Hugh Jackman was nominated for an Emmy for portraying Frank Tassone in Bad Education.
Bad Education is an effectively darkly comic exploration of a pair of embezzlers at the top of a school district.
I have to admit I've become slightly tired of the wait to the actual academy nomination announcement, something that has never happened before, however this year the wait is extended. So to kind of break the minutia a bit, and open up a new comments section, I thought I'd review one of the saved performances that is a bit of an outlier, and I know will not be nominated however I feel is worth talking about. This is as I have previously highly praised Hugh Jackman for his final turn as the Wolverine in Logan, in a deeply emotional work in his iconic role. That was a progression one could see, however his performance in Bad Education is something very different from him. Jackman is an actor I actually I think tends to be more charming outside of his films at times, with that side of his presence not always well exploited. Now, this performance is not a traditional charming leading turn in the least, however there is an element of that, and it is the element we open with as we meet his Frank Tassone as the superintendent of a highly lauded school district in Long Island. Jackman is wonderful in brandishing his innate charisma here as we see Frank go about his duties as superintendent, meeting with various committees, introducing this or that, and of course dealing with an upset parent. With each Jackman wields the "power" of the position with such an ease and grace. His manner as a man who has it all together, without a hint of worry.
We even see this as Frank entertains a student reporter, Rachel, with questions over the school's proposed sky-walk for the students. Jackman delivers his quick soundbite with a glee for being the man with answers, this going so far as to encourage Rachel to delve deeper. Jackman's manner as he encourages this isn't as though he exactly wants her to do so, rather in that smile we see a man saying exactly what he knows the party he's talking to wants to hear. Jackman showing Frank as the ideal superintendent who seems to just go about it all so easily, perhaps too easily. This as we see his seemingly biggest problem is his low carb diet, as we see in a moment between himself and his assistant superintendent/co-conspirator, Pam Gluckin (Allison Janney). The two are wonderful together as this quietly comedic pair. Their performances share what I think is essential as the two have this kind of shamelessness in their interaction. A shamelessness less as long time friends, but as though the two of them are mutually hiding their own intemperance by sharing it together. The two both showing this pair who seems to have an alarming degree of contentment that just suggests they must be guilty of something when within each other's company. This of course as the two of them have embezzled through construction projects like the sky bridge, however Pam gets caught first.
Jackman is excellent in presenting the state of the man becoming all the more brazen as he attempts to deal with Pam's known crime as discretely as possible, supposedly to protect the school, but in fact to hide his own indiscretion. Jackman's fantastic as he shows Frank push his persuasive power all the more, this as he emphasizes such a seeming sincerity as he asks the board to think of the children. Jackman losing the levity in Frank's charisma, showing a man who is all business. Jackman creating the wonderful duplicity as he puts on the front of the man taking careful action, while there being that underlying sense of something else going on. This all the more evident when dealing with Pam, with the board around. This in his delivery bringing a proper speech of a man with a calm form trying to take care of business. This while though Jackman's eyes, that can only be seen by Pam, suggest an entirely different story. This as Jackman brings a real sense of threat in his eyes looking at her, now as a criminal firmly wanting his co-conspirator to take the blame, than any sort of proper public official. An even more wonderfully duplicitous moment coming as he addresses Pam's relative trying to blackmail Frank. Jackman's great here, almost treating this as a lesser threat, by maintaining his diplomatic jovial quality as his eyes and his words have a threatening subtext. Jackman again bringing such a quietly insidious quality that is striking and suggests that almost everything about the man just might be a facade.
This in a sense is in some ways what Jackman's performance should've been more so in his work as Gary Hart in The Front Runner, however that film failed in seemingly having no thematic purpose. The untapped potential within that is realized here in Jackman's portrayal of a man who has been putting on a show for so long he doesn't really even know who he is exactly. We see this as the case as he is the man who talks about his dead wife, which Jackman speaks as though it is part of Frank's introduction, though he is in fact not one but two homosexual relationships. Although I think it is important note these are in themselves not insidious. In fact Jackman is quite good in portraying both as Frank almost being some kind of genuine earnestness in these moments of affection, however even these moments Jackman brings some degree of a guarded quality. This not being as an act of repression of his sexual desires, rather as a man who is still hiding something from both men, that being the relationship with the other man, but also Frank as this ardent liar who loves to live this life of lying. We see then as the evidence closes in on Frank, Jackman's performance is exceptional as he slowly reveals the image the man has created falling apart. When he goes to threaten the very reporter he encourage, suddenly Jackman shows a man struggling not to put on a threat, instead just genuinely threatening the girl, and no longer able to he hides himself with his fancy suits and face lifts. When Frank starts explaining the deficiencies to the board and to the school, Jackman shows now how hollow the man's charisma was all along. This as now the smile fails to be anything less than a mask, and the attempted professional delivery is just a phony display of nothingness. There's a brilliant moment, where the same upset parent comes with her son to try to give something back to Frank. Jackman is amazing in this scene. This with the facade straining within his face as there is nothing but a taut exhaustion flaring behind it. This before he bursts out against the kid and his mother, but what I love is Jackman doesn't play it as a straight anger. This as he rather shows the man trying to wield his his presentation of his himself as this great man while having this breakdown. Jackman is a magnificent mess as he becomes this grotesque state of the man trying to give an inspirational speech while also having a mental breakdown. Jackman beautifully realizing a man folding in on himself as he becomes nothing but lies. This is a brilliant performance by Hugh Jackman that works as a wonderful companion work to his other great performance in Logan. This as a counterpart as instead of a deeply emotional portrayal of a man facing a truth, we get different side of his range in his duplicitous portrayal of a man doing everything to avoid facing any truth.
265 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 265 of 265Louis: From what you've done so far, can you rank the years from each decade from most enjoyable to least. For instance, you mentioned that you really enjoyed 1994 but was disappointed in 1970.
Bonus round years only
And rank them in their respective decades, to make it easier.
Tahmeed:
No, at least I'm not sure what angle you could take without seeming completely mediocre by comparison to Amadeus. I mean Immortal Beloved is kind of what one gets if Amadeus wasn't the masterpiece it is and was just fine. And don't get me started on the "song" movies, it's tough to do a film about a composer, and Amadeus made all the right moves. I just don't see an alternate path, to make a great biopic you really need some unusual path, they found one with Salieri.
moviefilm:
We both saw it through time limited online screenings.
Luke:
I mean my enjoyment is more decade based, as there aren't that many hidden gems in early sound cinema, the creme really rose to the top. Then just like 1970, that just wasn't a great year for films, where 94 was. But 94 was also helped as I decided to change my viewing habits towards films that at least someone considered great, or there was some great element within them, rather than trudging through mediocrity.
Louis: Thoughts on The Spectacular Now and the cast.
Since my 2nd recommendation Ethel & Ernest is up next, I must say that it's eligible for the 2016 overalls. It had a UK theatrical release in October then was broadcasted on BBC in December that same year.
Also watched a few of the unexpected short listers (look forward to my Jingle Jangle thoughts).
The Glorias - (A unremarkable biopic, that is largely a "then this happens" without much insight into those moments, with Julie Taymor throwing in a completely random stylized moments like 3 times, almost as though it was a contractual obligation as they make little sense, and just disrupt the flow of the film she seems to be making. Sadly though even the film she is making has, oddly enough, little to say.)
Short list: The makeup is pretty standard aging makeup, not bad, but not too notable either.
Welcome to Chechnya - (Actually a fairly striking doc both in terms of putting a spotlight as a fairly hidden issue, and doing it in an engaging way by following how it is being fought against, while also highlighting the emotional personal stories of those effected. The sort of process moments I found most compelling, but I'm definitely not going to begrudge the focus on those personal stories.)
Short List: I mean it is definitely some inspired use of VFX to literally hide witnesses behind CGI created people, however the VFX itself isn't great in objective terms (looks like PS2, XBOX, Gamecube graphics), though it does serve its specific purpose.
Luke:
The Spectacular Now, I guess befitting its influences, or seeming influences, of Say Anything, and a little bit of Better Off Dead, is best when it isn't all the serious. I think the teenagers being teenagers are the best scenes, while the moments where it tries to get serious I think it gets a little thin, obvious and a bit repetitive at times. Don't hate the attempt or anything, but don't think it entirely delivers either.
Teller - 3.5(I'll say his performance is half of it him pretending to not be, for the lack of a better word, douche is more than decent in presenting that facade. This playing it as much of a John Cusack knock off as he can be, but it kind of works. His emotional work is fine later one, but I suppose that earlier quality makes it harder to sympathize with overall. I think Teller's best work is Whiplash in part because he totally works as at least slightly insufferable sort. That is not what he is here, but I think some of it works here.)
Woodley - 3.5(One of her better performances as she doesn't have that degree of artifice like her Descendants performance. Although I don't entirely believe her as the invisible shy girl, I do think she brings enough of a genuine vulnerability in moments nonetheless. She has a nice sweetness within her chemistry with Teller, and it is a fine performance.)
Larson - 3.5(I'll actually give her extra credit for making the most out of a thankless thin role. She finds an honesty within it, even as the character is pigeonholed into something, Larson manages to find an honesty within that. Side note, really hope her future career skews more often to the smaller films than the indies, as is with the former where she shines.)
Odenkirk - 3.5(Mainly just for his last moment, where I think he really brought an honesty and warmth within his performance. This in presenting a tough love and concern in the moment.)
Chandler - (A proper sort of deadbeat performance overall. Enough of a sort of blithe wandering quality within his manner as though he never really knows how to interact from one moment to next.)
Leigh - 3(Found her quite shafted by the writing. A more than decent performance still, and makes the most of her last scene where she finally gets to do something at least.)
Thoughts on The Glorias cast.
Louis: Thoughts on Winstead in "The Spectacular Now"?
Also, since I remember liking Larson in the film I'd again have to agree on her shining more in smaller movies. This as much of her blockbuster work consists of rather thin roles and requiring more of a standard "movie star" presence - which she still has to a degree, but it's nothing especially notable from what I've watched.
Also, what are your thoughts on Kyle Chandler as an actor?
It's interesting to look through his film career to see just how many high profile films he's been a part of; Rarely the most memorable part of those films, mind you, but hardly a weak spot in them either.
Luke:
Vikander - 3(Randomly, where's she been? Anyway though this is a decent enough performance even if her mannerisms are bit stilted in comparison to her co-star who makes them a bit more natural. She suffers though from the character being so strangely limited and there mainly just there to make different speeches while looking discontent. She does this, but it isn't anything major.)
Moore - 3.5(Better cast than Vikander and I suppose that helps her mannerisms feel a bit more natural and lived in. Moore is good enough here but it feels a bit like autopilot because of how perfunctory everything is. This as her marriage is handled in two scenes for example, the whole relationship, but that summarizes far too much about the film and the depiction of Steinem. She delivers as she can, but it is far too limited overall.)
Supporting cast is fine, but if the lead is so thinly drawn, what hope do they have.
Mitchell:
Winstead - 3(I think it is a pretty limited character, there just as the sister who is just generally supportive and less invested in her father than her brother. She's entirely fine in bringing a naturalism to her scenes, but there just isn't enough to really build on towards anything special.)
Kyle Chandler I'd kind of put as one of those leading men, non leading man, in that he has the look and kind of the presence, but was never in that position. In general he delivers in the limited roles he is typically given, I haven't seen his television work (Other than some random Early Edition episodes), which is usually as an exposition guy. The times where he's gotten to play on that in a more comedic version he does typically deliver like in Game Night and The Wolf of Wall Street. He's a good actor, but I think fair to say mostly type cast, even if he's good in that type.
moviefilm: The Father releases on VOD on the 26th.
Happy Birthday Calvin
Louis: If you're watching Ethel & Ernest today, your thoughts on it and the cast.
Thank you, Luke.
Looking forward to everyone's upcoming thoughts on Judas and the Black Messiah.
Oh Happy Birthday Calvin =D.
Happy Birthday, Calvin!
Thanks Daniel! :)
Happy birthday Calvin!
Happy Birthday Calvin! Cheers
Happy Birthday Calvin!
Louis: Could I have your thoughts on Hugh Jackman's opening number from the 2009 Oscars, and his overall hosting performance.
https://youtu.be/Terhj8mjPwY
Tahmeed: The best Oscars host this century.
Definitely agree with Luke. I'm looking forward more to the silent era more than the 30's or 40's reviews. Lon Chaney's Quasimodo and Phantom are two masterful works of silent acting.
Happy birthday, Calvin!
Happy birthday, Calvin!
Happy B-day, Calvin!
Thank you everyone very much, it was a lovely day. :)
Luke: agreed completely on Jackman.
I just finished watching Judas And The Black Messiah. One of the best of 2021 so far. Left me speechless.
Here is my Letterboxd review for my full thoughts:
https://letterboxd.com/matt_0515/film/judas-and-the-black-messiah/
Here are my ratings for the cast:
Daniel Kaluuya - 5
LaKeith Stanfield - 4.5
Jesse Plemons - 3
Dominique Fishback - 4/4.5
Ashton Sanders - 3.5
Martin Sheen - 2.5
Darrell Britt-Gibson - 3.5
Lil Rey Howry - 3
Algee Smith - 3.5
Jermaine Fowler - 3
Dominique Thorn - 3
Also, Happy Birthday Calvin
Happy Birthday Calvin!
Now I know here's the thoughts you've been waiting for...Jingle Jangle come on guys, you know you wanted them. Anyways to rabidly criticize a movie like this, which is a family film with a capital F, would be silly. So I'll just say instead, it's not a great family movie (I mean's it's no Paddington) which can be enjoyed at all, but eh, hating it for being overly earnest and whimsical would be silly, plus as overly earnest and whimsical films go, there's definitely worse.
Short list: Score is not overly memorable but appropriately whimsical in a very generalized kind of way. The visual effects for the background creation are pretty good, the rest are not overly convincing but nor are they meant to be. They have a little bit of charm and aren't bad. I'd take them over the likely to be nominated Midnight Sky at any rate.
Tahmeed:
Just a charming number and really what you're typically looking for with an Oscar host. Graceful being the key word with Jackman balancing just a showmanship with a humor that doesn't feel too forced, and lacking in pretension in either bringing to the ceremony or to himself seeming above it. Jackman more than anything just tries to be entertaining and delivers in that sense, which is what a host should be.
Louis: Thoughts on the cast.
As for Judas and the Black Messiah, I have to sadly echo Calvin's sentiments that it is a good not great film. It has some great moments, and it has to be said Shaka King's aesthetic direction is most impressive. The script though is very flawed. There's side-plots that are thin or lack purpose. We don't need really the inside story of the FBI handler, particularly not with the bad makeup job on Martin Sheen as Hoover. It has a purpose, but not one that is really needed. Then there is the side plot of Algee Smith's character that sadly begins and ends without impact or relevance to the main plot. The scenes focusing on Hampton as the crusader and O'Neal as the informant are compelling, with some particularly strong ones in there for each side. There's not a proper momentum though because the two don't ever feel intertwined enough, and feel too separate. Even if it would be fictional, it probably needed more scenes between Kaluuya and Stanfield, to really create a stronger foundation and power in the betrayal. Instead it progresses with a distinct lack of urgency. Now I think this is partly the editing but more so the script. Too many though feel like they are just scratching a surface then delving head deep into the complex story or truly fleshing out the characters past a certain point. Now even with those thoughts, it is a good film, but given the potency of the true story at the center, a greater one seemed in grasp.
Plemons - 3
Fishback - 4
Sanders - 3
Britt-Gibson - 3
Smith - 3
Howery - 3.5
Thorne - 3.5
Louis, now that you have seen Judas, who do you expect to win best supporting actor?
Is Kaluuya co-lead?
Anonymous:
I'm predicting him at the moment, however I could see him getting unseated if the film doesn't find more momemtum outside of him. I think it was a mistake for the late release, as he might've had the critical momentum to back him if they hadn't waited so long.
Matt:
He's unquestionably co-lead to me, particularly since there are plenty of scenes without Stanfield either.
Louis: would you agree that honestly, they could’ve just left the whole FBI subplot out (especially since I think they could’ve addressed all that stuff in short exchanges between Plemons and Stanfield), I feel like that stuff was already obvious (everyone knows the FBI and government were full of shit and organised the murder of Hampton, leave them as an unseen force and focus more on O’Neal himself).
Agreed especially on Smith’s subplot, which could’ve had a lot more time dedicated to it. Honestly I thought the film was consistently amazing when just honing in on Hampton, and ran into more problems with O’Neal. A lot i about the writing behind his character annoyed me so I guess I’ll wait to see if a rewatch changed things.
Luke:
There's not too much to say about the casts there, every is as earnest as the film, but not to the point they truly elevate it to anything more than what it is. Forest Whitaker I will say gives one his better performances of late just by his post-Oscar win slight overacting fits towards the style of the film.
Calvin:
There was no need for it, and given the scenes were entirely repetitive, at the very least just one scene would've done all you needed.
For me the best scenes where Hampton is action, and I think it is unfortunate the film goes away from really getting a sense of his activism in the latter half of the film.
I think there was a lack of certainty on how to handle O'Neal, from a writing standpoint, that left some elements of his story-line a bit vague at times.
My take on Judas and the Black Messiah is that it should have been a miniseries. Too many missing links. I actually think Stanfield was MVP rather easily.
Got to see Cherry. Film is a complete mess but picks up in the final third or so. Tom Holland is really good but all that awards hype initially is a bit much, though that's more to do with the weaknesses of the film.
Really want to see Holland in a film where he doesn't have to salvage everything, he sure knows how to pick projects lol.
Louis: Your top ten revenge films.
He's still young guys, many great actors usually don't hit their stride until they've reached their 30s.
Oh God. I just realized his fanbase is going to start some sort of DiCaprio/Gyllenhaal “They’re Overdo!” narrative for him soon enough.
Kill me now
Robert: You can add Chalamet to that mix too.
Louis: your thoughts on this scene from Sorry to Bother You? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo3VRcpGfo8
Kind of a shame that I haven't really seen any film utilise Jermaine Fowler all that well since this since he's such a highlight of this film, especially this scene.
Robert: Yah, I would definitely say Holland's career is in that sort of early DiCaprio phase. As in, if this was a pre "Catch Me If You Can" era, I would be probably be in the camp saying "I like DiCaprio, but we may need to ease up on him slightly." Its he same deal for Holland right now, where I see a charming and absolutely capable young actor, but one who's yet to find that a truly defining showcase, arguably.
Just to clarify, I didn't mean to call Holland untalented, was just pointing his bad luck with choosing projects as of late.
Tahmeed: There's no misunderstanding from me. I think it's best not to put our expectations high on Holland at this moment in time with Spider-Man dominating his early career and he is 24.
Of course, seeing as how Holland has given what many fans consider the best film version of Peter Parker, that's still a decent enough accomplishment on its own.
On that note, if they were to make a Gwen Stacy film at some point, who would you guys cast? Personally, I'd be very curious to see Hailee Stienfeld reprise the role.
If an "overdue" campaign for Chalamet starts I'm gonna quit the internet altogether ...
Louis, would it be okay if I switch my recommendation for The Little Mermaid to Anonymous (2011).
Matthew: I've seen Anonymous and it's one of Emmerich's better efforts with the best work I've seen from Rhys Ifans.
Luke, what's your rating for Ifans.
Matthew: A strong 4.
Louis: If you're seeing it tonight, thoughts on Ethel & Ernest and the cast.
In other news, I just finished the 4th "Netflix" season of "Naruto" this afternoon, and...well...
I remember saying a while back that watching the season might be against my judgment, and if that was in the sense of me have the same thoughts, than I was right. I'm not going to pretend the show doesn't have merit; When its entertaining it's rather enjoyable, and I do like certain characters (Namely Kakashi, Might Guy and Rock Lee). Having said that, though, it's simply the pacing, uneven tone and underdeveloped story arcs that prevents me from really getting into it. More importantly, I've come to the realization that there are plenty of shows/films that would be more worth my investment - at least, for the immediate future.
Louis: Your updated top 25 animated films list.
Anonymous:
1. Once Upon a Time in the West
2. Harakiri
3. Memento
4. Inglourious Basterds
5. Braveheart
6. I Saw the Devil
7. Road to Perdition
8. Oldboy
9. Revanche
10. Kill Bill Vol. 2
Note: The film needed revenge as the dominant theme, not "A" theme. For example The Godfathers contain revenge as an element, but they aren't true revenge films. Or say like Unforgiven, revenge doesn't come into play until the last few minutes of the film.
Calvin:
I'm afraid the link is dead.
Luke:
Well let Ethel and Ernest settle a bit for the list. As a film though I thought it was wonderful, very much a spiritual brethren to This Happy Breed and Distant Voices, Still Lives, though even gentler in its depiction of a normal English life. In that respect just well observed in its simplicity, with every interaction having an authenticity that is moving through that quality. For much of the film though the film just embraces you with its sort of series of remembrances, until it drops a hammer in the finale that is quite heartbreaking while being as naturally observed. My only quibble is that I wish it was truly hand drawn, rather hand drawn on a computer. Don't get me wrong, it looks beautiful, but it's not the Snowman...though that is perhaps the most beautifully animated film ever, so understandable to an extent. Although I wish they maintained that texture granted by being literally hand-drawn to paper.
Blethyn & Broadbent - 4(I mean the latter pretty much seems set for every paternal English chap, but hey he's great at it, so I can't really object. Blethyn and Broadbent though bring just the right life to both characters similarly to Mills and Ashcroft in When the Wind Blows. They just give a nice sort of granted authenticity towards the characters with a nice balance in respect to every bit of life they express.)
Treadaway - 3.5(His work is similar in that regard and brings a nice moving quality particularly later on in expressing the quiet sadness that fills Briggs later on.)
Luke, of the remaining film recommendations, what are your MVP predictions.
Anonymous:
Barbara: Nina Hoss
Summer Interlude: Maj-Britt Nilsson
Dillinger: Warren Oates (I hope this is a future backlog review)
Anonymous: Rhys Ifans or Vanessa Redgrave
Still Walking: Kirin Kiki
Theatre Of Blood: Vincent Price
Noah: Russell Crowe
And maybe an upgrade for Bogart in The Caine Mutiny.
And if Louis still had The Little Mermaid on the schedule, Pat Carroll with ease.
Louis: If you’re looking for anymore TV recs, look for Year of the Rabbit.
Robert:
Hmm starring Matt Berry...I'm more than intrigued then.
Post a Comment