Sunday 23 October 2022

Alternate Best Actor 2016: Jarkko Lahti in The Happiest Day In The Life Of Olli Mäki

Jarkko Lahti did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character of The Happiest Day In The Life Of Olli Mäki. 

The Happiest Day In The Life Of Olli Mäki follows a true story of a Finnish boxer getting his shot at a championship belt against an American fighter. 

The film joins the long list of films following the most cinematic sport, the boxer. You have one man against one man, but really all these films tend to be one man against something else, The Happiest Day In The Life Of Olli Mäki being a film right within that thematic idea. The film this most closely resembles in fact is Rocky, not just because he's a boxer, but the whole experience is similar in we get this guy, who is a workaday boxer being thrust into what seems a chance of a lifetime. Similarly, Lahti's performance is similar to Sylvester Stallone, as this rather meek guy in what is a ferocious line of work. Lahti when he comes onto screen screams neither fighter or star even, yet neither is a criticism.  Lahti's performance rather exemplifies a man, being a man, as we follow him in his hometown attending a local celebration. We see Lahti's work, and in every question, he gets about his boxing, Lahti delivers the lines not quite with annoyance, but a kind near disinterest, as someone just responding to questions about his job, not necessarily where his true passions lie in a way, or perhaps this is just the way he goes about his passion. Where we see Olli more interested is in a local woman Raija (Oona Airola). 

The chemistry between Lahti and Ariola is key to the film, and the chemistry again I'd say is similar to the famous Rocky/Adrian dynamic, in creating just an earnest emotional romantic feeling that isn't about the big more lustful overtures, it is rather two people finding a pure and absolute comfort between the two of them. Lahti just shows the purity of the joy he shares in the moments between Olli and Raija. There is a sense of discovery in every conversation, a sense of warmth in every glance between them, and the nature of the love is just the truth between them. Lahti's performance brings the needed sincerity as he explains to his manager that he thinks he's in love. The explanation again isn't with this broad statement as though to convince himself, Lahti says it is just as fundamental as the sky is blue, it is just what it is. The earnestness of the relationship is that of just profound connection that doesn't need even grand statements behind it just two people loving each other. The two of them show this in every interaction with each other and they complete each other through a simple compliment. They are wonderful together and you are fully granted the sense where Olli's happiness lies with this relationship and far less so the upcoming boxing match.

The boxing match against the romance then becomes the central conflict as his manager pushes him away from Raija and tries to get him to stay fixated on the match as the most important thing in his life. Lahti shows that the nature of Olli is seeking happiness in the simple joys of life, not the grand stakes of becoming champ. At the press conference his delivery of potentially not winning the match is basically as "if it goes that way it goes", it isn't the end of the world to him either way. When Raija leaves due to being ignored by Olli and being moved around to focus on other things, that is where we see the greatest distress in Olli. Lahti's performance realizes this naturally just as the man is in a state of discomfort though not as great anguish, but the sense of the man being out of step. In every conversation there is a low-level sense of frustration, every act preparing for the fight there is an annoyance of the man not having what he really wants, which is being in the presence of Raija. That discomfort only leaves him when she returns, making it so he can face his opponent without that frustration. The showdown itself not being the focus like Rocky though, with Olli not seemingly needing to prove anything, instead losing rather quickly to his opponent. Lahti is great though in the scene after this as he recounts the fight. I think Lahti importantly shows that it isn't meaningless as he speaks with being a bit taken aback by just how good his opponent was, some sadness even as we see there was something to the fight, even if it was not the most important thing in the world for him. Of course, we see the latter idea come back as he reunites with Raija again, and there Olli is perfectly contented. We see the man being where he wants to be, with the woman he loves, and Olli is living his happiest life. Jarkko Lahti's performance isn't one about big moments, but realizing the small moments throughout. Every small moment delivering a sincere authenticity of a man finding joy not through the big fight, but rather the quiet romance. 

126 comments:

Luke Higham said...

Ratings and thoughts on the cast.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Airola - 4(A performance that is all about presence, a wonderful presence at that, but there is more to that. The chemistry with Lahti again is essential as the two are so natural in the sense of affection between them and succeed in being so understated yet potent in this. She's good though in the quiet singular moments where we do focus on her whether that is appreciating him or the moments of frustration where it seems like she being lost in the crowd. In each moment she is wonderful in her way.)

Milonoff - 4(His performance works well as the contrast to the lovers. Here where we see him putting on the show for everyone in making the fight seem important and bringing this boisterous quality of the man making it seem like not only are they ready for the champ, they've already won. This is against the scenes of him behind the scenes where we see a constant anxiety and insecurity in the man, showing the pressuring of Olli just being an extension of those anxieties pushing. Milonoff being particularly good in the scene where he's the one being verbally beaten down and we see why there is so much pressure with him and the fight.)

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Hope the rumors are true with PTA and Washington, as I'd love to see the latter work with another great director.

Lucas Saavedra said...

Louis: why do you think Winning Time works better than Adam Mckay's films, since it uses some of the same "tricks" like the fourth wall breaks or the onscreen text.

Louis Morgan said...

Lucas:

In short better writing (aka not written by Adam McKay).

To give a bit more though, I think when just exposition it was more thought out, just as written clearer sense of purpose, also as a person talking more natural, had more character to it, better thematic impact in terms of when used and the choices in there, better humor and just a better flow about it especially. It also though kind of used it for more than just exposition, which I think goes to the credit of going beyond using it as a storytelling shortcut. There were two particularly great examples of this. One being when Reilly knocks down the camera, where it actually heightens the emotion of the moment by having the character unable to talk about what he's going through to the audience for once. The other being Larry Bird's full intro scene, where the subversion of the text on screen was just about perfect.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Who are some actors who you think usually need very good or great material to give great performances? Two examples I thought of were Sandler or De Niro, although I'd argue De Niro was great in The King of Comedy despite the film itself not being the best.

Luke Higham said...

1. Abe
2. Titieni
3. Cheadle
4. Lahti
5. Leaud

Louis Morgan said...

Tahmeed:

I'd actually say that was necessarily true about early De Niro, later De Niro though yes. As his bad performances from the era New York New York was more miscasting and True Confessions I think was miscalculation.

Brad Pitt
Tommy Lee Jones
Ray Winstone
Robert Redford
Alan Arkin
Rod Steiger (Although I think it is because it means the directing doesn't have enough sway to pull him back.)
William Holden
Sterling Hayden

Although I think in general what you see is the way different actors react to bad material. Where there are fivish ways I think, those who give up, those who coast on their presence (though I think that is partly unimaginative directors) those who go big just to entertain themselves it seems, those who go big to try to be entertaining to all, or those who try their damndest no matter what.

Bryan L. said...

1. Hosseini
2. Asano
3. Siddiqui
4. Dano
5. Seo

1. Titieni
2. Leaud
3. Abe
4. Cheadle
5. Lahti

Louis Morgan said...

Okay, I thought the House of the Dragon finale was outstanding on basically every front, from just the fantastic character dynamics with so many payoffs within that (to the point now some of my reservations regarding the time jumps might be lessened or even removed in some cases because of what was reaped here), to the overall tension that was absolutely remarkable, to the final action scene I kind of loved, particularly the change from the source, keeping a villain from being a Ramsay Bolton type to something a bit more complicated and really much more interesting, and of course the performances. D'Arcy MVP, however I thought this was the best of Smith with Toussaint, Best and Mitchell delivering great work as well. Also special mention to Roger Evans who I thought evoked Mark Addy in just the right way without overdoing it or seeming to copy.

Cast Ranking Overall:

1. Paddy Considine
2. Olivia Cooke
3. Milly Alcock
4. Emma D'Arcy
5. Eve Best
6. Emily Carey
7. Matthew Needham
8. Rhys Ifans
9. Steve Toussaint
10. Matt Smith
11. Ewan Mitchell
12. Tom Glynn-Carney
13. John Macmillan
14. Gavin Spokes
15. Nanna Blondell
16. Will Johnson
17. Sian Brooke
18. Roger Evans
19. Jefferson Hall
20. Ryan Corr
21. Bill Paterson
22. Phia Saban
23. Ty Tennant
24. Graham McTavish (Most wasted cast member)
25. Savannah Steyn
26. Julian Lewis Jones
27. Tittensor twins
28. Rachel Redford
29. Theo Nate
30. Leo Ashton
31. Evie Allen
32. Harry Collett
33. Fabien Frankel
34. Steffan Rhodri
35. Leo Hart
36. David Horovitch
37. Shani Smethurst
38. Eva Ossei-Gerning
39. Bethany Antonia
40. Phoebe Campbell
41. Sonoya Mizuno

Calvin Law said...

So glad you loved this, now that you've seen both of Kuosmanen's films as a director (what a strong start to a feature filmography if I might say), what are your thoughts on him? I really love his style and just about everything he does with it. He reminds me a bit of Jim Jarmusch in the unassuming way he can find a real investment in the everyday.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Thoughts on your 1-13 from HOTD and Fabien Frankel. Glad you seem to have eventually agreed with me on him.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Also, how does the overall season compare with prime GOT and where would Considine's performance rank amongst your favorite in the franchise.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I’m curious to how awards shows are going to handle Darcy, given that they’re strictly they/them non-binary. Prepare for some very heated discourse about gendered categories down the line.

Matt Mustin said...

Watched The Hitcher. Outside of Rutger Hauer's performance, I thought it was complete trash, with a bloody awful lead performance that just about ruins the whole thing.

Howell-1(Almost painful at times)

Hauer-4.5(The material isn't really there for him to be a 5, but he is the reason to watch this as he just oozes menace from his very pores)

Leigh-2(Pretty darn boring, other than that one big scene she has)

8000S said...

Louis: Your thoughts on Jani-Petteri Passi's cinematography?

Oliver Menard said...

1. Abe
2. Titieni
3. Lahti
4. Cheadle
5. Leaud

Calvin Law said...

8000S: LOVE the cinematography in this one. One of the most underrated of the past decade, I think (though honestly the same goes for the film as a whole, which I think is something of a hidden gem).

Shaggy Rogers said...

Hey guys
Tell me which Louis' Top 5 Best Cinematography will be?
1. Rodrigo Prieto - Silence
2. Natasha Braier - The Neon Demon
3. J. P. Passi - The Happiest Day in the Life of Olli Mäki
4. Jeong Jeong hun - The Handmaiden
5. Bradford Young - Arrival

Tim said...

1) Hosseíni
2) Asano
3) Sidiqui
4) Dano
5) Seo



1) Abe
2) Titieni
3) Cheadle
4) Lahti
5) Leaud

Luke Higham said...

Thoughts on the Ant-Man trailer.

Louis Morgan said...

Tahmeed:


Considine - (I'd rank his performance easily within the top five of all Thrones performances,  particularly since, unlike many who got sabotaged by the show messing their arcs up (Alfie Allen I'd say is one of the few who lasted till the last season who didn't get screwed at least a bit), he has a complete distinguishable arc all in one season. And that arc really what Considine does is greatness per episode, because no one better grants a sense of time, and not just terms of the physical work, aided by makeup, of creating the slowly decaying state of the man as he goes from one year to the next. That is part of it, and brilliantly realized where Considine never leaves it simply to the makeup to do it, he always conveys the elements with ease. Considine's performance conveys this in terms of the man and what time does to him as a person. We get the man in his "prime" where he theoretically isn't even all that relaxed. We see the stress that goes to his very core, and that in his prime the only difference is there seem the occasional moments of comfort. Considine's manner though always conveys the burden of leadership of the realm on his shoulders, and his hesitation to face conflict, preferring to defer whenever he can. In turn what we see then is the man when he actually does take any action, like denouncing Daemon or confronting Lannister's alluded to potential treachery, Considine presents it as really a painful act, frustration within the man whose nature isn't to try to force others, and rather he conveys the anger that fills the man when others basically have forced him to take a stand. What we see throughout the season is the pained degradation of any force of will from the years as the King, where the act becomes only all the more thin and compromised. Except, rather brilliantly, in his final throne room scene where Considine shows finally seemingly the needed command, that the man has found, in the strangest moment, yet Considine makes it so natural as the man becomes King when he least looks like it. As a man though Considine is great in realizing every aspect of the man, and as time goes on. From the earliest scenes where we see the degree of contentment with his wife, and then the heartbreak that helps to define the man after the death of his wife, he had a hand in more ways than one. As noted by Considine himself. Considine carries with him an innate sorrow about the character and even in his early interactions with Alicent, Considine shows less so many infatuated and more so a sense of the man needing any comfort that can be provided to him. Considine discovers the complexity in every interaction creating such a palatable sense of the man basically doing this personal juggling of trying to avoid conflict. In that again Considine is great in being as natural in the moments of brotherly love with Daemon as when he immediately is filled with anger and betrayal. His moments with Rhaenyra Considine convey the sense of the father's love for his daughter, mixed in with moments of complete exasperation as he tries to support her in her claim while also being angered by her refusal to follow his suggestions. Considine though is extraordinary in showing the progress of the man in age, as the more doddering old man truly willing to forgive and find ways to love all, even as everyone around him refuses to love all.

Louis Morgan said...

Considine finds the perfect tragic foolishness in the character's optimism, where Considine mixes these glints of that unearned hope with just sadness to the state of things. This builds to his final episode where again Considine is amazing in showing just how fallen, yet his weakness creates this convincing conviction as he finally makes his final pleas to his family, where Considine is wholly heartbreaking by making every statement the absolute truth that defines who the man is. Considine crafts every moment of the portrait intimately to see the tragedy of the decent man whose decency avoids war yet only sews the seeds of war in his own family. ) 

Cooke & Carey - (Carey's early work I'd say as the lady in waiting maybe was just not overly distinct and didn't exactly love her depiction of the state of personal turmoil. It just felt a little thin, though not terribly performed. Having said that once she becomes the Queen I thought her work fully came to life, hence her slightly lower ranking as I think she ended up naturally segueing to Cooke when you consider her "later" work in the season. She and Cooke thought that together you can really take them as a singular unit because both are great and carry the character so naturally from one another with this progress. In Carey's performance, we see this combination of the sort of grace of her presentation of duty, which she accentuates as something that fills her with both this pride and frustration. Frustration particularly in her moments with Alcock, where Carey presents this as a complex reaction, there is blunt jealousy towards her friend who can do as she pleases, there is mixed in though genuine disappointment that goes beyond that, but combined to paint a bitterness towards her once friend. In turn, Carey naturally creates a sense of confidence in her performance when she begins to wield her power, where the personal frustration becomes this sort of directed defiance against her friend. This carries us to Cooke who is this natural progression as overall we now see a woman almost fully in her power, brimming with a certain confidence in her accentuations towards her lording her current power over her old friend when we can. Cooke shows someone who learned the lesson from her younger self's behavior to see someone who knows her path and we see this in the innate strength of her performance. Complications though of course and we see in contrast to that the disappointment in her son, where Cooke brings years of that even in her first scene, trying to build up her son as almost stage mother with the utter disappointment of the grotesque creature he's become. Cooke, I think naturally wielded the nature of the character and I think plays the villain, and the sympathetic potential protagonist surrounded by bad men, She is able to balance showing the horror is honest when reacting to Lary's villainy, but also showing equal acceptance, if with some hesitation, what it gives her. Cooke though is great with her interactions involving now D'Arcy as the years of the conflict between them are so present. In the outburst scene, Cooke is great because her reaction isn't just this situation, rather you can see the bitterness of all the years between them at the moment. In contrast that the moment of peace from episode 8 is as natural, in conveying their friendship from so many years ago. In every instance, Cooke never simplifies Alicent at the moment, showing ambition, but also showing the very human and even positive emotions that inform her actions. I think in the wrong hands the character could've easily been Cersei .5, but Cooke and Carey (whose work naturally compliments the other), create a much more dynamic figure.)

Louis Morgan said...

Alcock & D'Arcy - (It's funny that really Alcock brought, despite her character being one that so many doubt her ruling capability, is in many ways what I thought was frequently missing from Clarke's performance, being the charisma of the ruler. Alcock brings this innate power in her presence that sets her up as someone with an innate power within herself even beyond the power that is instilled. I think it would've been VERY easy to make Rhaenyra unlikable as the obvious rebel type or the overly cocky type, however, Alcock earns both those qualities through her performance. Alcock is wholly convincing when she confronts Daemon on Dragonstone, when she is questioning the nature of things, Alcock has innate confidence that feels earned with a deeper sense of conviction in it. Additionally, though I think she doesn't overplay that, and also gives real life to her as a teenager working things out. Alcock makes the moments of mischief of genuine joy, and the moments of frustration the same. She humanizes the more dominant side, by showing the real woman within it all who has her lusts and desire even beyond what she is dealing with. Although on top of all that this is just a performance that pops off the screen and makes you care about Rhaenyra even when she makes very obvious mistakes in terms of supporting her claim. The work, therefore, was cut out for D'Arcy to continue the character. Although just like Cooke, there isn't anything lost when D'Arcy takes the reigns of Rhaenyra. D'Arcy's performance modulates the key perfectly by still showing the old sense of the character's charisma while now showing the greater maturity in the character. There is that much more weariness to Rhaenyra, but D'Arcy conveys that with a sense of greater intelligence and a sort of manner befitting an eventual Queen. We see the moments of childbirth that are key as D'Arcy presents this innate kind of frustration by being in the position Rhaenyra had spent her teenage years trying to reject, but also in that conveying sort of the sense of motherhood still in the manner we see present around the kids. There is also this greater killer instinct and intention in D'Arcy's performance that suggests natural growth. Again the chemistry between D'Arcy and Cooke is essential, as D'Arcy conveys the frustration Rhaenyra has towards Alicent's jealousy, which again has a depth to it that cuts deeper. Just as the moment where it seems like the two might reconnect the history of friendship feels just as pointed. D'Arcy's final episode though was the best. D'Arcy's performance carries with it all the complexity of the situation from a physical level with the pregnancy that is portrayed as basically being frustrated in the forced physical constraint, yet I loved how at the end of D'Arcy conveyed a direct mother's love for the child that had been causing all that pain. Then in terms of negotiation D'Arcy conveys so much in the eyes of feeling the pain of the betrayal however also the sympathy for the old friend, while also the concern for where Daemon may take things if not restrained. Just stellar work across the board.)

Louis Morgan said...

Best - (Best's performance is great subtle work, she manages to create really three essential sides of the character. The first is the public persona as the queen who never was, as you get this sort sense of the quiet bitterness in it which Best illustrates with not quite a snark but kind of snide manner towards all the politics that she acts above. Best plays it well as kind of a purposeful embodiment of expectation that she brings even playfulness to. In contrast to her moments with Rhaenyra where Best presents a more honest bitterness in her moments of counsel where you can see her genuine frustrations within her cold deliveries. Throughout the season she plays with this relationship effectively from going gradually being more supportive and the cautions having less bitterness to it, showing in each interaction the Queen who never was moving on from the situation. That is in contrast to her scenes with her husband where Best shows the frustration with ambition behind it all, and the very real heartbreak of the mother seeing what happens from the designs of political plays. Best showing the heart of the character that has gotten over it even as her husband refuses to give it up.)

Needham - (Another performance that shows why Aidan Gillen was pretty bad in Game of Thrones once again, and frankly Needham had less material to work with. Needham though is so much more incisive while being far less obvious. In his public persona bringing this meek energy of the "other brother" initially just seeming to be part of the crowd and only wanting to offer a kind word. His sly turn then all in the eyes and the shift towards showing the nefarious of the character so effectively. Needham is far more convincing as the man of no importance while being so much more potent in revealing the killer nature of his character.)

Ifans - (Quite the effective cold manipulator type, and while I think he was good in playing this more expected note, I was actually most impressed in the moments where we got a bit more from Otto. For example, in the scene of his first confrontation with Daemon where he kind of plays the game back with a certain willingness to kind drops the fully cold act at the moment. Or his moment with Alicent where he tells her bluntly about the situation, although still manipulation, Ifans conveys some genuine emotion within it even within the cold exterior that defines Otto.)

Toussaint - (A good performance that is probably one of the most straightforward as the man who really doesn't hide his manipulations or his desire for power, he just happens to do it in a way that is within the system and allowed. Toussaint makes Lord Corlys basically a less evil Tywin, but a man who is built into the idea of legacy as the absolute truth. Toussaint's performance of working genuinely within that makes the moments where that impact is growing genuine joy and those when it goes against him direct frustration. Toussaint's good by actually showing a man playing the game who knows how to play but actually plays it in a way that is kind of as honest as one can be in it, without being a Stark-like fool. I loved his first scene in the most recent episode as well though because we got a different side of him, as I thought Toussaint effectively showed the humbler side of the man, and glad he gave such real emotion to hearing about his brother, even if the latter sewed his own demise.)

Louis Morgan said...

Smith - (One could easily argue he has the flashiest role and maybe even the best role, and I guess that is why Smith is at 10 because I just thought he was good mostly, until the end of the season when I thought he started to become great. I think he's perfectly serviceable early on in playing Daemon basically purposefully presenting himself as the rogue however there are moments where I just ponder if more depth could've been alluded to, rather than just suggested by action. As the whole idea is the rogue act is to hide his own insecurities, and I think Smith was fine in portraying this, but never quite great. Where I thought he did take off was in the last few episodes as he did deliver on a greater depth by bringing to the surface all of his genuine love for his brother and then his genuine heartbreak that comes out in anger when he learns not only about his brother's death but also the fact that he hadn't told him about the prophecy. Smith, there is when Daemon dived a bit deeper for me as a character. Having said even when I didn't think he was great, he was consistently good still in being the badass with a lot of issues, and I'm certainly interested to see where he will take the role from here.)

Mitchell - (I mean made quite a statement in no time at all. Just instantly cultivated a menacing and incisive presence. Has just an innate domineering quality that goes beyond just seeing him, we see in his eye such intensity and intention of the man ready to kill and even more so ready to act at any notice. I LOVED  his final moment of the season, which I thought he played perfectly as Michael York in 68 Romeo & Juliet, where there's that great moment of realization of the man dealing with accidentally having taken things too far. Loved it here because not only did it show that he wasn't just pure evil, but also Mitchell excelled in showing this other side that isn't all killer intent.)

Glynn-Carney - (Where most characters hide their insecurities with him it is all insecurities. Glynn-Carney though again in the short time I thought effectively realized this state of sleaze mixed in with self-loathing as every moment he seems to want someone to love him while he stews as this grotesque man giving into only vices. His moment though of rejection is great because it is filled with so much sadness and need as there is nothing that suggests a king, just a son wanting his mother to love him. Loved his final scene as well in portraying the glint of pure happiness in Aegon as he receives the affection of the common people.)

Macmillan - (Another short-order performance however I liked everything he brought in presenting the most supportive husband possible, with optimism in his manner with his wife even as he's not successfully being the husband of expectation. Instantly faced with just the direct grief of the brother having faced loss, though I again loved his scene of pleading his loyalty with such sincerity he brings in every moment.)

Frankel  - (Well I think he does succeed in that you do absolutely hate him, as he goes from himbo to self-righteous hypocrite. I think in that though he's a pretty surface in his approach to this just going from slight smiles to grimaces mostly. I think there was great potential here actually in creating this man who goes from genuinely caring and chivalrous to falling into hateful self-loathing with righteousness and hypocrisy to hide that. Frankel doesn't really deliver on that, he's just kind of one thing, and then the other thing.)

Louis Morgan said...

Calvin:

He's actually a pretty fascinating director because I'd say he's a very active director after what are often technically passive stories, in that what most of them are about are just general moments in life. The active approach though in terms of crafting the atmosphere of his pieces where his use of the camera creates a palatable intimacy, in that you feel you in the same rooms as Olli, or in that train car. That is partly just great composition that manages to balance perspective in a way that makes the shots beautiful while seeing the character's perspective and shows a way to do this while wholly avoiding any sort of more gimmicky style shots of the like. You feel like part of a scene even as the scene really is just life and that is something quite special. That is within his actual building around the narrative, which feels particularly intimate again because they are typically just moments and conversations. Those moments are very well written with an authenticity that is also engaging and like Ozu and Jarmusch know that theoretically, trivial seeming does not mean boring. I find Kuosmanen's work fascinating though because they are very technically so potent in both examples, yet just feel like such naturalistic pieces, however part of that is how real every setting is and every moment it is. Looking forward to his next film. 

8000's:

Absolutely gorgeous work, and part of the immaculate framing and composition is what adds to the sense of place that is so powerful. I think what is fascinating is that there is this combination of naturalistic, in that the shot movements do seem kind of realistically random so to speak, yet are so precise in their executing, managing to be beautiful while also feeling authentic to the nature of a moment. The same goes for the use of lighting here in black and white that is gorgeous, that evokes something like Champion or The Set-Up in the style it, yet at the same time, again, it has the sort of natural quality of something like Here is Your Life in depicting country and environment. It really is multiple hypocrisies but rather contrasting they are just some how work in gorgeous unison.  

Luke:

I mean it looks...fine. Majors is the most intriguing part, but even then I don't know, even when Marvel had a clearer vision I really wasn't all that into the Ant-Men.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your 2022 TV top 10s, and your ten favorite episodes of the year so far?

Robert MacFarlane said...

They didn’t make Kang blue, Feige you fucking coward

Louis Morgan said...

Tahmeed:

Series:

1. Better Call Saul
2. Barry
3. Severance
4. House of the Dragon
5. What We Do In the Shadows
6. Stranger Things
7. Peaky Blinders
8. Winning Time
9. The Dropout
10. Peacemaker

I'll say if Andor can maintain the quality of its last two episodes it could make the ten.

I'll do top fives for now, and maybe do an update to a ten at the end of the year.

Actor:

1. Bob Odenkirk - Better Call Saul
2. Adam Scott - Severance
3. Cillian Murphy - Peaky Blinders
4. Naveen Andrews - The Dropout
5. Bill Hader - Barry

Actress:

1. Rhea Seehorn - Better Call Saul
2. Amanda Seyfried - The Dropout

Have seen others that would qualify, but don't come close to these two so I didn't include them.

Supporting Actor:

1. Paddy Considine - House of the Dragon
2. Henry Winkler - Barry
3. Michael Mando - Better Call Saul
4. Matt Berry - What We Do in the Shadows
5. Tony Dalton - Better Call Saul

Supporting Actress:

1. Sadie Sink - Stranger Things
2. Britt Lower - Severance
3. Sarah Goldberg - Barry
4. Olivia Cooke - House of the Dragon
5. Milly Alcock - House of the Dragon

Episodes:

1. "Plan and Execution" - Better Call Saul
2. "Rock and Hard Place" - Better Call Saul
3. "The We We Are" - Severance
4. "Saul gone" - Better Call Saul
5. "The Black Queen" - House of the Dragon
6. "710N" - Barry
7. "Dear Billy" - Stranger Things
8. "Starting Now" - Barry
9. "Go Flip Yourself" - What We Do In The Shadows
10. "The Lord of the Tides" - House of the Dragon

Robert MacFarlane said...

So you think the Emmys are going to hit a brick wall with Emma D'Arcy? I feel like there's still no good answer. If we get rid of gendered categories, there's probably going to be a strong inclination towards men, at least with major bodies. But if they create a specific category for non-binary/gender fluid actors, there just aren't enough out of the closet/getting prominent roles. Not to mention the can of worms some sort of "sperate but equal" narrative that might cause. If they give just a special award to D'Arcy, it'll come off as patronizing. If they ignore it, it's going to be a PR nightmare.

So basically, I got nothing. I'm a cis white dude, anyway. Not my call, will never be my call.

(I've heard that D'Arcy might campaign in Actor since it's a gender-neutral word. Asia Kate Dillon competes in Supporting Actor for Billions for awards' sake. But I wonder if D'Arcy wants to do that.)

Robert MacFarlane said...

(Ignore that rambling if you wish, there is no need to get trapped in the Discourse as I have trapped myself in.)

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

I think D'Arcy might just get snubbed altogether, which would be very unfortunate. Hope they do break precedent and get recognized next yeear though.

Louis Morgan said...

Robert:

I think the solution presented by Gothams, LAFCA and Indie Spirits is the wrong one. Merging the categories robs potential representation and can create disparity between the recognition of the genders. They could make artificial limits on wins and nominees based on gender (Like the Gothams EXTREMELY suspicious double ties for their leading categories last year), but then they're really right back where they started just in a sloppier and more flawed way.

If the individual in question does not want to participate in one of the existing gender based categories, I do think the third option is the best option. In this case "separate but equal" I don't think quite implies because in this instance the individual wants to be separated.

However, I think they should position it in a way in which the nominee still earns it by receiving a certain amount of votes to earn the category for a given year due to the shallow pool of possible nominees (So to get a nomination you'd have to get some amount of votes that would be equal to say the 7th nominee for the Emmys or something akin to that). With no guarantee of the category, or even more than one nominee (again each nominee would need to hit the baseline). In the case of a single nominee, then the individual would have to receive a certain amount of win votes, like when Aaron Tveit was the sole nominee for the Tonys, to still legitimize the win.

Mitchell Murray said...

Robert: Honestly, you more or less hit most of the points I could've expressed. It's far from cut-and-dry, although as you addressed, the word "actor" can be used for multiple genders, so that could be the avenue people will decide on for now.

And as a fellow cis white man...it's also not my decision, not my life experience, and not my say to dictate how someone should be perceived/labelled.

Mitchell Murray said...

On a different note, if people want another point of discussion...

I watched "In Bruges" for my birthday tonight, which was one of my favourite black comedies, and still is one of my favourite black comedies. By far the best of McDonagh's three big films, and if "The Banshees of Inisherin" leans more towards it than "Seven Psychopaths" or "Three Billboards"...well, that will be perfectly fine with me.

Shaggy Rogers said...

RIP Leslie Jordan.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Mitchell: Happy birthday! :)

Calvin Law said...

I agree with all the points Louis and Robert have both made, in the sense that I don't think there's an easy solution, so I guess all there is to do is listen and wait and see.

Louis: any retro directing choices for Kuosmanen you'd have in mind?

Anonymous said...

Louis: Thoughts on Peaky Blinders S6 and What We Do in the Shadows S4.

Louis Morgan said...

Calvin:

To Joy
The Hustler
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore

Robert MacFarlane said...

Thought’s on Matt Berry’s line reading of “You truly are the most devious bastard in Nyew Yawk Citeh!”?

Emi Grant said...

Happy birthday, Mitch! Sorry I'm late.

Calvin Law said...

Also, Louis: given the ranking of BCS at the top, would you say this final season of the show has grown on you with time and reflection? I know your response to it was already very positive initially, but judging from your ranks it seems like looking over the season as a whole has made you appreciate it even more.

Tim said...

Happy Birthday Mitchell!


i disagree though; i think 7 Psychopaths is his best.

The first time i watched in Bruges i loved it, but on my two other watches since i could only say that about the second half. The first half became a bit boring in parts. Now and again some funny moments, but a bit repetitive and not that much conflict between the leads. I have a lot more fun with that film after the phonecall between Gleeson and Fiennes

Luke Higham said...

Ratings and thoughts on the Do Revenge cast.

Calvin Law said...

Delighted to see Minha Kim get a Gotham award nomination for Pachinko, and the abundance of Asian representation for the acting categories in general.

Bryan L. said...

I binged BCS shortly after it finished airing, and the last season has stayed a lot with me, ESPECIALLY the finale.

Happy Birthday Mitchell.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Mitchell: Happy birthday! Apologies for being late with this one.

8000S said...

Mitchell: Happy birthday.

Mitchell Murray said...

Thank you to everyone for the birthday messages.

Also, to respond to Tim's point...I guess what tips the scales for me is that I really like the thematic content of "In Bruges"; More specifically, I find it's moral proposition quite compelling, which is a question of who should be redeemed; A career killer whose accepted his fate, a violent man whose nonetheless rigid and "honourable" to a fault, or a young screw up who will spend the rest of his life reeling from his biggest mistake?

Mitchell Murray said...

Louis: On the note of McDonagh, what are your thoughts on Mildred's police station argument with Dixon in "Three Billboards"?

Taken in isolation, away from the rest of the film's material and controversy, I do think it's an amusing scene for several reasons. You have McDormand channeling a sort of John Wayne style of speaking/posture, to convincing effect. And then of course, you have Rockwell's physical comedy as a truly inept police officer - from his shocked "what", to his chair getting caught on his holster, and also him failing to catch a snack in his mouth like some grade school buffoon.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Peaky Blinders I thought was a pretty good finale for the series, nothing beyond that but wholly strong within that. Particularly in terms of I think doing more with Tommy being pushed into a different kind of corner. Although in his final showdown with Michael (a character I was more than happy to see finally made fully the villain), played differently I think and the whole thing was fashioned with a different color that I felt gave the season overall a different life to it. Also again technical elements were great, still find it baffling that it could not sneak into a single tech with the Emmys, and the finale in particular was excellent all around from the battle between Arthur and the IRA and Tommy's exile. Also side note, I have to say it is a real shame that Paul Anderson (who just missed my supporting actor top five) hasn't broken out in any way from the series.

What We Do In The Shadows for me brought back the funny in this season, after really not enjoying three much, thought this one was frequently hilarious again, which is all I cared about.

Robert:

Line delivery perfection, and really the definition of what a great comedic performance can do as his random sing songy end of the line is making comic gold out of a line that technically is just a straight forward statement.

Calvin:

Well sticking the landing with a series is always very important for me so leading up to the finale I had been concerned, but since they delivered a great finale obviously retroactively the concern vanished. Therefore I could just love the series, which really was the whole of the first half, and almost everything in the second half. And we're talking about almost consistent greatness that only occasionally fell to goodness, and only occasionally. Although I will say I still found Lalo's exit disappointing particularly when compared to every other farewell for a major character which tended be far more creative. But in the end, the greatness of everything else, particularly the ending, made up for it for me.

Luke:

Mendes - 3(Her performance was much like the film for me, in that it was all over the place. There's parts where I really liked what she was doing, and then others which I thought her overdoing it more than a bit. The thing is it just went randomly in and out of this throughout.)

Hawke - 4(The best part of the film and even though this is a bit of a variation on the theme of Robyn, I still thought she managed to find some new space without just reverting to her Stranger Things work. Although her charm certainly is very present as per usual as is her natural comedic sensibilities. Hawke, unlike Mendes, I felt also managed to go with the flow a bit more naturally in hitting the moments of more earnestness and also more overt moment quite effectively. This particularly the non-twist twist, where she briefly becomes Robert Walker, although the film seems to forget this, but I did like that shade Hawke brought for a moment.)

Abrams - 3(I found dollar tree Chalamet serviceable enough, in that it was very easy to hate him, although I think more could've been made out of this role.)

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Louis: My request is Steve Zahn in Cowboys for 2021 Lead.

Razor said...

Louis: Thoughts on Finn Cole, Natasha O'Keeffe, Sam Claflin, Amber Anderson, Stephen Graham, James Frecheville and Anya Taylor-Joy in PB.

Also, how would you rank the seasons? I probably liked Series 2 the most.

Matt Mustin said...

After the Storm is a beautifully observed and deeply felt film. Loved it.

Abe-5
Maki-4.5
Yoshizawa-3
Kiki-5
Ikematsu-3.5
Franky-3.5

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: What are your thoughts on Harvey Guillen on What We Do in the Shadows, I find him to be a very underrated part of that show.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Louis: I'm almost tempted to ask for a review of Martin Short in Clifford after the entire Colin Robinson arc this year. Just as a compare/contrast.

Calvin Law said...

Louis: Agree about Lalo's exit, though I do kind of understand why they did it the way they did it.

Would you consider Mando's final scene to be among the great farewells on the show?

Robert MacFarlane said...

Lalo’s exit was actually exactly what I was hoping for. I have a big weakness for “Unstoppable Badass Unceremoniously Killed” moments, so his final fate was both what I wanted and what I felt was appropriate.

Matt Mustin said...

Yeah, I have ZERO problems with Lalo's exit, in fact I think it had to happen that way.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

I watched The Last Movie Star. It really had this grating "hahaha, these wacky old people and rowdy millenials at it again" feel to it and a rather laughably edited Smokey and the Bandit flashback sequence, but its saving grace is the lead performance.


Reynolds-4(On one hand the screenplay forces him to mostly be this uncompromising old man and argue with everyone, but at the same time he has some great moments like two flashback sequences, visiting his former wife or his final speech. In them he's very good at somberly reflecting on the wrong life choices he made in the past, conveying full blown sorrow and finally modestly acknowledging his personal accomplishments without overplaying it. Not too shabby for a farewell performance)

Winter-2(She literally has a character arc from a typical teen comedy with her acting moody due to trouble with boyfriend and making snarky comments against Reynolds, plus her character doesn't really change for better over the course of movie's runtime. Not very good for a sidekick who we are meant to enjoy watching)

Duke-3 (He has to mostly act amazed at sight of Reynolds, but I liked how at times Doug seems more concerned about the organization of his little festival rather than giving the titular guest of honor a suitable reception)

Coltrane- 2(He's just there. Probably the least hazardous performance we've seen from him)

Chase-2 (He's also just there. I'm suprised he was cast in this actually, since his career trajectory is like 5 times more finnicky and incendiary than the one of Reynolds, but birds of the fleather flock together I guess)

Anonymous said...

I saw Harmonium and I liked this Japanese version of Michael Haneke.
Tsutsui - 4.5
Furutachi - 4
Nakano - 3.5
Shinokawa - 4.5
Asano - 5. Honestly I thought he was more of supporting than a lead

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Did you find a 2016 release date for Raw.

Luke Higham said...

Sorry if it's too quick of a response. I have Raw down as a 2017 release.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: If Raw goes into 2017, you don't mind giving your thoughts and ranking placements on the results post.

Shaggy Rogers said...

Louis: Have you seen Record of a Tenement Gentleman? If yes, what position would you place Chôko Iida in your 1947 lead actress ranking?

What are Setsuko Hara, Mariko Okada and Yoko Tsukasa in Late Autumn in your rankings?

Luke Higham said...

Louis: I forgot to add this to the list but could you check out The Childhood Of A Leader.

Louis Morgan said...

Razor:

I've previously given my thoughts on Finn Cole, my only addition is that I think his own petulant and pompous manner worked far better for Tommy's antagonist than his ally. 

O'Keeffe - (Interesting that her character lasted so long and eventually rose to prominence given where she begins in the series. I did in general like what she brought to the role initially this insecurity though mixed in with the history of someone who has been a prostitute that while she's not unashamed, there is a comfort just by experience. Although she remains in this setting more or less, and effectively enough, I did like her caustic chemistry with Murphy, where you get a sense of their long history both the problems and moments of happiness. She did successfully shift in the last two seasons though from the sort of "Broken" woman, to suddenly the somewhat more refined wife of Tommy. There I thought she managed to bring an intriguing presence where you see kind of the comfort of her position now, though there is still the sense of the discomfort in which her past doesn't exactly match with her current development. While her character frequently falls into that always the most dynamic position of the concerned and at times angry wife towards her dangerous husband, I thought O'Keeffe consistently brought an honest emotion to this, particularly in the final season.)

Claflin - (As British Hitler, I thought Claflin brought the right braggadocious pompousness. The right innate intensity of a zealot behind his beliefs and the conviction of someone who is so certain that not only are they right they are going to assume some godlike position through it. Claflin delivers on that controlled mania quite effectively, particularly in the first season that features him and made for a proper villain. While his role was somewhat limited in his final season, where I guess unlike Kimber from the first season they decided not to break reality with his fate. Claflin though I think once again delivered through in creating basically a raving lunatic whose power is the way he can explain it with such cold calculation.)

Anderson - (I mean properly horrible in every possible way as a lustful and hateful creature in equal measure. Her performance I think worked best in contrast to Claflin, because where he portrayed more of the calm designs of his beliefs, Anderson portrays it much more as this malicious intention that is more inhuman than human in its behavior. Creating the right dynamic even in her relationship with Tommy where she presents as this cruel psychosis and basically as playing with something.)

Louis Morgan said...

Graham - (Surprisingly wasn't the villain of the season, instead kind of a neutral party who isn't caught up in all of it in the same way. Although one could argue underutilized, I did like his performance as this very calm presence with every moment Graham put nothing into his performance other than a basic truth that defines his character. A good performance, though surprisingly a limited use of Graham.)

Frecheville - (Ever so slightly caricature of the American Gangster, but I think this largely worked for the role still, again a more limited role than I would've expected. I did like him though, and again find it interesting how much more dynamic he is here than he was in his absolutely lifeless performance from Animal Kingdom. Here Frecheville carries with him an innate power of personality and the right edge of a man who achieved that power through violence. He brings the right natural intensity and control that in some ways copies what Murphy does as Tommy in the right way.)

Anya Taylor-Joy - (Well after I felt she was completely wasted in the previous season, with her whole performance seeming to come down to an accent. She thankfully got to shine this time around. Getting to be a rather flamboyant Lady Macbeth quite eloquently and bringing this sort of needed callousness against Cole's more conflicted performance. She brandishes the power of the character quite wonderfully in playing up to the sexuality and wholly delivering as this time around they did not just have her play "off to the side squeeze".)

1. 2(The tri-fold villainy of Neill, Hardy and Taylor was the tops for me. Also while I understand why they got rid of Neill, I do think it was a mistake to do as soon as they did relatively speaking.)
2.5
3.6
4.1
5.5
6.4


Calvin:

Yes. 

Robert & Matt:

Although I think originally they might've wanted to save Lalo to the end (Saul's paranoia in the initial flashforwards seems to speak to more than just potentially getting caught) and they realized they couldn't logically make it work, my objection however isn't to the nature of the death but rather the execution of it, which was much more cliché and convenience ridden than is typical for BB/BCS. I can kind of buy Lalo not killing Gus right away by the nature of the character, but after he opened the basement, there really was no logical reason at that point other than to give Gus more time. Again you can convince me Lalo would do this but it's a little bit of a stretch given that Lalo actually typically coldly murdered everyone pretty quickly. What is even less convincing is the very weak plant of the gun put in running distance for Gus, and Lalo letting him even stand near the light, another convenience. It wasn't horrendous for me, but was pretty uncreative for a team that usually does something far more memorable.


Luke:

My viewing of Raw actually didn't have anything to do with 2016.

I don't know, I mean I hated Vox Lux quite a lot.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: No worries then.

Anonymous said...

Louis, Do you think Hugh Jackman's beginning to fall out of the race for a nomination.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Well he's falling in the rankings and I definitely don't see a win, but its a pretty shallow pool so I think he's very much in the contention for a nomination still.

I mean beyond Fraser, Butler, Farrell, Nighy and Jackman. Who is there?

Song and Park (Tough with the acting branch, tougher since they can cancel each other out)

Then Cruise, which could easily be a pipedream (and to be honest I hope it is)

Everyone else is fringe, and would need a real passion push from where we're standing in the moment. We'll see what the critics do, but the apparent top five could easily be the top five.

Luke Higham said...

Anonymous: I've seen some sources where academy members liked it far more than the critics did.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Do you think Farrell and Dano's other performances this year in After Yang and The Batman could bolster their chances of a nomination further?

Louis Morgan said...

Watched The Good Nurse, Less so a thriller, more so a depressing mood piece/procedural that is as much about the cruel inhumanity of the hospitals as it is about the serial killer they helped to protect in order to avoid lawsuits. Tobias Lindholm perhaps directs in too dreary of a fashion, making the material feel a bit repetitive at a time, and the film is a bit slower paced than needed. There is however an effectiveness in creating the sense frustration felt as the detectives/and our central lead run into each hurdle presented to them by a organization supposedly designed to save lives.

I think Redmayne has an outside shot at an Oscar nomination, he'd be the sole nominee if it were to happen so unlikely, but not impossible. He also is genuinely supporting despite his billing.

Chastain - 4.5
Asomugha - 3.5
Emmerich - 3.5(always like it when he pops up in something.)

Tahmeed:

More so for Farrell I think, where I feel Dano was a bit more divisive in The Batman, whereas Farrell has gotten consistent praise for all his performances, and at this point it feels like an easy sell that he's deserving of an Oscar nomination finally this year.

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: You should watch The Americans, it's by far the most substantial role of Emmerich's career.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on Chastain.

Louis Morgan said...

Matt:

It's certainly on the list.

Luke:

Chastain - (It's where I like Chastain the most, which is just a naturalistic turn from her. She brings a needed sincerity in her performance. Creating not only the sense of where her character is coming from, from the physical stress of her condition to the mental stress of her job, but also her potent warmth in the moment with her children and with her patients. In each aspect Chastain brings a needed earnestness to it all to create an essential humanity at all times. More so though that warmth is particularly needed as even when her character is down, Chastain has a slightly endearing quality here that keeps the film from being swallowed whole by its depressing subject matter.)

Marcus said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the 'Fishsticks' episode of South Park.

8000S said...

Louis: Your thoughts on these scenes from Double Indemnity.

"The car murder and train sequence"
"Lola tells Neff about her mother in his office"
"Keyes shows Mr. Jackson photos of Mr. Dietrichson"
"Margie? I bet she drinks from the bottle."

Luke Higham said...

Robbie and Pitt are campaigned as Lead and Calva is in Supporting.

Robert MacFarlane said...

This is a super insecure question, and I apologize for how neurotic this is but; Have I ever convinced any of you with my takes? Have you ever changed or reconsidered an opinion because of something I said? I think I'm having my Tick Tick Boom crisis about turning 30 in less than two months.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Robert: I've come around to Duvall giving the best supporting performance in the first Godfather (my all-time favorite film, so that's definitely significant for me) and Gillian Jacobs being the MVP of Community, and I think your observations were crucial for me in realizing that in both cases.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on The Pale Blue Eye trailer.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Robert: I'll describe it with a more broad statement- The fact that of all people here you are the "grumpiest" i.e. the one most skeptical of widely acclaimed things and you don't hesitate to voice your opinions on them (in a compelling manner as well) I find highly inspirational.

Anonymous said...

Turns out it's Calva in lead and Pitt in supporting. They put them the other way around by mistake.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Any updated thoughts on the other 3 acting categories.

Luke Higham said...

I think Carey Mulligan and Jean Smart will be Buckley's main competition in Supporting Actress.

Shaggy Rogers said...

Louis: Say your predictions of the lead and supporting actresses at the 2023 Oscars.

Luke Higham said...

And Supporting Actor.

Louis Morgan said...

Marcus:

I mean both examples are a two jokes done over and over again. Effectively though in both examples one with Cartman's story slowly growing to greater and greater heights of achievement for himself as he steals credit, and West's becoming increasingly hostile over his failure to understand the joke, meeting some comedic heights with his murder and eventual embracing of the sea quite comically.

8000's:

The Car murder is prime moment of Stanwyck, and the brilliance of simplicity in Wilder's direction of not having an over the top murder, rather just the slow smile on Stanwyck that suggests more than just a joy of getting rid of her husband. The train scene on the other hand already shows the weakness of the plan with just how awkward and obvious Neff is in trying to pull off the ruse.

I think important in a way to keeping Neff from being pure evil in that he never looks at Lola as obstacle after all, creating the sense of guilt within acting at all paternal as opposed to everything that comes from her mother.

A great sense of the doors closing in from creating the right sense of nervousness in Neff, and the audience as he tries to avoid notice, while we also see Keyes honing in on the phoniness of it all though not putting it altogether yet.

A moment where we just get the sense of camaraderie between the two men quite remarkably so, and are just wonderful together in creating the most human relationship in the film.

Robert:

Well passion for a certain performance always makes me think twice, particularly in large ensembles, and I'll give you Holm in Fellowship for example that made me look at that certain performance in particular. In general though I always appreciate your candid opinions, because often it can deepen conversation, and I'll say it personally makes it so I make sure I take the time explaining my opinion particularly when we disagree.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

"Written by Scott Cooper" Why? That gives me great hesitation, but that's quite a cast, and I like the setting along with the potential story of it all. Unlike Antlers, which I just never had any desire to see, I will check this one out as that cast and whole setup is too tempting. I unfortunately don't have hopes that it will be more than alright, and as flawed as his films are, there usually is some strong work from the actors to be found.

Actress:

Cate Blanchett - Tar (Winner)
Danielle Deadwyler - Till
Naomi Ackie - I Wanna Dance With Somebody
Olivia Colman - Empire of Light
Michelle Williams - The Fabelmans

Sorry Calvin. Although I do think Williams could get sent over to supporting, where it sounds like she belongs, until further notice I'll go with the requested position. The only person with more praise than Deadwyler is Blanchett, Ackie again has McCarten, Colman got in with such ease with The Lost Daughter I will not be quick to doubt her (though the reviews could make her a SAG then that's it sort). Don't see Davis going the distance. I definitely don't see de Armas at this point. Robbie could happen but I'll wait to hear on that. Yeoh is my sixth but again I think EEAO has to find ground early on or it will not happen.

Supporting Actress:

Jessie Buckley - Women Talking (Winner)
Kerry Condon - The Banshees of Inisherin
Clair Foy - Women Talking
Hong Chau - The Whale
Carey Mulligan - She Said

Buckley getting the Gotham suggests she might be favored fully so that helps, but it sounds like the ensemble is strong enough to get Foy in as well. Condon I'd say needs the film to do well more than Farrell but seems like a safe bet. Chau got the Gotham, and I could see The Whale getting a The Wrestler trajectory in some ways. Mulligan frauding increases her chances greatly. Hsu and Curtis both being talked about I think hurts both. Also honestly I think they're far down on the likely nominations for EEAO, they're in the "overperform" category. We'll see who is the standout from Babylon, but that person whoever that is would be my six at the moment. Monae got plenty of praise but I think Glass Onion is probably just adapted screenplay if that. I do think Hoss could get pulled in with Blanchett's gravity, and already got the Gotham to her name.

Supporting Actor:

Brendan Gleeson - The Banshees of Inisherin (Winner)
Ke Huy Quan - Everything Everywhere All At Once
Ben Whishaw - Women Talking
Paul Dano - The Fabelmans
Brad Pitt - Babylon

Maybe Hirsch does happen but we'll see if the one scene wonder sticks over Dano's larger role. Gleeson seems like an easy way to recognize someone whose deserved it for a long time. Ke Huy Quan I actually think is the best bet from his film with his personal narrative. Whishaw has the reviews and again that film looks like it will be acting focus in terms of the recognition. Pitt, maybe, seems showy so why not. Otherwise don't see Keoghan getting to make Banshees double down. Empire of Light probably will be too weak for Ward. Again Redmayne would need a lot of personal support, though rogue SAG for him seems likely, I'll probably predict him for that honestly. Although there are plenty hanging around in this category that I think the five could go a lot of ways.

Tony Kim said...

Robert: What is it about "Badass Gets Unceremoniously Killed" moments that you find so interesting?

Louis: I wouldn't be so sure about Colman. Lost Daughter actually had very good reviews, so I don't think it's an apt comparison point to Empire of Light. If you want a hot take, though, I have a feeling Williams will be the winner. Blanchett has the reviews for sure, but Williams has the strongest personal narrative out of any of the contenders.

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

It's apt in terms of the ease of the nomination despite that film being atypical academy fair meanwhile Empire of Light has weaker reviews but is more traditional academy fair, with academy favorite in Mendes only helping that idea. Colman could easily be the new Streep, honestly this year could decide that.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Avatar 2's running time could be over half an hour longer than the first film. I hate the original as much as you do but would that put you off from even watching it as a potential Picture nominee or ranking filler.

Louis Morgan said...

I mean I'll see it at some point if it gets nominated, but only at the cheapest price possible.

Mitchell Murray said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mitchell Murray said...

Robert: Late to your question, but I for one admire the lack of subtlety with some of your positions - often opposing my own, of course, but still with a great degree of passion.

If for nothing else, you've stood out in a way I've almost never done here. In the times I've been provocative or unique in my comments, it's usually been accidental, and usually to the detriment of my clout/image. As such, I like to think I've toned down my input or avoid it entirely, mainly out of fear that I won't articulate myself properly, or phrase something in a way that could read as offensive. Granted, I've been visiting this site for 5-6 years and it's been a bit of a learning curve, but that may help to explain most of my statements/words here.

Point being, I respect your ability to reject a common consensus and speak bluntly, something I don't intentionally do much of the time.

Tony Kim said...

Robert: Well, it's certainly debatable to call Sam Mendes an Academy favourite. Only American Beauty and 1917 were hits with AMPAS (and the latter got wiped out by Parasite on Oscar night). Stuff like Revolutionary Road and Road to Perdition have gotten nominations, yes, but only for technical aspects and supporting performances, none for Mendes himself. I think EoL will be similar in that we'll see nominations for Deakins and Reznor/Ross but it will struggle in terms of above-the-line nominations.

Emi Grant said...

Robert: There has been at least a couple of occasions in which I watched a movie or show with a comment or opinion of yours in mind that eventually led to me going: "Oh, yeah. Robert was right".

I think I might have checked out Da 5 Bloods with your appreciation of Lindo's performance in mind. On the other side of the spectrum, I once stumbled upon some older comments of yours trashing Me and Earl and the Dying Girl and I deeply regretted not listening to your warnings, 'cause I even got myself chest pains out of how much I was hating all of it.

...and to add to what everyone else has said already, fiery passions like yours are particularly welcome in overly niché, small online communities like this one.

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

The "Academy Favorite" for me refers to someone whose films typically are in contention in some way, and have won personally. So I'd say Mendes is more so an academy favorite than say PTA despite the latter having way more personal nominations (He clearly is someone whose support comes from a passion vein, but far from the fully body I'd say in some respects). Mendes's films at the very least are always seen and therefore should never be underestimated in general. I don't think Mendes is making the top five this time around, but given the love for Colman so far from the academy, her joining Deakins's likely nomination for the film doesn't seem like a stretch. Plus she was consistently praised even among some of the negative reviews.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Thanks everyone for the replies.

Also, saw Tár. A tad ponderous for my tastes, but Blanchett was flexing some mighty shit. Would be an absolutely phenomenal winner.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Saw The Good Nurse. Chastain is great, and it's also probably Redmayne's best work for me, in that what is usually a weakness of his (i.e. some of his random expressions which is more due to his face) actually worked completely for me in this performance.

Chastain - 4.5
Redmayne - 4.5
Emmerich - 4
Asomugha - 3.5
Dickens - 3

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Fair enough reasoning. Also, sorry I accidentally called you "Robert".

Could I get your thoughts on this article by Ignatiy Vishnevetsky about his time on At the Movies?
https://www.avclub.com/i-killed-at-the-movies-1798270362

Calvin Law said...

Saw All Quiet on the Western Front. It has issues with some of the additions that kill the momentum, namely the Bruhl scenes, but it does hit some pretty amazing heights too. Kammerer and especially Schuch should be saved.

Luke Higham said...

Pleased to hear about Kammerer and Schuch.

Matthew Montada said...

Calvin: ratings for the cast of All Quiet On The Western Front?

Calvin Law said...

Matthew:

Kammerer - 4.5
Schuch - 5
Bruhl - 3/3.5
Klaus - 3.5
Hilmer - 3.5
Hasanovic - 3.5/4

8000S said...

Robert: Can't say I always agree with you, but I like to read your comments.

Louis Morgan said...

Thought all Quiet was altogether great, and I thought the Bruhl scenes were an essential part of the overall new approach in this version, which while still giving the singular perspective of one recruit, it also gives the grand scheme of the war machine that puts the poor young man there. I loved the extra elements because it granted a different overall approach that gave its own voice separate from the Milestone version.

Also note for Letterboxd reviews going forward, I won't be giving any brand new releases a 5 no matter what, they'll start as a 4.5 and can potentially earn the upgrade on re-watch.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Does that go for Animated films and Documentaries as well.

Ratings and thoughts on the cast and who's being saved.

Are you seeing Wendell & Wild tonight as well.

Bryan L. said...

Louis: How would George Clooney & Brad Pitt have fared in each others' 2011 Best-Actor-nominated roles?

Aidan Pittman said...

Got to see Tár today. Goes a bit bigger than it should, mainly with some plot points I can't help but feel could've been cut, but the execution is still so transfixing in forming a character study that it didn't hold back the experience. Ditto Robert's thoughts on Blanchett.

Louis Morgan said...

Tár is a bit symbiotic with Blanchett, in that she so controls the film that the success of it lies within her even beyond the typical importance of performance, and while I don't think it is a bad film, based solely on its own merits, it is Blanchett that truly makes it worth experiencing, as she remains ever transfixing even when the film's ambition might exceed its grasp.

Blanchett - 5
Hoss - 4.5
Merlant - 3.5
Kauer - 2.5
Glover - 3.5
Corduner - 3.5
Strong - 3

Luke Higham said...

Finally, Blanchett gets her 2nd five. :)

Thoughts on both casts.

8000S said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the ending of The Agenda Part 3 of Beast Wars?

Mitchell Murray said...

Bryan: To be perfectly honest, I don't know if either would've been the ideal improvement over the other. Both have a leading man presence, and both are of a similar age (58 for Pitt, 61 for Clooney), so it's not like one is better at appearing "worn down", per say. For Clooney in "Moneyball", his aforementioned presence could've served the role there, much in the same way Pitt's does. That being said, it's also easy to imagine Clooney over relying on his patented charm, as he did in "Up In The Air" (a performance I do like, but only to an extent).

Pitt I think fares a little better by comparison. When push comes to shove, he can convey a decent emotional range, and for "The Descendants", I could see him tapping into the vulnerability, tiredness and complexity he's achieved in things like "Assassination". The comedic elements of Clooney's performance don't really work, and the same could be true if Pitt attempted them with a similar tone/style. For a straightforward dramatic turn, though, he still could've been fine.

Matthew Montada said...

Louis: ratings and thoughts on the cast of All Quiet On The Western Front?

Bryan L. said...

Mitchell: That’s a fair assessment. I was just thinking about how Pitt would’ve fared in The Descendants, since he maybe could’ve brought more to the role than Clooney did, while some of Pitts’ line readings in Moneyball remind me of Clooney, for some weird reason.

Shaggy Rogers said...

The question that doesn't want to be silent: why was Todd Field missing for so long? After TÁR, I hope he doesn't disappear again.

Anonymous said...

He's probably been living it up on his Big League Chew money.

Robert MacFarlane said...

He kept trying to make Blood Meridian. Obviously I would have balked at this years ago, but after Tár I can see he’s more versatile in style than I expected. Still want it to be Hillcoat, but now I’m open to Field.

Emi Grant said...

So, I got to watch Iñarritú's Bardo today...

*flexes in Mexican theatrical run*

Now that I got that out of the way, let me tell ya, it's essentially Iñárritu getting 100-something million dollars to film his midlife crisis. It's marvelously shot, directed and it's quite entertaining despite its length. I think your guys' enjoyment of it will vary in degrees, but I still enjoyed it in spite of every aspect that might merit and/or deserve criticism.

Is it too long? Yes. Is it self-indulgent? Yes, indeed. Is it navel-gazing? Absolutely, but is it fun navel-gazing? It is for the most part, and that's enough for me.

Gímenez Cacho: 4
Siciliani: 3.5
Lamadrid: 3
Sanchez: 3
Albores: 3.5

Very much a director's film and most people were uniformly good or alright. Might be a bit pointless to ist up everyone.

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

Interesting enough to read but I don't agree with many of his points. It is notable that apparently, the old S & E producer was trying to create the same dynamic as if you hear Ebert tell his tale of S & E, part of how they became more natural was abandoning more artificial requirements to have a more honest conversation. And while there were a few specific elements that were "part of the show" I disagree that it was a creation by Siskel and Ebert, rather it was a natural growth in the two's chemistry and ability to present their conversations in a real way. I don't think there was artifice in this intention, but rather the growth of how to present, as to prove that point watch Ebert genuinely acting, and he's always a bit stiff. Additionally, Ebert spoke on the criticism that is indirectly lobbied here about the depth of the criticism of the show, and while admitting that they don't dive deep as some analysis and subtextual themes of where a film fits in an overarching filmography, they did derive depth appropriate to the format. I will also say that critics that kind of go for the subtext and contextual elements before just saying whether or not the film works, are in themselves not exactly performing the most direct duty of the critic to say whether or not something is worth watching.

On his failure, I don't think it was that "dueling critics" lost their favor, I don't think that was it all, I think if you found two intelligent individuals with the old chemistry of S & E, you could find success still. The problem though I do think there was little chance to grow for the audience given how short each of the shows lived past the Roeper years, so it was also impossible to develop that very specific chemistry. Although I think the latter was tough because it needed two people who were respectful towards each other, but also had enough of a rivalry to poke and prod as the original duo had.

It is interesting to bring up Lyons and Mank, which I don't agree even with the assessment of them as great presenters Lyons has the phoniest energy possible. Although even if I were to accept the point, there is also a major difference between knowing how to present and knowing how to present one's self. Although I would agree they were great critics, I think it is the true artifice that there was no "them" that made them so intolerable (although to be perfectly fair I thought Mank was okay, Lyons is what made the show terrible.) and gave no life to their interactions. 

It is interesting that basically though what he admits is creating his own artifice by having the conversations beforehand, and again maybe they could've developed the chemistry (Ebert and Siskel did to an extent), but maybe they just weren't the right pair to be fully engaging. Side note though I will say personally I liked them far more than a lot of the sideshows they brought on and particularly remember to mention the worst film critic segment, maybe in the existence of mankind, with the kid critic. 

Bryan:

Clooney I think would've suffered as Beane. Don't really see that working. I think it would be easy to be better than Clooney in The Descendants, although buying Pitt as a hapless cuckold is a harder sell. I don't think he would've been ideal for that part either. Honestly, it needed someone with more of a Giamatti in Sideways vibe, while he would be a lazy choice I think on its own, someone more in his vein like say Philip Seymour Hoffman I think could've done more with the role. 

8000's:

I mean now THAT's a cliffhanger in that you not only have the villain be successful, you have it in such blunt way where it seems like he just murdered a legacy character after introduction and pulled off changing time forever.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Yes, why would they be excepted? I should note that means current year films only.

Saving Schuch and German McKay.

Bruhl - 3.5(I think he gives the right straightforward honesty in his performance where there is the sense of weight of the situation that exudes from his very being in the innate discomfort. While also presenting the emotional connection that obviously exists within him even as he tries to maintain his diplomatic manner.)

The other recruits - 3.5(I thought they were all good in presenting within them the transformation from the sort of overt eagerness to then just blunt horrors. Each delivering to the point of portraying just a real humanity in showing where they might go mad, depressed or cripple in fear, balanced with the moments of joy where they can find them.)

Let me hold off on Blanchett for the moment as to properly dive at all deep I do need to get into some revelations.

Hoss - (I mean Hoss can do basically no wrong for me anyways, and I did really like her here as often the facilitating performance in an authentic way. She always can bring so much power in a single look and that is consistently the case here as she grants the sense of what she's going through in her relationship with Lydia every step of the way, even when that is not directly verbalized. There's a quiet power in her work and I think he manages to defer in terms of the overall intensity in the right way, in order to let Blanchett shine, while never being lost in the dynamic.)

Merlant - (I liked her performance overall though there is just less to it as basically a performance also of largely reactions behind the veneer of the supportive follower in so many ways, Merlant is certainly good in conveying what the character is going through in her reactions to convey everything she does quietly before her character does it.)

Kauer - (She's obviously there for her performing ability, more so than her acting which I think at first has a certain effectiveness with just how blunt she is, but after a couple scenes I think it becomes obvious that this is more so her limitation than a choice.)

Glover - (Enjoy seeing him pop up and he certainly brings the right combination between sort of a doddery quality but also some sense of a more able man in there somewhere.)

Corduner - (For a bit I was like where did he also play the slightly egotistical conductor, ah yes Sullivan. Anyway brings a similar vibe here though effectively so in a befitting the part.)

Strong - (Thought he was fine but I didn't think he made that much of an impact here either way.)