Thursday 14 July 2022

Alternate Best Actor 1979: George Burns in Going in Style

George Burns did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Joe in Going in Style. 

Going Style is the original film about a trio of old-timers deciding to go on a heist. After seeing the original film, the remakers should hold their heads in shame in ridding all the power from this surprisingly potent story.

George Burns had one of the most unorthodox film careers not only returning successfully into films after 30 years, but doing so by winning an Oscar, and becoming almost a leading man at times, quite an accomplishment for a man late into his seventies. From what I've seen, Going in Style might be the most challenging of the roles presented to Burns in this later period. Of course, we get what made Burns that unlikely film star. You can actually put Burns down as one of the great singular presences of an actor, just in that there was only one Burns, and his style was very much all his own. His particular kind of deadpan, which he won his Oscar for, is so very specific in that it seems completely his own and does make Burns one of a kind as a performer. Coming into this film that is more so what I expected from him, and we certainly do get that side of Burns, and in prime form. Burns is fantastic in his comic timing as to be expected with his deliveries that are so specific yet like in the Sunshine Boys, they are so perfect in that strange specificity. Here we get that here in the earliest scenes really as Burns inquires about a young child standing way too close to him in a park, that is a classic Burns reaction, and we get a few of these throughout this film. Each is splendid on its own, and just in that regard, this could've been said to be another great deadpan turn by George Burns. 

An obvious difference in the setup for the situation though is that here instead of an antagonistic relationship like his with Walter Matthau in The Sunshine Boys, this film is built upon the relationship between three friends sharing the life of three old-timers seemingly with little more to do than go to the part, as Burns's Joe is joined by Al (Art Carney) and Willie (Lee Strasberg). The chemistry between the two is fantastic as they just have this natural ease in their presence together. They just have this innate sense of the connection between the three men, and the friendship between the three is a given within their performances. Indeed it seems like they could've been sitting in that park together for years. The comedic angle comes in when Joe comes up with the idea for them to run a bank heist together. This is creating the dynamic of Joe being the ringleader, Willie being somewhat hesitant to join in, and Al being a consummate sidekick in the endeavor. Their comedic dynamic is wonderful in creating this natural energy between the two, with again Burns being the key here in his exceptionally blunt delivery in explaining to the others guys not only the idea but the various steps in the planning. Burns being so direct in his way creates a particularly funny element of Joe seeming just going by the steps in his George Burns way, but now in terms of setting up a bank robbery. Making things like explaining that one needs to make sure the crowd fears them comic just because it is Burns's method is so matter of fact.

Of course, if this was merely an entertaining performance by George Burns, I probably wouldn't be reviewing it as I already covered him for his Oscar-winning turn in that vein. This performance though suggests maybe the Oscar should've looked back to Burns one more time with this performance because it truly challenges him beyond that presence of his, even if that presents itself as something quite worthwhile. Burns gives his most dramatic performance here and we actually get that even in the earliest scenes as he just seems the likable old man just somewhat confused by the young children playing sometimes. Burns is doing more with his silent work by creating in his eyes this certain sense of unease that doesn't have anything to do with this confusion, a certain sense of discontent in the man as though somewhat stuck in something he needs to get out of. Burns in his silent performance creates the motivation for the actual robbery as we see a man who needs some kind of change before he suggests it to his friends. His suggestion of course is based upon a more eager manner, and Burns's delivery is very enjoyable in just laying out the plan as being a good thing for them whether they successfully steal the money or get caught. But there is something more in Burns's performance that wasn't in the previous scene, a lack of that discontent is suddenly in him, and more importantly suddenly in his eyes, there is optimism, a sense of purpose. 

And what Burns does is show the sense of fun in planning robbery, where there is continued comedy through Burns's matter-of-fact delivery, but there is a lot more in the planning within his performance. The joy that Burns expresses feels very new to the man, at least new again to Joe, and you sense someone essentially living out a dream, and breaking out of his shell. The joyful nature of it is very pure, even as the act that they are committing is grand larceny. Burns's performance articulates this growth of life in Joe as they take each step toward completing the crime. Burns brings just the right combination here of emotions really in that while it is very entertaining just, there is this combination of confidence and really haplessness in the preparations, along with the sense of a man fully alive at the moment as they go about it. We see this as Joe does this it seems to give Al and Willie also more life and what Burns is great at is portraying this sense of friendship through his reactions towards his friends. Burns shows this beautiful sense of appreciation for the life his friends are showing, while occasionally undercutting, in the right way, in his moments of side-eyeing them just a bit when either they're a little too casual in their preparations, or eventually they might be getting into it a bit too much. Leading up to the robbery itself, which actually really is the end of the first act of the film surprisingly, where Burns is wonderful by brandishing this criminal swagger, even while he quite clearly still looks like an elderly man doing it all. 

Spoilers from here on. This is where the film truly surprised me as I genuinely expected the robbery to be the climax or at least the end of the second act, but that's the case, as well as that's where we really get to the truth of this piece which more seriously examines the pains of aging than you might expect. Then the film drops the hammer on you right after the seemingly successful robbery Willie dies, and instantly the film reminds you how much you've enjoyed these guys' banter that the missing spot is felt. Burns is terrific in showing with others the sense of Joe remaining stoic and firm in just trying to be more comforting than needing comfort. When alone though we see Joe as he looks at old photographs of a better time and Burns is heartbreaking as just in his face you see all the emotions that Joe is going through, from the love of looking upon his wife to the sadness of losing her and the sense true anguish as it all reflects the loss of Willie. The scene doesn't end even on a simple note though as Joe urinates accidentally, and Burns is amazing in so bluntly showing the quiet shame within himself, and really discomfort of dealing with the side effects of growing old. The film then shifts where Joe and Al decide to give most of the money to Al's friendly nephew and his family, and leave only some for them to attempt to live it up. This leads the two to go to Las Vegas to do some betting. In a sequence that actually reminscent of Ikiru, though not quite that brilliant, Burns is exceptional in portraying a similar sense of this troubled attempt at "living it up". Burns shows the man trying to have fun, in exploring this style of "living life" yet in his eyes there's always this quiet anxiety that denotes a certain hollowness of the act.

The hollowness of trying to keep the "thrill" going isn't the only issue as it seems like the police may be closing in, but worse Al suddenly dies too.  Burns's performance in this scene is absolutely devastating because it isn't only heartbreak he shows, but this kind of pressure and frustration as he rushes away almost as a man who really can't take any more pain from the deaths of his friends. Burns finds such a painful but poignant nuance in this moment of the man really seeing everything fade around him. There is such a tremendous power in Burns's performance that gives the real sense of the weight of each loss, not only in reflecting on the friendship gone but also in where it leaves Joe. One of the most moving moments actually is Joe on his first day really being alone, with no friends to see or sit with at a park, and Burns's usual deadpan state is erased with this quiet state of despair replacing it. A strange solace comes though when Joe gets arrested for the robbery and received a lot of attention as the authorities don't know what to make of him nor can they intimidate him. Burns's performance shifts here from great tragedy and again towards comedy, but it totally works in showing the man finding purpose again basically as this criminal, and attention from everyone around him. Burns is wonderful though in changing his demeanor to this comical cool of a man with nothing to lose and a wiseguy delivery towards the cops trying to find the money. Burns is fantastic in his final scene where Joe is now in jail in comfort, visited by Al's nephew, who in fact got all the remaining money. Burns is amazing in this scene as he brings this combination of the heartbreaking truth of Joe while also showing where Joe has found a lease on life via being a criminal. Burns describes his life before the crime with this blunt somberness and a real sense of a man trapped in the state of his age. When leaving the room though Burns is all swagger of someone who's found a path for his life as unusual as it is, now a man truly going in style. I love this performance. I always liked Burns, but this is a performance that shows he had an even greater talent than I knew. The entry point is his typical endearing presence but that is only a starting point in crafting this rather tragic and oh so powerful portrait of a man fighting against having grown old.  

36 comments:

Shaggy Rogers said...

Wow ... OK
Now predicting how Louis' ranking will be is more complicated.

Luke Higham said...

I thought he might do well but this is one hell of a surprise.

Calvin Law said...

Looks like a winner.

Calvin Law said...

Thoughts/ratings for Carney and Strasberg, or are you saving them? And I certainly must watch this now.

Matt Mustin said...

This is the biggest surprise I have ever encountered on this blog and it's not even close.

8000S said...

Wasn't expecting a 5 either.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

This is one hell of a pleasant surprise.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

It's somewhat of an overused word nowadays, but this post is surely one of the more wholesome I've read.

Marcus said...

Louis: Your favorite scene from Burns's performance, and ratings and thoughts on the rest of the cast.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Louis: Ratings and thoughts on Burns and John Denver in Oh,God?

Mitchell Murray said...

Hey everyone.

It's been a while since I've last commented on here, and annoying technical difficulties with my old lap top are the chief reason for it.

Now that I'm back, I did wish to say I watched season 3 of "The Boys" not too long ago. Although the final episode is a little underwhelming, and the central romance plot continues to weigh the show down, I'm still finding a lot of investment with the series. For aspects specific to season 3, I thought Soldier Boy was an interesting subversion on Captain America, and by extension, a solid showcase for Jensen Ackles.

Louis Morgan said...

Calvin:

Saving both.

Marcus:

Probably looking over the scrap book.

Hallahan - 3.5(The only other major role, and even his is pretty minor, I liked his really simple honesty he brought to his performance. Both in terms of expressing his genuine care for his uncle, and even Joe, but also really carrying the right low key emotional sense of the later moments.)

Ytrewq:

Burns - 3.5(This performance fully is depending on his typical expected presence, right down to basically the whole film being what if God was George Burns, and that is the level he needs to come at it with. Burns though is enjoyable and charismatic in his way, though the part isn't the biggest challenge. Burns though is the best part of the film, and I imagine the cause of its success.)

Denver - 2(Yeah you'd have to be already famous to get away with this performance. He's really awkward and off the whole time. Now it in a way doesn't hurt the film that much just because his character is supposed to be a bit awkward. Still I think even on that level his performance just isn't very good, he is far from a natural, and honestly I'm not surprised he didn't really have much of an acting career.)

8000S said...

Louis: Your thoughts on Bergman's direction in Shame and Hour of the Wolf.

Matt Mustin said...

I finally saw No Way Home. I liked it. Quite a bit, actually. It's nowhere close to as great as everyone says, but it's very good.

Holland-4.5
Zendaya-3.5
Batalon-3
Cumberbatch-3.5
Tomei-3
Favreau-3
Dafoe-4(I always liked him as this character, but boy, the mask was holding him back. It feels like this was kind of the performance he wanted to give in the Raimi film but couldn't really.)
Molina-3
Foxx-2.5
Maguire-3.5
Garfield-4.5(Redeems himself completely, although those movies weren't his fault)
Simmons-3
Revolori-2.5

Church and Ifans I honestly felt sorry for.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the scene from Breaking Bad where Gus invites Walt over for dinner from Season 3?

Calvin Law said...

Louis: I don't believe you've given them before, so could I have your thoughts on Nigel Havers and Nicholas Farrell in Chariots of Fire?

Luke Higham said...

Scheider now has his 2nd five.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

That re-evaluation was even more positive than I expected. Delighted for Scheider though, it's a brilliant against type performance that no one else could have bettered.

Louis Morgan said...

8000's:

Both are evidence of Bergman's range as a director, while certainly within his more expected tone, the style of both films varies greatly from his more intimate chamber pieces he is often known for. Shame is one of his most brilliant efforts in terms of direction in that he takes the approach of truly putting you into a civilian's eye view within a warzone, and a civilian without true agency or active understanding of what is happening. Bergman just leading us into these two people's lives and then throwing us through the random hell they experience, hell they are never entirely aware of or understand which Bergman keeps a constant. I especially love his propaganda sequence where we are seeing them just randomly being put in front of cameras with the sheer confusion so present within his approach of shooting that scene. When they seem to find some solace his direction becomes more precise yet equally potent as it depicts the quietly unsettling nature of being not quite safe within their lives, with particularly exceptional work in the final sequence of the quiet refugees stuck on the boat just awaiting an uncertain fate. As per usual, careful attention to his performers, and knows always how to get the most out of his actresses. Wolf though contrasts that a bit, though the performances still are good, in that he purposefully is much vaguer, with a screenplay that might be slightly too vague on the whole, however, Bergman's direction here is captivating on its own. This as he directs basically a horror film that he enters as a documentarian perspective that he slowly segues towards overt horror that he gradually implements more the further we descend into the darkness.

Tahmeed:

Well the kids line I do think is retcon as it seems like Gus genuinely has no family from everything we've seen, and I'd say him playing the part of the family man to the point of lying about kids is a bit of stretch. Aside from that though it is a very compelling scene in contrasting really the two men in so many ways, and in a way suggesting conflict in subtle ways. One is the false family man, against Walter, who was a genuine one at one point, and Gus seems so light about it, where with Walter it is a burden. The act of friendship even false Walter deals with suspicion, though I would say rightly so, however to the point of the moment of looking at the knife this brilliant setup of his eventual killer. The best part though actually just is Gus trying to connect on the idea of memory and smell in a more emotional way, and Walt rejects this, though not exactly purposefully, in his overly scientific breakdown of the idea. Both in a way are playing against the truth of each, but opposite at the moment, though in turn showing why they could never be compatible, though also showing both hypocritical at a certain level. 

Louis Morgan said...

Calvin:

Interesting side tidbit on the two, they played the last two in the film, and are the last two living principal players.

Havers - (His performance I like quite a bit in terms of providing this distinct contrast most directly with Cross and more indirectly with Charleson. Essentially he provides a beautiful natural levity befitting a man who really has no worries and the whole idea of athletics is a bit of lark, unlike the other men who treat it as something very different, at least on the surface. I do like that Havers still provides these moments of an undercurrent of drive that Lindsey would never show too openly, but are part of him. Outside of those isolated moments, Havers brings the right degree of support from someone with a slightly jestful nature and an overt friendliness to most at all, as a man who definitely wields his privilege but in a way to try to make himself more endearing.)

Farrell - (Much like his character in some ways a thankless role, but I really like Farrell's performance as the reactionary character to Cross's intense performance, providing a natural friendly warmth and concern. Farrell though I do think does make the most of the scene of his failure on the course and shows that even such a subtle man can still be heartbroken. Though I think he finds truth in a man who can contain that in a moment later, and I do really like his work in the scene of Abrams going off on his worries, just after Aubrey's failures, and Farrell grants the sense of the man listening to his friend but still very subtly frustrated by his plight that his friend pays no notice of.)

Shaggy Rogers said...

Louis: Will there be an analysis by Dewaere after Kaidanovsky or will it go straight to the results?

Anonymous said...

Louis how would you rank the series, writing and directing emmy noms?

Louis Morgan said...

Shaggy:

If a surprise performance is in lieu of a different performance I typically say so.

Anonymous:

Comedy Series:

1. Barry
2. Ted Lasso
3. Only Murders in the Building
4. Curb Your Enthusiasm
5. What We Do in The Shadows

Drama Series:

1. Succession
2. Stranger Things
3. Better Call Saul
4. Squid Game

Directing Comedy:

1. Bill Hader - Barry (710N)
2. Cherien Dabis - Only Murders in the Building (The Boy From 6B)
3. MJ Delaney - Ted Lasso (No Wedding and a Funeral)
4. Jamie Babbit - Only Muders in the Building (True Crime)

Directing Drama:

1.Hwang Dong-Hyuk - Squid Game (Red Light Green Light, even though it clearly should've been for Gganbu)
2. Mark Mylod - Succession (All The Bells Say)
3. Cathy Yan - Succession (Disruption)
4. Lorene Scafaria - Succession (Too Much Birthday)

Directing Limited Series:

1. Francesca Gregorini - The Dropout (Iron Sisters)
2. Michael Showalter - The Dropout (Green Juice)

Writing Comedy Series:

1. Alec Berg & Bill Hader - Barry (Starting Now)
2. Jane Becker - Ted Lasso (No Weddings and a Funeral)
3. Duffy Boudreau - Barry (710N)
4. Steve Martin & John Hoffman - Only Murders in the Building (True Crime)
5. Stefani Robinson - What We Do in The Shadows (The Wellness Center)
6. Sarah Naftalis - What We Do In the Shadows (The Casino)

Writing Drama Series:

1. Jesse Armstrong - Succession (All The Bell Say)
2. Thomas Schnausz - Better Call Saul (Plan and Execution)
3. Hwang Dong-hyuk - Squid Game (One Lucky Day)

Have to say it is a little strange that the category where multiple noms for Succession would've been at its most deserving is the category where it only got a single nomination.

Writing Limited Series:

1. Sarah Burgess - Impeachment (Man Handled)
2. Elizabeth Meriwether - The Dropout (I'm In Hurry)

Kudos that they actually separated out the best Impeachment episode as written.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I saw Poltergeist in a packed theater today. Last time I watched it, I was 7 or 8 and it was in a hotel during family vacation. Fucking loved it. JoBeth Williams shot up in top 10 of favorite horror movie leads. I do think the theatrical experience was a big factor. All the flashing lights and walls of sound really makes it special.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

It is kind of strange that that's the Ted Lasso episode that got singled out in writing and directing, although it's not bad at all. I was expecting one of 'Man City', 'Rainbow' or 'Inverting the Pyramid of Success.'

Luke Higham said...

Bryan: Your thoughts on Find Me Guilty and the cast.

8000S said...

Louis: Thoughts on these castings.

A Streetcar Named Desire (Japanese version, 1950's) (directed by Mikio Naruse or Kenji Mizoguchi)

Blanche Dubois: Haruko Sugimura (She played the part on stage)
Stanley Kowalski: Toshiro Mifune
Stella Kowalski: Michiyo Kogure
Mitch: Masayuki Mori

Chinatown (Japanese version, 1950's) (directed by Akira Kurosawa)

J.J. Gittes: Toshiro Mifune
Evelyn Mulwray: Machiko Kyo
Noah Cross: Takashi Shimura
Lou Escobar: Ryo Ikebe
Russ Yelburton: Masayuki Mori
Hollis Mulwray: Chishu Ryu
Ida Sessions: Isuzu Yamada
Katherine Cross: Kyoko Kagawa
Man with Knife: Akira Kurosawa

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (Swedish version, 1960's) (directed by Ingmar Bergman)

Martha: Ingrid Thulin
George: Gunnar Bjornstrand
Nick: Max von Sydow
Honey: Liv Ullmann

Eyes Wide Shut (Swedish version, 1960's) (also directed by Bergman)

Bill Hartford: Max von Sydow
Alice Hartford: Liv Ullmann
Victor Ziegler: Gunnar Bjornstrand
Nick Nightingale: Erland Josephson
Marion Nathanson: Gunnel Lindblom
Mysterious Woman: Ingrid Thulin

L.A. Confidential (1970's, directed by Roman Polanski)

Ed Exley: Robert Redford
Bud White: Al Pacino
Jack Vincennes: Jack Nicholson
Lynn Bracken: Faye Dunaway
Dudley Smith: Burt Lancaster
Sid Hudgens: Richard S. Castellano
Pierce Patchett: Ben Gazzara
Ellis Loew: Murray Hamilton

Luke Higham said...

I'm gonna go ahead and predict the Supporting top 10.

1. Duvall
2. Holm
3. Reed
4. Carney
5. Warner
6. Hopper
7. Palin
8. Hurt
9. Brando
10. Strasberg

Bryan L. said...

Luke: I thought Find Me Guilty was an effective courtroom drama from Sidney Lumet, with a good amount of humor to it. Maybe a little too long, though I guess that’s fittingly like the trial itself.

Diesel: 4/4.5
Silver: 4
Dinklage: 3.5
Roache: 4
Esparza: 3.5 (Good two-scene wonder)

Everyone else I liked.

RatedRStar said...

Louis: I Keep forgetting I have a winning request,

Since 1942 has been done, I noticed there was one big film you haven't seen from that year, a Powell and Pressburger film no less.

Just like with 1977 how I requested you to see "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden".

My winning request, is just for you to see "One of Our Aircraft is Missing".

Perfectionist said...

Honestly, really excited for the updated list... Ogata seems the favorite but it can go either way. The resulting lineup is gonna be amazing. Also hoping, we soon move towards 2004. That one is just unpredictable. No idea who is going to take that. Really rich year, though hoping it's Carrey for Eternal Sunshine.

Luke Higham said...

Perfectionist: I'm really looking forward to it too but I'm pretty sure Louis has 09 next on his 2000s schedule though I personally am hoping Louis will move 06 forward given it has the least strength in depth for both lineups compared to the other 3 that remain and I'm more in favour of leaving the very best to last.

On 2004, If anyone's taking it from Cruise, it's more than likely going to be Considine.

Louis Morgan said...

8000's:

Streeetcar all makes sense particularly Mori and Mifune.

Less sure of Chinatown, though Kyo certainly would work. Personally I might move it up to the 60's (switch to Kobayashi who I think the material is slightly more suited for) put Nakadai as Gittes, that way Mifune can be Cross. I like Shimura of course, but I think there should be a physical intimidating factor the character as Huston had, even though he was an elderly man.

Woolf all works as is, though I might swap von Sydow with Erland Josephson who I think has more of Nick vibe in terms of natural presence.

Everything about Eyes Wide Shut works, could totally see it a la Hour of the Wolf.

For L.A Confidential, a big yes to everyone except Pacino. Pacino's obviously a great actor, but would be physically all wrong for Bud who is supposed to be a brute. James Caan or De Niro I think would be better suited there.

RatedRStar:

Well I actually did watch like half the film, and I wasn't overly impressed and just decided to move on with the results before finishing, not that it was terrible, though it probably was hurt as it fell into the same similar pattern of most American/British films from 42, which made that year not particularly engaging to revisit.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Did you get a chance to catch up on any recent releases.

RatedRStar said...

Louis: You want a different request?

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Not really.

RatedRStar:

If you wish, or I can finish the film at some point.