Alexander Kaidanovsky and Anatoly Solonitsyn did not receive Oscar nominations for portraying the titular character and the writer in Stalker.
Stalker is a great film about a guide taking two men into a forbidden zone towards a room that is said to grant the wish of those who enter it.
The film follows three men the stalker, the writer, and the professor, who each offer a different perspective within this journey that is indeed more philosophical than practical, though within the film there are moments of tangible threat and supernatural. The idea though appears to be to put very human characters within this strange journey. We enter the film through Kaidanovsky's stalker who we see as he dismisses the concerns of his wife (Alisa Freindlich) in order to proceed by taking two new people to the zone for some unstated bounty. Kaidanovsky's performance, which his whole work will be defined with to some degree, is this innate sense of urgency as he dismisses his wife's concerns and leaves her alone with their daughter supposedly mutated by the zone's appearance. Kaidanovsky's physical manner has this almost rat-like manner, that though as a survivor of sorts in his physical manner that is introverted within the way he rarely faces others and so often seems contained within himself, yet within that there is this dogged determination about it. With that, we meet the two men, one being the professor who seems straightforward yet is mainly an enigma for much of the film, and the writer whose whole point seems to be that he's far less of a mystery. The writer is played by Anatoly Solonitsyn, once again playing an artist technically after his turn as the titular Andrei Rublev, however, Solonitsyn's writer character is a far cry from the quietly devoted artist of that previous film of Tarkovsky's. Contrasting Kaidanovsky, Solonitsyn has initially this ease of presence as he seems relaxing with an adoring girlfriend before going to join the other two for their unexpected adventure. Solonitsyn's performance has an innate ego in his manner, this confidence as he speaks towards a scientific view of everything, and just ease of man very much projecting an artistic genius.
Of Andrei Tarkovsky's films that I've seen, this is the film where he gives the most breathing room for his actors to realize a scene, though his vision certainly is most prevalent and striking throughout the film. Part of this is through the focus on the interaction between the men, though the professor rarely participates too much at first, we instantly come to understand the dynamic between the writer and the stalker rather quickly. Kaidanovsky carrying this lowkey disdain in the stalker towards Solonitsyn's writer, as he seems dismissive of the man, and for his own measure, Solonitsyn presents a certain cynicism towards the stalker's claims of expertise, initially always peering at the seemingly more lowly man with his own kind of disdain. Both men do not really trust the other, and both actors give a strong sense of the gap that separates the two of them. Following that is essentially an action sequence of the three men alluding guards to enter the outskirts of the zone. Although the work is very "in the moment" so to speak, both Kaidanovsky and Solonitsyn are terrific in portraying different states. Kaidanovsky presents a degree of confidence here in exchange as clearly someone who has done this trick before, though there is clearly still an undercurrent of fear that alludes to the sense of danger. This is in stark contrast to Solonitsyn presenting the man gripped quite bluntly with fear and just barely holding it together. A great scene for both actors, even as functional as it may seem, in that it immediately shifts the state of the two characters, and the two performances from their first scene together, and does it in such a dynamic yet still wholly natural fashion.
Entering the zone is when we begin to adjust the men into their positions, with the professor and the writer often talking about the stalker's teacher, called porcupine by them, who was said to have been a stalker before suddenly becoming rich after visiting the room, then committing suicide shortly afterward. The professor is this strange sort of centerpiece within discussions, with the contrast still being the writer and the stalker. Kaidanovsky's performance within the zone is quite fascinating in that he manages to portray this combination between extreme confidence and a kind of zealous desperation. Whenever he speaks to the men about his knowledge of the zone, about its various traps, and how it can be so difficult to navigate, Kaidanovsky doesn't speak these words with a kind of natural ease but rather it is with this sort of zealot's passion. He is speaking to the men about the state of the zone almost as maybe a preacher would warn the men about sin and hell with the way he speaks with a very particular kind of assurance and passion. An assurance and passion though that has intertwined within it a low-key sense of that desperation of the man, even as we see him move about with such seeming confidence as he gives the men times to go ahead, and where to start and stop. Once again contrasting that is Solonitsyn finds this fantastic combination between this sense of anxiety and fear, with this almost a pompous kind of cynicism towards every claim by the stalker. His performance finds this right balance of in between as he grants the sense of a man who probably doesn't want to believe in the prospect of the zone, yet also is quite fearing that its dangers might exist after all.
The two craft a striking dynamic as they are at this particular odds about the whole thing. Solonitsyn often presents the skeptical view of each point, even if the fear of the situation is always very present in his performance, against Kaidanovsky who presents the true believer who at every point, every discussion, he is always emphatic on his belief of the zone, but also that of his teacher's teachings, despite the bitter end. Kaidanovsky even speaking towards that only unhappy people can make a wish is with the blunt reality even as when questioned he doesn't exactly give straight answers of proof. Kaidanovsky rather speaks as a man of faith within that conviction no matter what. In turn, though there is this quietly pestering manner he brings whenever he requests that the writer take the risk of walking one path or another, each that Solonitsyn presents with near petrification as he goes along while still always bringing this sort of doubtful anger towards the stalker. The two of them have this conflict that is developed brilliantly within the performances as both men seem to speak with such a contrasting state even as the two technically move along together. Each man though is challenged as elements of their journey question the stalker's knowledge, but in turn, the writer's disbelief also is often challenged by the strange occurrences that do happen. Each actor shows this particular and powerful sense of externalized and internalized conflict with each men, which is partially in verbalization but most often in reaction towards wherever they are. Each man fighting with different elements of themselves, and a different sense of conviction or lack thereof. The uncertainty is especially well performed by both actors because neither is vague, rather they show the real potent nature that exists in uncertainty, even as this exists from very different perspectives.
The truths of some sort seem to come about as the two approaches just outside the room, and we see a very different writer from the one we saw at the beginning of the film, where Solonitsyn exuded a pompous man planning on wishing for another grand work. This is in contrast to the man, fearing that he might've almost died, now speaks truly to the nature of the writer and the demand of the state of people always expecting more of him. Solonitsyn is truly powerful in his delivery in this scene speaking bluntly now without any facade of the cynic. He shows rather the man speaking truly as himself now allowing his fears to surface, and loses the certain smugness of his manner at other times. Just a man offering what is a real truth he knows which is a bit of a curse that comes even within his perceived success. From there on the writer's manner has changed, and less bluster, a deeper honesty within the man in Solonitsyn's performance, as a man seemingly accepting his flaws to an extent, particularly his personal fears. The challenge of Kaidanovsky's performance comes as the professor reveals his own quest was also false, as he originally claimed to be there for scientific study, but in fact wanted to blow up the room to prevent evil men from using it. Kaidanovsky's portrayal of the stalker's defense of the room again is with a certain kind of passion. An explosive passion of someone whose belief in the room is beyond a tool, but something fundamental within himself. The intensity he brings is tremendous of the man trying to make them understand it to be something respected beyond any of them, needing physical punishment from the writer to subdue him from stopping the professor. In the end, all men return from the zone having not taken a wish, and Kaidanovsky's stalker is perhaps the most changed, though not in terms of being a different man. This as we see him this despondent state fully that Kaidanovsky powerfully illustrates as a man essentially fighting against having his faith shattered due to the faithlessness of others. Kaidanovsky's amazing in his final moment shows such trauma in the man's eyes, and this anxiety is wrapped with the passion that shows a man who so painfully needs to hold onto his faith that any question of it, therefore making him question it, is more than he can bear. Both actors deliver great performances, and more than any Tarkovsky film I've seen, performances that are essential in realizing the potency of his vision.
74 comments:
So happy both got fives.
Thoughts on the rest of the cast, direction, cinematography and screenplay.
Louis: your thoughts on these scenes from Breaking Bad?
https://youtu.be/jddTsRKg3fY
https://youtu.be/Ui8WzX6erH4
I especially love the guy who talks to the twins in the second scene
Lovely seeing both get 5s. Rewatched the film a few days ago and I have to say that I totally agree.
Louis: I will let you finish OOOAIM, since it is a Powell and Pressburger, and who knows it might be really weird and wonderful in the second act like most of their other films.
Louis, I would recommend reviewing Erland Josephson in The Sacrifice. It's an amazing performance from what is a remarkable swansong to Tarkovsky's career.
Hello folks!
Tell your TOP10 best director, lead actress and supporting actress in 1979:
SUPPORTING ACTRESS
10º Myriam Boyer - Serie Noire
9º Erzsébet Földi - All That Jazz
8º Jane Alexander - Kramer vs Kramer
7º Meryl Streep - Kramer vs Kramer
6º Barbara Berrie - Breaking Away
5º Amy Wright - Wise Blood
4º Mariel Hemingway - Manhattan
3º Season Hubley - Hardcore
2º Samantha Eggar - The Brood
1º Veronica Cartwright - Alien
LEAD ACTRESS
10º Jill Clayburgh - Starting Over
9º Diane Keaton - Manhattan
8º Carol Kane - When a Stranger Calls
7º Judy Davis - My Brilliant Career
6º Marilyn Hassett - The Bell Jar
5º Nastassja Kinski - Tess
4º Sally Field - Norma Rae
3º Sigourney Weaver - Alien
2º Bette Midler - The Rose
1º Hanna Schygulla - The Marriage of Maria Braun
DIRECTOR
10º Woody Allen - Manhattan
9º Terry Jones - Life of Brian
8º Walter Hill - The Warriors
7º Don Siegel - Escape From Alcatraz
6º Shôhei Imamura - Vengeance is Mine
5º Werner Herzog - Nosferatu the Vampyre
4º Bob Fosse - All That Jazz
3º Andrei Tarkovsky - Stalker
2º Ridley Scott - Alien
1º Francis Ford Coppola - Apocalypse Now
Fantastic review.
Great Better Call Saul episode. Odenkirk and Seehorn co-MVPs, but I think I will give the edge to Odenkirk for the truly brilliant thing he does in the final moments of the episode. Honorable mention to Giancarlo Esposito.
Louis: Which particular female lead or supporting performances do you think you could upgrade to 5's with a rewatch?
Louis: If your at all familiar with him, what would be your thoughts on Jensen Ackles as an actor?
He's someone that, apart from his much liked role on "Supernatural", has yet to truly breakout into widespread stardom. And honestly, this can be understood in the sense of his performance there being heavily dictated by the show's quality; Simply put, the weakest portions and aspects of "Supernatural" also showcase the weakest elements of Ackles' performance, which has it's fair share of nadirs unfortunately. That said, his work on the show overall is decent, and does display a good amount of likability, presence and emotional range. I could also note is voice role from "Batman: Under the Redhood" and his latest live action work on "The Boys" - the latter of which is an effective departure from Dean Winchester, with basically the same aggression and smugness, but none of the charm or human decency.
Also, I must say, Ackles has a surprisingly strong singing voice, and I'll link his cover of "Simple Man" below as evidence. That hasn't been utilized in film/TV as far as I know, but it's a thing nevertheless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SniMv8EGiY&ab_channel=PinkLyrics
Mitchell: It's only been a few days, but I recently found out that Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather introduced Medicare in Saskatchewan. That's pretty cool. It also seems like he's considered to be one of the greatest Prime Ministers that Canada never had, along with Robert Stanfield.
Louis: Do you see any comparisons to Embrace of The Serpent with this film? The journey, the native “tour guide” and the different points of view of the “tourists” (per se) reminded me of the former.
Great film and surprised, but glad, to see both get 5's. I will need to rewatch. 1979's instant upgrade of the number of 5's is quite something.
Honestly, it would be kinda hilarious if Dourif isn't even in the top 5 anymore. Considering how many upgrades we just got.
Really have to watch this, Tarkovsky is a massive blind spot for me.
Another great episode of BCS, really loving the shifting tone of this second half of the season. Odenkirk MVP, though really everyone was on point.
Hey guys
Tell me what the Top 10 of Louis' 1979 lead actor will be like. My prediction:
1. Ogata
2. Dourif
3. Scheider
4. Kaidanovsky
5. Burns
6. Solonitsyn
7. Sellers
8. Kinski (Nosferatu)
9. McDowell
10. Martin
Shaggy:
1.Ogata
2.Scheider
3.Kaidanovsky
4.Burns
5.Dourif
6.Solonitsyn-5
7.Dewaere
8.Kinski in Nosferatu
9.Sellers
10.McDowell-4.5
8000s: Yah, Tommy Douglas is a very significant (though sometimes controversial) name in Canadian politics, and him being related to the Sutherlands is an interesting connection.
I'll admit, however, that my knowledge of Canadian history and government is far from complete, especially when compared to my knowledge of our southern neighbour.
Louis: Your thoughts on the voices of Andre Braugher, Giancarlo Esposito and Jonathan Banks?
1. Ogata
2. Scheider
3. Burns
4. Dourif (#3 and 4 are interchangeable)
5. Kaidanovsky
6. Solonitsyn
7. Dewaere
8. Kinski
9. Sellers
10. Kinski
Shaggy:
1.Burns
2.Scheider
3.Ogata
4.Dourif
5.Kaidanovsky
6.Solonitsyn
7.McDowell
8.Sellers
9.Dewaere
10. Kinski
The first half of the Better Call Saul I thought was good if a bit prefunctory to a degree (particularly the Don meeting), but the second half was all amazing, particularly the brilliant use of the flashforward. Odenkirk MVP though, Seehorn was also amazing.
Luke:
Freindlich - 4(Felt her performance was effective in portraying both states of the character, in what is really a two-scene part but effective in each. Her opening is just her blunt desperation of trying hold onto her husband before he will dangerously depart. This is against her more subdued work in her second scene in portraying still a sense of concern however this time with a more smoothing attempted manner towards him, and still this desperate attachment to him, however now less of intensity instead a quieter subduing warmth.)
Grinko - 3.5(In the scheme of the film he isn't the focus, and obviously also dubbed on top of that. The point of his character is that he is supposed to be straightforward and forward however that is the turn. For much of the film, I think his reactions though are effective in evoking this type of presence. Changing that though to his own sense of near emotional hysteria as the character reveals himself, again though the impact of his own performance is relatively limited due to the dubbing.)
Tarkovsky's direction is of course masterful as he is a director who is about the attention to detail in a sense few directors are in terms of crafting a sense of place. A sense of place goes further than most because it is a sense of place with a distinct emotional memory rather than just the expected state. A remarkable achievement here given that this is a science fiction world of sorts. The sound mixing choices for example are genius and make most filmmakers seem lazy with their sound mixing because of how Tarkovsky wishes to evoke a specific sense of every given moment through his mix, whether it is through the snippets of music or just the dripping of water. Combined with his cinematography that is that of the onlooker, though here with the rather brilliant choice of the sepia tone that creates this desolate quality before we enter the zone, and separates the zone and the experience of it through the introduction of color. The set design/shooting location choices, even if it seems like it might've sadly caused the deaths of most of the key members of the production, is striking in crafting the familiar yet not quite as these decayed places, however, decayed in such specific and odd way that makes it alien. The extra touch int his film is the accentuation of performance in this film as Tarkovsky does very much give his actors true moments to reveal character, and the addition is most welcome within the film, and most powerful. As per usual his direction is that of crafting idiosyncratic experiences that delves deep into the mind of the viewer even because of his fascinating combination between the all too tangible and the intangible of experience.
Lucas:
The first scene actually is a bit of a rarity of Walt not only connecting with Jr. but also treating his ill-gotten gains as something to be enjoyed. Although really I'd say all is him rebelling against Skyler more than anything but willingly flaunting his cash in the way she always pushes against. In turn, always makes the moments complex as you see Walter maybe being the good dad, but as per usual something is not quite honest about that.
Well of course it is Ryan McPoyle! Judging by his activity after the meeting he seems to be still playing Ryan McPoyle as well, though I guess he's not drinking milk. A good scene though in terms of plating two Chekov guns with the free bullet and the vests, made entertaining from the one scene eccentric of the salesman against the extreme straight men of the twins, that makes a functional scene engaging and entertaining.
8000's:
Well I'm sure there are more than few.
Mitchell:
I don't think I've seen any of his work.
Tahmeed:
Braugher - (Has a great sort of deep regal quality to his voice.)
Esposito - (One that is completely separate in intention as his regular voice actually has a jovial kind of goofy quality to it, but his oft-used voice, these days, is cold command at an ideal.)
Banks - ("I'm too old for this shit" in voice form)
Just realized that BCS's shut out in Supporting Actor at the Emmys this year means one of Banks and Esposito will never be recognized for their performances as Mike and Gus.
They've got next year still. The Emmys were for the first half of the season.
Unknown: I know, I meant that even if one of them wins next year, the other person will have never won.
Marcus:
Sadly the time passed really to reward either for their work as the characters. Esposito's time was for "Hermanos" however he just fell into the tough internal competition of Paul from season 4 of Breaking Bad where both were great and deserving, so hard to complain about that one. The real shame is Banks having lost for "Five-O" against Dinklage for doing basically the bare minimum in "Hardhome".
I will say Esposito has been very very good these last two episodes.
Louis, how would you rank the 4 Tarkovsky films from strongest to weakest.
Louis: Thoughts (and ratings, if you feel like it) on Alfred Molina and Peter MacNicol in these Funny or Die sketches?
1.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8kF-MVZlC5g&t
2.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi5fEKt8UoI
Louis: Your thoughts on 'End Times' from Breaking Bad? Paul won an Emmy for it, but it seems to be kind of overlooked amongst that excellent sequence of episodes at the end of Season 4.
Matt:
To be sure, although apparently Succession will premiere in time for next year's emmys so competition once again is likely to be very stiff.
Stephen:
1. Andrei Rublev
2. Stalker
3. The Mirror
4. Nostalgia
Although I wouldn't consider any of them "weak".
Ytrewq:
I believe I gave thoughts on that very sketch featuring Molina. Less impressed by MacNicol's work only because I think he does just kind of a standard southern fried voice, where McConell's voice is already fairly cartoonish so I don't think would've been asking too much for a more accurate impression.
Tahmeed:
I may be misremebering but if recall correctly I believe Paul actually changed his submission from "Problem Dog" to "End Times" late in the Emmy season (with many interpreting it that he was trying to help Esposito win.)
Anyways it is a great episode though that gets overlooked, and to its credit manages to maintain the tension of Crawl Space which doesn't let go really until Gus's final tie adjustment, particularly on initial viewing. Great moments though as Gus pestering Jesse for the go ahead to kill Walt, and Jesse still maintaining that innate loyalty. Where we get truly one of the key confrontations, and actually in turn key manipulations, of Jesse and Walt with Walt playing the innocent victim to get Jesse to turn on Gus, while in fact being the criminal mastermind. The moment itself of Jesse pointing the gun that is absolutely filled with so much emotional tension before you believe them finally teaming up. And then once again the first bomb attempt by Walter being so terrifying as he comes close seemingly to the kill, instead coming so close to getting caught. Again Breaking Bad rarely didn't advance, the advance here being two being partners again, and doing so in what that is absolutely earned and also very emotionally draining.
Louis: Always did find it strange that he didn't submit 'Problem Dog', but Paul definitely was spoiled for choice of submissions from Season 2 onwards, I'd say even more than Cranston.
Louis: Your top 10 What's My Line mystery guests?
Louis: Thoughts on the direction of The Happening?
Louis: Who would you cast instead of Jamie Foxx in Collateral to make Max more engaging as a character?
John Leguizamo revealed he was runner-up to play Max. I actually think it would have been a major turning point for him.
I could certainly imagine Leguizamo playing that role very well.
Ytrewq: On the opposite end of that, Jamie Foxx actually auditioned for Cuba Gooding Jr's part in "Jerry Maguire". And honestly, given his initial start in comedy, I can see why he was considered.
8000's:
1. Salvador Dali
2. Fredric March
3. Rosalind Russell (Yeah apperance)
4. Art Carney 1st
5. Art Carney 3rd
6. Art Carney 2nd
7. Peter Ustinov 1st
8. Peter Ustinov 2nd
9. Robert Montgomery
10. Peter Lorre
Razor:
I mean what was the direction exactly, other than odd choices. Shyamalan has retroactively tried to said it was purposefully bad, but I do not buy it, as other than The Sixth Sense there was occasionally the strange choices that are supposedly human like behavior, The Happening was just a whole film of that. Ampliifed even more by odd choices that seem to only want to accentuate the oddness of his so called humans, often by making his actors stare directly forward into camera with their odd acting choices. The horror scenes are probably where he is the least odd, but even there he goes so over the top with them that it too becomes comical rather than horrific. Direction that illicits exactly the opposite purpose has to be said to be a faliure, however a spectacular faliure when it can manage to get it just so wrong on every front.
Ytrewq:
I believe I have answered this question before. It is a great role, but also kind of universal role, in that really the only miscast would be to put an overly confident performer in the role. This is to the point it would've been interesting to see the older take on the character as devised by the writer Stuart Beattie by wanting Robert De Niro in the part, where the whole Max's dream aspect I think could've potentially hit even harder, though a few dynamics would've changed there, though I think also would've worked.
Mitchell:It gets even more interesting since Gooding Jr. was offered the role of Max in Collateral and THANK GOODNESS he rejected it.
Louis: Your thoughts on David Lynch's direction and Peter Deming's cinematography in Lost Highway, as well as the sound design. Regarding the cinematography, I've read that Lynch originally wanted to shoot it in black and white.
I watched Wait Until Dark. Admittedly not as keen on it as you all were, and Hepburn was kind of the reason why. She's just such an odd fit for the role. She hit her marks, but she just never comes off as convincing for this specific character. Something too doe-eyed about it. I can't help but imagine what Lee Remick would have done if she reprised it from stage.
Arkin is great, as you all said. Still sticking with Kenneth Mars as my Supporting win that year, though.
Watched Decision to Leave, which was absolutely brilliant. Will be very surprised if Park doesn't end the year as my Director win. Both Park Hae-il and Tang are phenomenal.
Louis: Your thoughts on Albert confronting Barry in 'starting now', and Barry's 'Crawl Space' moment?
Watched Elephant Walk the other day. It was really bittersweet seeing Vivien Leigh in some of the wide shots, knowing just how bad things got for her during the shoot.
Having said that, had she been able to complete the movie, it would have easily been her weakest. I don't think even SHE could bring in a 5 star performance with the material. The elephants weren't in this nearly enough.
Elizabeth Taylor: 3.5
Peter Finch: 3.5
Dana Andrews: 3
Abraham Sofaer: 2.5
PS. The best scene was easily the elephant's climatic scene.
Louis and everyone: What would be your thoughts on the voice acting in the following clips?
"Hear me, Galactus" - Earth's Mightiest Heroes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t0rqPLLz1k&ab_channel=RedSymbiote
"You don't seem to understand" - Invincible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ9UUnYybfw&ab_channel=PrimeVideo
Beginning of Spider Man Vs Green Goblin - The Spectacular Spider-Man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf-vLQfcA6o&ab_channel=JessMaron
-For the EMH clip, as much as I enjoy what Hemsworth is doing with the character, Rick D. Wasserman really nailed the intonation of a comics accurate Thor (his line there being my favourite Thor quote)
-For the Invincible clip (which isn't an overt spoiler, thankfully), Simmons again gets to his vocal presence, one that's honestly quite chilling in the right circumstance
-For Spider Man, well...Steve Blum is expectedly great in one of his best roles, his acting choices being so delightfully fun for the erratic, flamboyant Goblin
I saw NOPE. It takes a little bit to get going (won’t lie, the Yeun plot was a little unnecessary), but it is extremely scary in the last third. Roughly on the same level as Us, maybe a little lower. Not close to Get Out’s heights. Acting is good, but not as great as Peele’s previous two.
I'd put Nope squarely #3 with Peele's films. His direction is on point, the thriller aspects definitely work (even if there's a Chekov's gun in the third act that I don't really feel was properly setup and there's also a character action in that act that is a bit of a big old HUH?), it is quite beautifully shot by Hoyte van Hoytema, and I liked his use of humor here. The film kind of surprisingly is most like a 1990 film rather than any alien invasion film you might name (spoiler alert if you try to look up what film I'm talking about). It works best when just being the drive in rompish thriller, I feel like Peele felt he had to be more ambitious based on his previous efforts with the few extra bits thrown in for "depth" however they don't exactly cohere all that naturally, particularly the Yeun subplot (where I think I know what he was going for, but it seemed like that should've been a whole separate film).
Kaluuya - 4.5
Palmer - 4
Yeun - 4
Perea - 3.5
Wincott - 3.5
Louis: How do you factor in deleted scenes while rating a performance? Like for example, would Forster be a 5 for El Camino had his cut scenes been included?
Finally, Yeun gets a rating that’s not a 3.5 or 5
I won’t be seeing it until August so if possible keep any more details to minimum if that’s alright chaps.
Louis: Louis: I can guess which film you're talking about. I won't, but I think I can.
8000's:
Lost Highway is arguably Lynch's least accessible film, or least one them, as it is specific in the lack of respite, as even the humor featured is very darkly inclined, almost all of it involving Mr. Eddy. I will bluntly say I think Lynch refined the ideas he was working with here to perfection in Mulholland Drive, however a master as is Lynch still makes something quite notable even in imperfection. Perhaps the difference though is here Lynch crafts purely a nightmare where Drive is both dream and nightmare. As a nightmare, with nightmarish logic throughout, it is unrelenting in positioning in this state of unease at all times. The mood, the sound, the cinematography, all is somewhat unpleasant in a sense, the scenes never granting a bit of solace, and the hard cuts of strangeness being so particularly anxiety inducing. The greatest accentuations of this idea involving the mystery man. The first scene of the character with Pullman I'll bluntly say is one of the best directed scenes...ever, and while there's an argument to be made for him being too unrelenting here, that scene alone really earns him a spot in my top five that year. The scene just being such a downright brilliant visceral piece of work at every level, and makes just a guy walking up in the middle of a party absolutely terrifying. That is as Lynch puts you into the nightmare logic so specifically and potently, that you experience the nigthmare of the character as you watch which is quite the achievement.
I can see the idea of black and white would've made a lot of sense in terms of the cinematography as again that would make sense as this nightmare. Although it isn't a film where I think of Deming's work as everyshot that is striking, so many of them are, like take the Mystery Man just standing there in the middle of the room (again brilliant of direction by Lynch by his casual existence), or the shot of the road that feels so very specifically of a kind of desecent into insanity. The more basic shots are all well lit and such, but it is the shots clearly where Lynch is establishing that specific logic of the mind that are so powerful, and Deming certainly successfully realizes those moments.
Well Lynch's sound design is always great, as he gives such specific attention to it, here again essential in setting the mood and creating the state. Just take the work from that intro scene again where Lynch plays with the sound choices several distinct times, cutting out the party music, changing so you can only hear the voices to that joined laughter that is particularly disconcerting. Altogether brilliant work.
Tahmeed:
A scene where I suppose "best comedy series" does feel a bit of stretch thoug powerful though in basically the friend who feels he owes him his life trying to make sense of the broken man in front of him and Hader being that broken man so powerfully.
Marcus:
I don't factor in deleted scenes period, unless they are assembled into an actual cut of some sort (Where I go with whatever cut benefits the actor the most), but never as a standalone. For example, Mickey Rourke is great in his Thin Red Line deleted scene, but I'm not going to rank because he isn't in an actual cut of the film.
Calvin:
Sure thing.
Mitchell: I always liked Wasserman's Thor, a pretty authoritative voice for the character. And Blum is genius. I have to admit that when it comes to Goblin voices, I have no real favorite, as I like Willem Dafoe, Blum, Neil Ross and Jim Cummings' performances equally.
Regarding American government and history (a topic that you're more familiar with than Canadian government and history), 1968 was an interesting year, as you had five great candidates for the presidency (Humphrey, McCarthy, RFK, Rockefeller and Romney) and two horrible ones (Nixon and Wallace). Honestly, it has the potential for a great biopic.
Watched the first season of Stranger Things, which I thoroughly enjoyed. It's far from perfect, but I just love the whole vibe of it, for lack of a more sophisticated way to say it.
Cast ranking:
1. David Harbour (I give him the edge over Brown because of the finale, particularly the CPR scene)
2. Millie Bobby Brown
3. Joe Keery (something about him)
4. Gaten Mattarazzo
5. Natalia Dyer
6. Randy Havens
7. Caleb McLaughlin
8. Finn Wolfhard
9. Matthew Modine (Not given much to do despite being the main villain, but he's fine at standing around being menacing.)
10. Noah Schnapp
11. Winona Ryder (I don't know. I get what she's doing and I like bits of it, but it overall feels like maybe 2 or 3 notches too much)
12. Joe Chrest
13. Charlie Heaton
14. Cara Buono
15. Rob Morgan
16. John Reynolds (Not even kind of funny. I don't think I even smiled once at him, let alone laughed)
Louis: Your thoughts on steven bauer in breaking bad and better call saul
Matt: believe it or not, if you think Reynolds is insufferable here, he's even worse later (though never in a way that's too distracting I guess just cause he's not in it that much).
Anonymous:
It's a very straight forward performance that works in its straight forwardness. That being just the don who assumes he's in absolute power and in turn treats everything with a certain easy going attitude. Bauer delivers that effectively with the right undercurrent of menance at times to create the sense of the character as a villain who rarely needs to bother to show his brutality or his strength as both are just assumed. Eladio though is a relatively limited character, and really felt designed to be sort of the generalized Don type, as there isn't anything overly unique about that character particularly by Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul standards. He's good though within the confines of the role.
I'm halfway through the 3rd season of Stranger Things, so I thought I'd pile onto Matt's ranking with a list of my own for the first two seasons. I'm no good at rankings, so I'll do categories instead. These are generalized based on both seasons combined
Excellent:
David Harbour
Millie Bobbie Brown
Great:
Winona Ryder (I actually really like what she does even though it's complete batshit)
Gaten Matarazzo
Joe Keery
Sean Astin
Randy Havens
Good:
Natalia Dyer
Caleb McLaughlin
Matthew Modine
Noah Schnapp
Sadie Sink
Dacre Montgomery
Paul Reiser
Meh:
Charlie Heaton (he has his moments, but lacks any sort of screen presence)
Cara Buono
Joe Chrest
Morgan & Reynolds
Annoying:
Finn Wolfhard
Murray Gelman
Watched the Gray Man really only because it was Gosling's first film in four years, thankfully it is better than Cherry, sadly that isn't saying too much. A very basic spy thriller, there's worse ones but there's also much better ones. Doesn't distinguish itself in anyway, other than some really gimmicky camerawork once again from the Russos who in their non-Marvel films could give a masterclass in how not to do unorthodox camera choices.
Gosling - 3.5
Evans - 2.5 (With better direction and script, might've worked.)
de Armas - 3.5
Henwick - 2
Page - 2
Moura - 2
Butters - 3
Thornton - 3.5
Woodard - 3
Louis, your thoughts on Michael Imperioli and Tim Daly's acting in this Sopranos scene?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukxNOVUoDwg
Louis: Thoughts on The Gray Man cast.
Louis: Could I have your thoughts on Walt's breakdown in front of his son, and his monologue about his father's Huntington's disease from 'Salud'?
Hey guys
With only Dewaere left to finish, tell me which Louis 1979 winners will be?
Picture: Alien
Director: Francis Ford Coppola - Apocalypse Now
Actor: Ken Ogata - Vengeance is Mine
Actress: Hanna Schygulla - The Marriage of Maria Braun
Supporting Actor: Robert Duvall - Apocalypse Now
Supporting Actress: Veronica Cartwright - Alien
Ensemble: Alien
Production Design: Alien
Sound Editing: Apocalypse Now
Sound Mixing: Apocalypse Now
Score: Apocalypse Now
Editing: Alien
Visual Effects: Alien
Costume Design: Nosferatu the Vampyre
Cinematography: Apocalypse Now
Makeup and Hairstyling: Nosferatu the Vampyre
Original Screenplay: Alien
Adapted Screenplay: Apocalypse Now
Song: "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" - Monty Python's Life of Brian
Louis: So, instead of Laughton, who would you cast for Lecter in a 50's Silence of the Lambs? Either Welles or Sanders?
Louis:Could Ron Perlman go up for Hellboy?
Tony:
Wasn't always a fan of Daly's work in the show (though I'll say Christopher and his Hollywood dreams weren't always my favorite running plot), as I didn't fully feel him completely "in" the scenes the way the best performers were, not that he was terrible, but like here I think the scene would've been even more potent if you bought him being more genuinely concerned for Christopher, but in Daly's performance it doesn't quite feel that way. Conversely though Imperioli is great in the scene in really showing just the wretched mess that Christopher is at that point, treated basically as nothing by everyone, and only lashing out violently when he finds himself in a state of vulnerability.
Anonymous:
Gosling - (Doesn't give him much of a part to work with other than a series of cliches, but I thought he did what he could with it nonetheless. Bringing a nice degree of his typical charm, and the few bits of humor that did work, I think worked just because of his unusual style of delivery at times.)
Evans - (I mean he plays it like the film is terrible, which it isn't quite that bad, so instead he comes off as just a little too much as basically a broader version of his Knives Out character for the whole film. I think either the film needed to be broader or he needed to bring it just a bit to not be so over the top. I think the idea could've worked, but the Russos didn't reign him in quite right.)
de Armas - (An even thinner character than Gosling's and honestly she has less to do than she had in Bond, despite having more screentime. Still her charm shines through even within really weak material.)
Henwick - (Struggles with some bad exposition and has some weird deliveries.)
Page - (Extremely dull one note character, played in the same fashion.)
Moura - (Back to his Elysium style performance, he's just ridiculous and not in an entertaining way.)
Butters - (I mean gives a wholly convincing portrayal of kid in distress. Does a good job even if her character is severely underwritten.)
Woodard - (How to do exposition on the other hand, really basic role but to her credit she makes something of it.)
Thornton - (Plays this like a genuinely compelling spy thriller and puts his all into every scene he has. Again not an inspired role still, but Thornton tries his best to bring some emotional and dramatic gravitas, and he doesn't fail.)
Marcus:
Both scenes are moments of actual humanity in the time where Walter was in many ways embracing more and more the violent inhumanity required to exist within the life he chose. Cranston is great in that in both scenes you see really again the man, particularly in the first scene, the chemistry teacher just dealing with this state, first releasing all this emotion to his son, emotions he really has no outlet for, then later trying to rationalize it with him, although for once doing so in a way that is actually genuine by connecting to his own tragic interaction with his dad. What also is kind a motivator in the end with Walter clearly very much a man who didn't want to spend his last days awaiting his death in a hospital.
8000's:
Of those two, Sanders.
Ytrewq:
Maybe a little, but not a lot.
Calvin: Congrats on reaching 5000 films watched.
Louis: How do you think Donat was able to win over Stewart (emerging star in breakout role) and Gable (leading man in the then biggest film of all time) in 1939?
Anonymous: Gable was a former winner, and Stewart probably suffered because Mr Smith Goes to Washington had some loud detractors for its criticism of the US government during World War II.
Anonymous:
In Donat's favor it was tranformative performance with him going through the stages of the life the character. The film was big with the academy as well getting into 5 only categories of actress, editing and director. Probably seen as the easiest way to reward the film (All the director nominated films one at least something despite it being Gone With the Wind's night overall), and I imagine he was the focal point of praise for the film. Donat was a popular actor, and came off having just been nominated for best actor so he was technically the most "overdue" out of the nominees.
Against the rest, I don't think Rooney or Olivier had much of a chance regardless. Gable as Tahmeed mentioned had one just a few year prior. Butler is a smaller role even compared to Chips, which honestly could've hurt him as well. Also Gone With the Wind wasn't infallible, having lost special effects, sound and score, categories one could easily argue it was deserving of, so they were clearly willing to spread the love around a bit.
Regarding Stewart, there was indeed a degree of divisiveness regarding Smith's reception, also it was Stewart's first nomination, which can often be welcome to the club, and it ended up being so for Stewart. I do think many of the academy ended up regretting the decision as I do think his The Philadelphia Story win was directly related to not winning for Smith, since the academy easily could've gone for Olivier or Fonda (both were in beloved films by the academy in 1940).
Post a Comment