Sunday, 20 February 2022

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2021: Al Pacino & Jared Leto in House of Gucci

Al Pacino did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Aldo Gucci nor did Jared Leto, despite being nominated for a SAG and Critic's Choice award, for portraying Paolo Gucci in House of Gucci. 

House of Gucci I find is a largely successful, though imperfect, film that follows ambitious social climber Patrizia (Lady Gaga) as she infiltrates the famous fashion house by marrying Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). 

I think what might be a major factor in determining whether someone merely thinks this film is just okay, dislikes it wholly, or genuinely likes it, as I do, might actually come down to these two performances. I say that as these two performances most represent the film's particular shift into the more operatic and overtly extravagant, compared to Adam Driver's straight man turn, or Lady Gaga, who is generally praised, despite being more overt however as the lead has more internal monologue to grant us a more obvious depth within her flamboyance. Al Pacino, no stranger to epics about an Italian family's troubles with power and succession, plays the Uncle to Maurizio and the father to Leto's Paolo, and seems like someone who would've been cast before the film was even thought of. Pacino though isn't even remotely like Michael Corleone here, in fact he might in fact cause one to question why Maurizio has such a hesitation to join the family business, as Aldo represents the most direct business side behind the Gucci fashion company. Pacino very much plays into the Italian with a knowing glee, and more so emphasizes the rather inviting qualities within his character. Pacino plays this without sinister intent, right down to his first major scene where Aldo speaks to his brother Rudolfo (Jeremy Irons), who disowned his son and is adamant the company stays as it is. Pacino though brings a warmth even within the fraternal relationship, as he explains that he should embrace his son and embrace family. 

Of course that is all in contrast, or so it seems, to Aldo's relationship with Paolo Gucci, who might as well be called Fredo Gucci, particularly as performed by one Jared Leto. Leto's performance here one might say defies logic, good taste, or just basic sensibilities of most things that make a good performance good with his choice in accent. Although to say any of the Italian accents in this film are accurate, is a stretch, though not really the intention with the tone of the film, however Leto's seems to consider less any reality of well reality, and rather considers the exploits of Mario the plumber, or should I say super Mario. "It's a me Paolo Gucci" isn't ever quite said, but it would have been quite fitting to the general choices of this performance. The question then to most people reading this would probably cause one to say "well why are you reviewing this performance then", well I will eventually get to that. And to be fair, though this is not the reason why I'm reviewing him, Paolo, as considered within this film, is supposed to stand out like the sorest of thumbs, considered the fool by all, and Leto certainly, if anything else, he is most certainly that. Leto might just be as ridiculous as many performances come, but you'd be wrong to say that you don't instantly understand his dynamic in his "Mamma Mia" expression as he gets hit in the face in a field of play as he attends his father's birthday. He is indeed Aldo's idiot if nothing else. 

Anyways back to Pacino, who is a great actor and for anyone to question him as such is wrong, and therefore it is easier to always accept what he is doing is with intention. Of course whatever it may be that he is doing is always attempting to bring something to his films, even when it is the lowest of the low. House of Gucci is far from that, and I'll say the "train-wreck" descriptions of this film are honestly quite baffling to me outside of Leto's performance which again I'll get to the "why" around him. Pacino though while this is definitely a performance where he's playing into a bigger style, it isn't without purpose in fact it is with great purpose I'd say. In fact a few minor tweaks this would be a realistic performance, but that isn't really at all Pacino's intentions, and I'd say for the entertainment value of the film Pacino's choice was the better one. Pacino's performance though wholly works in expressing the man who, other than his son, loves to embrace the family and even more so has such a pride in the name of Gucci. Aldo has fun with the idea of Gucci and Pacino brings the sense of fun with the film, Gucci. I love the charm Pacino brings as the "fun" Uncle, who hits the right flirtation tone in his scenes with Patrizia, who has no ill intent but loves to adorn praise upon his pretty niece-in-law, as he's just as inviting to his nephew. Pacino is wonderful at being a showoff by playing the showoff that is Aldo. Aldo wants everyone to know he loves his life, son aside, and brings the right flamboyant flavor to each and every moment of "selling" the idea of his Gucci to all. 

Of course the complications of the film ensure from Patrizia pushing her husband towards a greater ambition and poor Paolo and Aldo's tension is used as part of a point for manipulation. This coming from the belief that Aldo's guidance can only push things so far, which when confronted Pacino is excellent in the calm way he puts down the idea reminding all that Aldo is where all the wealth comes from. Pacino's delivery is terrific in that he shows an actual menace not by removing the warmth from Aldo's speech, rather just taking some of it away to show that the man's kindness has its limitations. Here's where Paolo comes into play and Leto's performance is that of a clown clowning around. This in his delivery that is absurd as he tries to show his wares to Rudolfo for praise instead receiving condemnation and his face fashioning the stubbornness of a misunderstood genius while being that of just actually the fool. Leto in these moments of the fool is wholly pathetic yet as the comical court jester kind of way. I'll admit I had these whiplash moments with this performance where for one second I just roll my eyes at that voice that Leto's doing, that it becomes actually kind of funny, then ridiculous again and it goes on and on like this. Although this isn't even in itself why I'm reviewing this performance, however that in itself is something, even if it is hard to exactly praise it, yet if it is entertaining and meant to be entertaining, one can't completely frown upon it, even if it seems like one should. 

Where the plot thickens is as Patrizia and Maurizio manipulate Paolo in giving them info that will jail Aldo temporarily and at the very least kick him out of the head of the company. Here's where my defense must continue, and yes your honor, my client is guilty as hell of scenery chewing and overacting, but to that judge, I must say, what if it still works. Now your honor, I must contend that even within his Mario Mario accent or perhaps Luigi Mario, there is  more genuine acting you can find within Leto's performance, and yes, subtlety, yes subtlety. When not speaking, there are moments of genuine expression of sorrow and concern for his father, even when throwing him to the proverbial wolves. It is here your honor that I have to reckon with this strange admission, which is as much as Leto makes Paolo a cartoon, I ended up caring about that cartoon in some strange turn of events I don't understand myself, but whatever Leto did, I can't say failed. The scene where Paolo's fashion show gets cancelled by Maurizio's lawyers or he has to admit he sold his shares to his father, I was honestly moved by Leto's performance to the point I couldn't quite explain it. When you hear the wail of Paolo, I felt sad, and to my own disbelief, the self-indulgent performer that is Leto somehow pulled it off. Not in a way I would recommend to anyone, but if it worked emotionally, well I can't criticize a performer at doing that, particularly when some how he did it while also being completely ridiculous. This performance defies reality your judge, and in that sense, it succeeds in breaking my own and some how leaves me praising Leto in this film...I didn't expect that to happen judge.

Now as much as I feel I've become a lobbyist for some nefarious group by endorsing Jared Leto's work here, I don't feel that at all for Pacino's work, which honestly I don't see what anyone dislikes about it other than if you get fixated upon his technically inconsistent accent. As I feel the strongest scenes of the film belong to him after Aldo is released from jail, and he and Paolo are these kind of lost souls dealing with the shambles of the former empire that Maurizio has stolen from him. I love the warmth that Pacino finally unabashedly shows as he and Paolo support each other out of jail, and there is this fatherly patience even as Paolo continues to be dumb. The biggest challenge of their relationship when Paolo reveals he sold his shares in the company, essentially making it so Aldo will be unable to reclaim it. Pacino's reaction is fantastic as it delivers both this realization that he's finished and anger towards his son, before so poignantly seguing towards embracing his fool even finding some genuine affection in delivering the line "You're an idiot, but you're my idiot". Pacino and yes Leto finding something truly moving in Aldo and Paolo finding love at the bottom, contrasting against Patrizia and Maurizio betraying each other once they reach the top. Pacino's final scene is the one that makes me a little baffled that anyone would consider this less than strong work from the great actor. This as Aldo must sign away his final shares to the corporate group who are aligned with Maurizio. Pacino is pitch perfect in the scene from the way he comments first on some old shoes of his gifted to the company head by Maurizio. Pacino is both penetrating in the description of the shoe, to reveal Maurizio's treachery, but also there is such a broken sense of pride in his delivery. The real dream is in the shoe and Pacino's delivery brings this sense of nostalgia even with this undercurrent of pain as the dream is but a memory. When still Aldo is forced to sign, Pacino's physical reaction is truly incredible as he shakes in clear complete despair at losing his family's company, but we see in his face a man just barely holding it together enough to get through having had his legacy stolen from him.
(Really in many ways me throwing my hands and having to give Leto something, as I am in no way certain that this is the appropriate rating, but Leto defies the scale just as he does the typical logic of reality)

32 comments:

Calvin Law said...

One of my favourite recurring bits was Aldo’s fascination with Japan. Agreed on both, I was surprised at how much I ended up caring about Paolo too.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I kind of agree on Leto to some extent. It's *so* fucking insane and cartoonish that it loops around from being grating to getting the laughs he intended.

But Pacino? The dude still has it. Was surprised by how ignored he's been this season. Even the reviews were like "Oh yeah, he shows up".

Emi Grant said...

Well, this was an unexpected take on Leto. I can't say I agree, but I also can't quite disagree with the perspective of the review...fair enough, Louis.

I did think Pacino added a lot to the film, though. With this performance as well as The Irishman, I've been enjoying the genuine warmth he brings to some scenes.

Calvin Law said...

I’m just cherishing every Pacino performance we get. It’s lovely to still see him at the top of his game.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Pacino has never lost it, and that's why he's indisputably an all-time great.

Mitchell Murray said...

Maybe its because I'm really tipsy right now, or because I haven't seen the film and can't argue against the rating, but I'm strangely intrigued to see if I have the same reaction to Leto's performance as Louis. As for Pacino...well, he's Pacino, so there's a certain expected level of quality, or at least entertainment value, in the majority of his work. And frankly, for someone that's going to turn 82 this year, the level of commitment and joy in acting he still shows is amazing.

Also...never drink and write, because the amount of times I accidently hit the caps lock button while writing this is embarrassing.

Anonymous said...

I won't lie, I'm a bit confused. Who is getting the 3.5 rating and who is getting the 4.5 rating?

Marcus said...

Anonymous: Leto is the 3.5, Pacino is the 4.5.

Anonymous said...

Louis, is Gaga still a 5 and is Driver still a 4?

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

Louis: Were Smith, Garfield & Bardem all their original ratings upon your first viewing of their respective films, or did any of them change on rewatch?

Luke Higham said...

Calvin: Is there any possibility you could check out his performance in The Merchant Of Venice. I think he could possibly get a 5 for that one.

Luke Higham said...

Anonymous: His opinion hasn't changed on the film and generally when a performance gets a 5, it almost always stays that way.

Luke Higham said...

And guys, with these performance/moments lists, stick to 10 maximum because Louis already has more than enough work as it is and don't want him being completely burned out.

Louis: If you're feeling burned out, just take abit of a longer break than usual once you've completed the alternates.

Anonymous said...

What Bouis said ^

Luke Higham said...

I'm also saying this guys because anytime getting rid of the ratings comes into the conversation, I'll be in panic mode. I've spent hours upon hours making lists on Google Docs that to see it come to naught will be soul crushing. And it being a staple of the blog since the beginning, it would feel like some of the essence would be lost.

Luke Higham said...

A happy Louis is the best Louis.

Calvin Law said...

This year seems like it’ll exceed last year for Supporting 5’s I think, we have two already and I’m almost certain we’ll have more than 4 to go.

Tim said...

"Leto defies (...) the typical logic of reality" That about sums him up, yeah

HTT said...

Now, I can't say I agree with you here, Louis, but I will admit that this review was so strongly written that you have made me have a bit more of a positive outlook on these two performance. Therefore, I am changing Leto from a 1/5 to a 2/5, and Pacino from a 3/5 to a 4/5. I must say I totally overlooked how great Pacino's last scene is. He truly is one of our greats.

Louis Morgan said...

Bryan:

More or less yes.

Lucas Saavedra said...

Louis: what are your thoughts on the direction and screenplay of House of Gucci?

Anonymous said...

Louis: Who are the actors you have never seen a bad performance from? (lower than 3)

Luke Higham said...

I wouldn't consider 2.5 bad but functional or okay.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Anonymous: I know you didn't ask me, but from the films I've seen:

Toshiro Mifune
Gene Hackman
Robert Duvall
Al Pacino (I refuse to watch Jack and Jill)
James Stewart
Richard Attenborough
Montgomery Clift
Alec Guinness
Takashi Shimura
Tatsuya Nakadai (haven't seen his most recent work)
Mads Mikkelsen (he's at least decent even when the roles aren't there)
Charlie Chaplin

It's a lot harder to find recent examples, cause most great actors have been disappointing in the odd film (Fassbender, Hardy, Foster).

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

On an unrelated note, Happy International Mother Language Day everyone.

Anonymous said...

Tahmeed: As someone who's seen Jack and Jill, Pacino wouldn't be lower than a 2.5. He actually managed to be by a long shot the best part of the film.

Tim said...

Tahmeed: honestly, Pacino is kind of the one entertaining thing about Jack an Jill. Despite how shit the film is, he never takes it at all seriously and seems to kind of be having fun, and that translates. If there's something that makes that film a bit less unbearable (still not good), it's him

Matt Mustin said...

I think about something Roger Ebert said about Pacino once: "He is charged sometimes with overacting, but never with bad acting"

Louis Morgan said...

Lucas:

House of Gucci's screenplay I think largely succeeds in taking its story, which could've been taken a lot of ways, and perhaps even greater ways, however succeeds in one way to this particular story. Where it works is following the idea of ruin via ambition contrasted against family. The arc of Patrizia from timid woman to controlling power broker, to broken woman by her own design is excellent. As is the contrast of Aldo and Rudolfo as two fathers and two different sons. Particularly the former as used to show the victims of ambition who find a bit of love in the end against the "winners" who are left as bitter. It treats this all I think with the right degree of levity, as it is about a fashion house after all, and the slightly operatic/comic elements feel appropriate to that. Where I think there could've been a little more work is in Maurizio's transformation, as the Michael Corleone of the story, he doesn't have a diner scene nor does he have an Apollonia moment to wholly create the transformation. There is a little more in the script than the film, seems like in every Scott film scenes that should be included are cut, particularly his shift away from Patrizia and towards Paola. The other I think major missed opportunity is in De Sole, who might as well be the Littlefinger behind everything, and I think he should've been expanded just a bit. Still if the major criticisms are that it could've gone even further, that's not the worst criticism to have, which is largely how I feel about Gucci's screenplay, which overall is effective take on this story.

Ridley Scott's direction must be said is innately impressive that he could make this film and Last Duel in such short order, as both films are both technically ambitious and nothing about the films seem rushed, compared to say Clint Eastwood's most recent efforts where that is the case. In terms of aesthetic Scott can fashion prestige quality in such short order and do so with consistent quality. Scott's direction in turn I think is more straight forward than was in his early career, but that doesn't mean bad, nor workmanlike, he just rather sets himself to different gears. His gear here being similar to American Gangster and Matchstick Men in terms of approach. An efficiency in shot choice, editing choices, aesthetic choices and song choices. The latter of which I'd describe as good needle drops but not great ones. In that when you hear them they work for their scenes, but you don't quite hit that perfect attachment when you have a great one. Although this is a film where I think the screenplay was more important overall, Scott certainly delivers it well, and again how quickly his production schedule is, shows some kind of master.

Anonymous:

Agreed with Luke that 2.5 doesn't mean bad.

All that Tahmeed mentioned and (Leaving it to actors that I've seen a good chunk of their work):


James Cagney
Edward G. Robinson
Claude Rains
Boris Karloff
James Mason
Donald Pleasence
Tom Courtenay
Max von Sydow
Christopher Plummer
Oskar Werner
David Warner
Harry Dean Stanton
Raul Julia
Tom Waits

Also the duh's of:

James Dean
John Cazale
Laird Cregar

Matt Mustin said...

I deeply love seeing Plummer on that list.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Can't believe I forgot about Plummer and von Sydow, they ALWAYS delivered.