards to American and European cinema - eh, I see where he's coming from, but there's more to that discussion then what was in that snippet.
Louis: Rating and thoughts on Van Cleef.
And Kerwin Matthews
Luke, your top five Richard E. Grant performances
1. Can You Ever Forgive Me?
2. Withnail And I
3. The Scarlet Pimpernel
4. The Player
5. Logan
I'm very happy for Oates.
I might not post again until the results but I would very nuch like to see reviews for the missing five star performances next, especially Carl Anderson in Jesus Christ Superstar who I thought was absolutely brilliant after recently watching it for the first time.
*very much
Luke, your ten favourite songs from musicals (One per production).
Anonymous: I'll try my best because it'll be hard to choose from Les Mis and I'll include musicals that were adapted from films.
Anthem from Chess
You'll Never Walk Alone from Carousel
You'll Be Back from Hamilton
Hellfire from The Hunchback Of Notre Dame
Be Prepared from The Lion King
When You Believe from The Prince Of Egypt (Deliver Us is really close)
Stars from Les Miserables (Bring Him Home and Who Am I are right up there as well)
The Music Of The Night from The Phantom Of The Opera
Don't Cry For Me Argentina from Evita
Elephant Love Medley from Moulin Rouge! (I do like Come What May a great deal as well)
Interesting, a co-lead. Glad to see Oates get another 5.
Louis: You may want to check out Oates in Two-Lane Blacktop and Dillinger once you've finished the bonus rounds.
Largely happy with NSFC choices except Bakalova winning over Youn (who wasn’t even runner-up, Jesus Christ).
Calvin: She came 3rd in the voting but I do agree with you there.
It’s so annoying their riding a narrative above the perfomance’s nature. I get it. It’s a cool perfomance to award, and was Bakalova fun? Yes. And I see the appeal of awarding a performance like that in a year like this. But hey...you know what would be more of a statement than that? Awarding an East Asian POC female performer.
I apologise if I sound like an ass, they made some great choices with Zhao, the other acting winners. But fuck, man. This was a way for Youn to solidify herself and now I’m terrified she’s going to miss out for Bakalova, or Close.
Tim:
David Warner might as well be called a clutch performer, as he's just someone you can always depend on to deliver something of quality, whether that be a bit of grace, intensity, gravitas, or even humor. He really actually has had a most interesting and successful career, despite never exactly fully breaking out beyond a certain "character actor" point. This as he's worked in a lot of films of note and quality, and is an extremely prolific television performer as well. Although he's been in bad projects, just like anyone not named John Cazale, I've never seen him be bad, and honestly he's often in things that are good though frequently off-beat. His own work though is that of a performer who understands his craft and ability. Although not frequently pushed beyond certain expectations, he could always deliver on those expectations and when he was pushed he did deliver one way or another. This as much as you can always depend on the villainous Warner turn, the gravitas of an expository one, he could do the comedy of Cable Hogue, the emotional desperation of Cross of Iron, or even be quite heartfelt in his Bob Cratchit. A role by the way that he vied for (they wanted him for Marley), and you can see his great instincts and abilities there to move out of the expectation. In particular his scene of the future for the Cratchits deserves special mention, as grants the typical somberness of the scene, but the inspirational realization of it in his performance is something quite remarkable. Although he's someone I might've wished could've been used for even more, it's hard not to appreciate all that he's done. Although, like Tom Courtenay, some current filmmakers really need to appreciate this great actor who is still around.
Luke:
Matthews - 3(His performance is more than decent though I wish he was a bit more on the same level as Oates. He facilitates his performance a bit more so than really elevating their scenes together. He's fine as sort of the sense of the slightly condescending quality even within concern as the "brains". Still he's overshadowed more than he should be and is too easily forgotten in their scenes together.)
van Cleef - 3.5(A fine if not overly inspired badass van Cleef turn. He certainly delivers towards that expectations, but not much more than being just offering his proper presence as usual. He mostly just plays it cool and he can certainly do that well. There's a little more in his romantic subplot, but that doesn't add up to much as written, and mostly van Cleef keeps his similar sardonic stoic quality even there. It all works to be sure, but again, I think a greater film was possible altogether with the plot, and with what Oates is doing.)
Louis: Thoughts on Forrest Tucker as well?
Calvin:
Well I think critics awards could mean less than usual, as we're almost a month away from actual industry precursors. I think Youn has a better chance than Bakalova at the moment, because we haven't seen if Bakalova can actually get over the hump around the nature of the performance. It seems like something a lot of voters will hesitate to reward even with a nomination, though I do think she'll get in the Globes (hard not to there) and probably SAG (as the AFTRA portion could push her through).
Yeah I figured you’d put him lead, which is nice because Warner can still take the overall even though Oates seems to be your favorite in this lineup. Assuming Oates cracks the top 5, I kinda hope he knocks Hackman out instead of Robards.
Bryan:
Tucker - 3.5(Glad you asked, as he was quite good here in bringing a nice atypical quality in his work. This in portraying against Van Cleef well as this kind of folksy mountain man style, and made for kind of a atypical but convincing badass. I especially liked his little moment at the end where he has a casual even friendly conversation with a guy he has dead to rights.)
Tucker would be a proper 4 for me.
Louis: True, we’ll see about in the industry. I’m becoming more cynical now which is probably a good thing, since it’s around this portion of awards season last year I was feeling cynical about Parasite’s chances.
I haven’t seen Minari yet, but I actually am quite delighted by Bakalova getting awards. She’s great in it and I love seeing comedic performances getting their due.
Michael:
Thinking about it, yeah he should be a 4.
Robert: She’s strong category fraud though. She’s delightful don’t get me wrong, I just don’t feel like she’s the Best Supporting Actress of the year by any stretch.
I would be happier about Bakalova getting wins if it wasn’t for the looming threat of Glen Close. Which isn’t Bakalova’s fault I guess.
Seyfried over Youn I also take some issue with but at least that’s just a matter of personal opinion and I get the love, and she’s a contender either way.
Calvin:
Yeah hopefully Close misses even SAG and the Globes, so we can count her out earlier than later (as I think even if she gets that she will probably be pushed out by whoever the BAFTA boosted contender is).
I don’t even know if Close herself wants to be nominated for it given that she’s not winning. I do think that sometimes about some of these makeup nominations, or wins for people who don’t really feel like they or the film they were in deserved it.
Calvin: I think she’s more broderline than a clear-cut co-lead, so the fraud doesn’t bother me this time.
Robert: it bothers me if she ends up taking precursors and possibly getting in over one of the best performances of the year period. But I get what you mean so agree to disagree (even though I don’t think she’s borderline at all).
Calvin:
Calvin, though I will caution with concern, careful not to suffer from "Oscar sickness". A most unfortunate condition that occurs when you so want your favorites to win you begin to view all others in a far more negative light than you would typically without the Oscars around (take it from a former sufferer of this condition). I believe it is best, for one's own mental sake especially, to take the "as long as it is pretty good" approach as the quality for deserving rather than strictly the best.
Louis: you are 100% correct. It’s a very easy trap to fall into.
Louis: Couldn't agree more, at the end of the day, there's more important things in life than award shows. As long as the overall quality is good all-round then I have no complaints.
I do think I would be less peeved overall if last year at least one of Awkwafina, Zhao or especially Song made it in.
Apologies to anyone on here if I spear a bit standoffish in these matters incidentally. I do think the current situation and having more free time on my hands this awards season has led me to obsess way more over it than I should.
Post a Comment