Saturday 29 October 2022

Alternate Best Actor 2016: Paul Dano & Daniel Radcliffe in Swiss Army Man

Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe did not receive Oscar nominations for portraying Hank and Manny respectively in Swiss Army Man.

Swiss Army Man is an unorthodox film following a lonely man who discovers an unlikely friend and savior in a corpse with strange powers.

This film is all about its strangeness to a degree, and I would say partly to the film's appeal but also partly to its detriment. What it has at its center are two performances that intend to deliver on the promise of the film regardless. The more straightforward performance is that of Paul Dano's lonely man Hank who we initially find as he is about to commit suicide on a deserted island. Dano often plays oddball characters however his performance here is intended to be a bit more direct. Dano's opening moment conveys this innate anxiety about the man, sadness, and depression. Although Dano's depiction of this almost is wavering in the sense there is no conviction within Hank even with the noose around his neck. His expressions are more of a man lost with his emotions just as he is lost in this world by being on this island. His suicide is prevented by the arrival of Radcliffe's Manny, who literally is just a dead corpse, where to Radcliffe's credit delivers a proper rigor mortis, in his strange expression of someone whose not sure what caused their death even. 

The main narrative becomes then this interaction as Hank discovers a strange new life by escaping the island after he finds Manny's farts provide ample energy to ride the corpse through the water. A moment of featuring this exhilaration in Dano as it seems like Hank has some kind of second wind, and Radcliffe, well Radcliffe still has that same strange dead look on his face. What the film develops into is discovery and self-discovery within the character of Hank. The discovery is where he finds the strange abilities that Manny has and slowly finds there may be more to Manny that a corpse. Dano's performance in a way is key in that he doesn't at all bring humor into the situation. He rather plays the part with an overarching quality of desperation as he interacts with Manny. Dano shows in his eyes a man who needs much from Manny, and even when he's trying to get something from him there is a palatable need that Manny needs to be more than a dead corpse. 

This relationship expands when Manny begins to talk and Radcliffe in turn is given a little more to act with, that being part of his face. Radcliff's work is fascinating in basically he only reanimates what is reanimated within Manny. Radcliffe's initially making simple noises deep within his throat as someone without control of much else than the vibration of their vocal cords. Leading Hank and Manny to sing the Jurassic Park theme together, Dano plays the moment with a mix of fascination, but also frustration as he looks as though checking to see if this is genuine or a miming act from Manny. Radcliffe on the other hand succeeds in making the strangeness tangible. Comical in his off-beat oddity but also convincing, at least as convincing as one can be as a living corpse. The two of them together create the right dynamic as Dano gives the sense of the strangeness of the situation but also with it the sense of curiosity, while Radcliffe provides the curiosity. 

Their relationship grows naturally when Manny begins to speak and Radcliffe's performance grows a bit more in terms of what he can use, however, his vocal delivery is basically behind teeth, with the voice of a man just barely able to move his mouth naturally. The relationship though is one built on the idea of relationships in general as Hank teaches Manny, mostly by Hank revealing all his personal loneliness and insecurities. Dano is terrific by being very honest, despite the situation, in realizing this specific tone in Hank's "teaching". Dano mixes passion with anxiety in every word as it is as much these confessions of his own failings as it is trying to connect with the corpse of Hank. Dano finds the complexity in this as Hank provides some sense of warmth with his words towards Manny, even while his expressions speak towards someone whose accents are that of a constant failure.  Radcliffe on the other hand is wonderfully straightforward, as a corpse, by portraying the wonderment in Manny as he takes in Hank's "wisdom. Radcliffe brings a certain childlike discovery as though he's learning what it means to live for the first time.

Dano and Radcliffe admirably carry the film together by making this dynamic work within the weird confines, but also with genuine emotion by making this connection between the two. The progression than being this odd friendship that does develop and there is something very endearing in this wholly one-of-a-kind bond that is crafted. Dano projects a seeming growing confidence in this but never does lose the desperation is quality always nagging upon him. Contrasting that is Radcliffe's performance which has some physical brilliance as the more Manny seems to come to life, Radcliffe brings more articulation in his voice and his physical manner if ever so slightly. He never stops being a corpse fully, but the slight movement towards being living is particularly well realized in Radcliffe's performance. Where this leads is sadly probably the least interesting part of the film, as Hank gets called upon his past creepiness and Manny seemingly is just a corpse. I don't find any of this terribly interesting, even performance wise where obviously Radcliffe isn't doing much and Dano is back to the beginning, although this is writing not acting. What I do like though is the final moment of both performances where Manny comes back to life, for a triumphant fart naturally, and Radcliffe and Dano's mutual joy at the moment is a memorable sendoff, even with a bit shaky path to that point. Both actors give strong performances though, with much conviction to the concept as a reality, something that I think was missing or played more overtly comically, I'm not sure the film would've worked in the slightest. 

66 comments:

Luke Higham said...

Is Albrecht Schuch Co-Lead or Supporting.

Louis Morgan said...

Supporting

Calvin Law said...

Great performances, though I will say that after EEAAO I can feel all the more that this was sort of a test run for the Daniels' kind of going all over the place with their tendencies, in contrast to the sophomore effort which is far more composed. Hoping Radcliffe gets a role that utilises him as well as this one does soon again.

Louis: I was thinking, do you think The American Friend and Decision to Leave make strangely effective companion pieces in a way, and in turn could you easily envisage Park Chan-wook delivering an excellent Ripley adaptation?

Calvin Law said...

Also, so glad that Schuch and German MacKay are being saved.

Anonymous said...

Louis: 80s and 90s cast for these two roles? I think Ke Huy Quan would have been a great Manny in the 90s.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Louis: Your 2000s choices for the roles of Hank and Manny?

Emi Grant said...

Thank you so much for this one, Louis. It was worth the wait.

What do you make of the film's direction, editing and score?

Matt Mustin said...

I HATE this movie, so I couldn't really embrace the performances because I was so repelled by the whole thing, although I do have to say I was impressed by the commitment and physicality of Radcliffe. For me, let's say

Dano-2.5
Radcliffe-4

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

The movie may not have stuck with me that much, but Radcliffe and Dano were terrific here.

Tim said...

I watched Smile today, which i had avoided, but after seeing what a hit it was and some people telling me i "needed" to see it, i decided to do so anyway. In its 5th week, the theatre was still pretty full, and all that makes me wonder: "why?"

It's really not that great. A mixture of It Follows and Truth or Dare which quality-wise comes closer to the latter. The plot is easy to figure out, the character development feels rushed, the lead's back ´story barely ties into anything regarding the solution and characters that seem important at first just disappear at random without a real conclusion.

And it's not even that scary! There are some good moments of tension and exactly 2 well done jumpscares but also many scenes that just left me cold. And one thing i had feard after the trailer came true, it was at times unintentionally hilarious ...

Sosie Bacon was good though

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Wendell & Wild is great, should definitely sweep all the animated feature awards in an ideal world.

Louis Morgan said...

Till actually is a lot like Tar in terms of how essential and how great the leading performance is. Otherwise it is a straightforward depiction of the events, but some material deserves that kind of approach.

Deadwyler - 5
Hall - 3.5
Faison - 3.5
Bennett - candidate for an all time bad wig.
Goldberg - 3.5
Lawson - 3
Cole - 3
Thomas - 3
Smith - 3
Thompson - 3.5

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Thoughts on Deadwyler.

Louis Morgan said...

Calvin:

Ooh, very easily, I'd love to see Park tackle Ripley, though in Park's mad way so far from a straight adaptation.

Anonymous:

80's:

Hank: Griffin Dunne
Manny: Tom Hulce

90's:

Hank: Ethan Hawke
Manny: Crispin Glover

Went with more likely casting of the time though yes, I'd have loved to see Ke Huy Quan.

Ytrewq:

Hank: Jake Gyllenhaal
Manny: James McAvoy

Emi Grant:

Interesting to even talk about the direction as I think much of the film is more so built around the writing because of the strangeness lies most in that. The work itself though mixes between these moments of magical realism, sort of Indie pseudo slow burn and studio broad comedy, mixed into a blender of sorts and coming out...as it does. I actually the first and foremost is probably where the film works the best, and fittingly why perhaps I greatly prefer EEAO as their films go as they more so embraced that. Rather than the other two sides, which I think the middle we get focus on the two actors who are good, and then we have the third quality, and I'll be honest I'm glad they reduced their juvenile humor in their next film (though honestly I wouldn't have minded if they eliminated even just a bit further as those honestly are probably the bits I like the least from EEAO). The film in the direction is clearly a debut in that you get a lot of different ideas rolled around, not horribly but far from perfectly.

The editing I think is where the film gets held back for me because I don't think it exactly achieves flow, part of the different styles that were aforementioned, as there are moments where it just kind of sits a bit too long really on a take, though when it is more kinetic overall it is better. Although again working things out in its own way.

The score for me really is the intro and exit songs, I think the middle music is fine in its more ambient use. The idea of the heavy vocal, without typical lyrics, works quite expressively while also being this atypical strangeness. An epic quality while also being silly in its own way by its use of voice as an instrument.

Louis Morgan said...

Tahmeed:

Deadwyler - (Her performance is one that I think is so much more than even what I expected it to be. Because what we do get is from the start a powerful portrait of the love of a mother, which she conveys potently early and just as genuinely as one can be as a straight truth. What we get though then is this exploration of grief within her performance that never simplifies the idea of grief. We have the initial moments of profound concern where there is a quiet sense of denial in her work within it wrapped around with hope. Before we get the moment of the blunt reality hitting her which Deadwyler presents in such a raw and heart-wrenching way because it isn't pretty rather it is this blunt truth of it that is so painful to watch. That moment is basically we see that as strong as the woman even the sudden onset of it all is too much to take. Her work then carries with it the constant memory of her son in every moment and we see in different ways this carries in her mind and Deadwyler realizes it so poignantly by creating a sense of variety within the experience. With that, we have her other portrayal which is of the growing strength that corresponds with the grief, where she presents initially this more specific anger within her performance as demanding attention be paid rightfully to the crime against her son. Deadwyler though cultivates this to gradually make her more than just singular in this as we see this growth in her power and grants such a potent charisma to her work within the sense of conviction that grows from moment to moment. Again though that is with her realizing that grief is never simple, as the moment where she confronts someone over not doing more she shows another side or her entire testimony scene that is just amazing work in every regard. Deadwyler conveys so much in the single scene, we see the loving relationship, the sadness but also her distaste for what she is facing. It is incredible. But as is the moment where there is this strength in acceptance of a moment of injustice, but managing to perform in a way that isn't this defeat, rather we see this greater sense of determination that is oh so striking. If the win goes to Blanchett or to Deadwyler, either would be extremely deserving.)

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Lead Actress is just phenomenal this year.

Calvin Law said...

So glad to hear Deadwyler is fantastic. A much deserved breakthrough.

Louis: what are your thoughts on All Quiet on the Western Front's award prospects? Besides International Film, I think it has a legit shot at a cinematography nomination - it feels like the kind of work that is right up the Academy's lane.

Bryan L. said...

Calvin: If the Oscars still had the two (2) Sound categories, it would definitely show up in at least one of them, if not both. Well-received war films usually make their mark there. Could still get in even if the category's combined now.

8000S said...

Louis: If she had become a bigger star, which roles do you think Jane Greer could have been great for?

Louis Morgan said...

Calvin:

Cinematography (though Decision to Leave or Bardo could complications things), sound (though indeed if there were two categories it would have a better chance), production design and I even think Editing and Score (the latter which definitely stands out) are possibilities. Doesn't mean they will happen. Obviously international feature is the most likely, but not all the main English contenders are all super tech heavy so I think it ought to get in at least somewhere. It also helps that it could be Netflix's main push in a lot of these categories (we'll see what Bardo does overall).

8000's:

Nefretiri (The Ten Commadments)
Eleanor Holbrook (Seven Days in May)
Felicia (Shampoo)

8000S said...

Louis: Assuming that he and Scorsese will eventually come around to do it, what do you think of the idea of DiCaprio as Teddy Roosevelt? Not sure how to feel about it, honestly.

If he was still alive, I would have loved PSH in the role.

Calvin Law said...

I think the score is one I'm not quite sure how I feel about but you are definitely right in that it is very prominent and if the film overall is beloved, could get in.

Mitchell Murray said...

8000s: Well, as Louis pointed out to me in a previous discussion, the casting of Roosevelt could depend greatly on which part of his life we're exploring. As I recall, he thought Viggo Mortensen would be good for his Amazon expedition - which I didn't see at first, but have slowly come around to in hindsight.

For Dicaprio, if we compare his current age (47) to Roosevelt's timeline, that puts him in the last half of his presidency. In that regard, DiCaprio I think could play that boisterous charisma, political drive and idiosyncratic personality Teddy showed in office. Hell, if you want to cover his whole administration, that involves the Panama Canal, Russo-Japanese War, nature conversation and rather progressive agendas. That's a lot of material already, and someone with DiCaprio's presence and charm could find something to explore, whether flattering or not.

As for my personal casting...I think Jesse Plemons could be a fine choice: He of a similar stature/build, and his current age (34) puts him in Roosevelt's ranching/rough rider days. In fact, if the film/show centered around the death of Teddy's wife and mother (on the same friggen day!), Plemons could certainly play that trauma concealed by outward confidence.

Mitchell Murray said...

Again, sorry if my response came out of left field, but I find Roosevelt to be a particularly interesting figure to research/talk about.

Louis Morgan said...

8000's:

Don't love it, though honestly his work in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood has been the best sell so far, not as Rick Dalton but rather his work in Bounty Law and Lancer. So maybe he's aging closer to it to make it work, even if he doesn't seem *quite* perfect.

Mitchell:

Not sure about Plemons, I like him a lot as a performer, but I don't think he has the right charisma.

8000S said...

Mitchell: To be fair, I don't blame you, as many politicians have fairly interesting stories.

For example, you have someone like Estes Kefauver, who was Adlai Stevenson's running mate in 1956, and unlike fellow Southerner John Sparkman, who was a staunch segregationist, Kefauver supported racial equality. He also fought the Mafia, which is cool.

Nowadays, I find James A. Garfield to be the most interesting American to research about. He seemed like he had the potential to have been one of the greatest American presidents of all time, advocating for African-American civil rights, civil service reform, universal education and being anti-corruption.

Mitchell Murray said...

8000s: Huh, Garfield is one of the US presidents I actually know the least about. Maybe I'll have to do some research on his life.

Louis: Well to further advocate for Plemons, if we settle for that timeframe (1884 IE the deaths of Roosevelt's wife and mother), that's a good bit before his military service, presidency and naturalist exploits. Roosevelt always had a presence about him, but this is still before his image/legacy was fully cemented in the public eye. It would make some sense that his specific charisma/masculine image wouldn't have been as refined prior to his run for NYC mayor in 1886, which is when a lot of his most famous accomplishments began.

Also, with the somewhat problematic way Roosevelt handled the tragedy (he allegedly shot a dog the day of, and later renounced custody of his infant daughter), that could offer a chance to subvert his famous charisma in a less than flattering light - which again, could help a performer like Plemons.

8000S said...

Mitchell: It's also said that he knew Greek and Latin. Aside from that, he also was able to prove that the Pythagorean Theorem did exist and also advocated for improvements in agricultural technology.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

To throw my two cents in the middle of this presidential discussion, I recently asked Louis how would a cast of a James Buchanan movie look like and for a good reason: he may have been the worst POTUS in history, but would make for a fascinating person to dissect. Especially considering that some from his era painted him as a fool who threw all his chips in, while others claimed he was forced to support the South due to being pressured by other politicians and having no other choice.

Louis Morgan said...

Mitchell:

To retort, you do need the charisma however in order to subvert it. For me Roosevelt needs to be someone who is oozing charisma particularly in his youth (which in some ways makes DiCaprio is the right type), and Plemons just isn't that.

8000's:

Why do you think Little Bill beat up English Bob so badly. He wanted him to show Garfield some damn respect.

Ytrewq:

I bluntly say I think you could make a great film about every president, you just will need to come at them with different tones and approaches.

Mitchell Murray said...

Ytrewq: Yah, Buchanan is often placed dead last in terms of Presidental rankings, and for good reason; Beyond being a total doughface who tried to please everyone and ended up pleasing no one, he arguably sparked the embers for the American Civil War.

Given all of that, a biopic covering his presidency would have a lot of material to mine.

8000S said...

Louis: Yeah, but I think Garfield would have hated Little Bill for being such a corrupt bastard.

Which actors would you pick for these guys in biopics?

Huey Long
Ross Perot
James B. Weaver
John G. Schmitz (A guy so extreme that even the extremist John Birch Society kicked him out)

Louis Morgan said...

8000's:

Huey Long: Jonah Hill

Ross Perot: Tim Blake Nelson

James B. Weaver: Stephen Dorff

John G. Schmitz: Jeremy Strong

8000S said...

Louis: Thoughts on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVc1ST0_Uc8

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Read your comments on the At the Movies article. Fair points, though I don't think it's saying Lyons was a great presenter so much as simply pointing out he had experience presenting.

Anyway - have you seen the 2006 film Marie Antoinette, and if so, what are your thoughts?

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your top 15 rhea seehorn, tony dalton and michael mando acting moments

Unknown said...

Louis, radcliffe said recently that the bus scene from this movie is the one that he is the most proud of. Your thoughts on that scene?

Shaggy Rogers said...

Hey guys
Tell me which Louis' Top 5 Best Score:
1. Justin Hurwitz - La La Land
2. Jóhann Jóhannsson - Arrival
3. Mica Levi - Jackie
4. Fernando Velázquez - A Monster Calls
5. Nicholas Britell - Moonlight

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Louis: your 10 best Robert Englund moments?

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the cast of Wendell and Wild.

Tim said...

your alternate film roles for David O'Hara, Lena Headey and Linus Roache? and your Top 10 Roache moments?

Louis Morgan said...

8000's:

Gracious, charming and so very endearing in her natural way. I particularly enjoyed her bit of attempting to confront Garbo and her self-reflection upon that. 

Tony:

I haven't seen it. 

Luke:


Ross - 3.5(Slightly surprising performance with the harsher nature of the character than I had possibly expected upon a cursory view of the film. Her vocal work though carries with it the right kind of emotional pressure that provides the right balance between the kind of tough intensity of the character and the genuine wounds that influence her behavior.)

Key & Peele - 3.5(Both are quite good in delivering both the expectation of their more comedic energy but with voices that are genuine in terms of creating mischievous demons.)

Bassett - 3.5(Brings the appropriate sort of warm gravitas to her role that offers a nice needed respite within the overall scheme of the film.)

Rhames - 3(I'll admit part of me wondered if he was going to tell me about Arby's at any moment, though to be fair to his actual performance, certainly brings the sort of ambiguous grand menace needed for the character.)

Hong - 3.5(Always enjoy Hong showing up in anything, or voicing anything really. Glad he keeps working and this was a great use of his particular style.)

Unknown:

I mean in terms of the performances a good scene in terms of capturing sort of the mutual spirit as the two come together in their particular sharing of an experience.

Ytrewq:

Five feels right.

1. Victor Creel's story - Stranger Things
2. Freddy speaks - A Nightmare on Elm Street
3. Painting - Wes Craven's New Nightmare
4. Primetime - A Nightmare on Elm Street 3
5. Urban Legend presentation - Urban Legend

Tim:

Roache:

1. Presenting Himself - Mandy
2. "You Kneel Before Me" - Mandy
3. Wanting some things done - Mandy
4. Burning - Mandy
5. Regretting the plan - The Wings of the Dove
6. Falling in Love - The Wings of the Dove
7. Making the plan - The Wings of the Dove
8. Gathering info - The Gathering Storm
9. Why do we fall - Batman Begins
10. Don't be afraid Bruce - Batman Begins

O'Hara:

Jimmy McCavern (Peaky Blinders, honestly surprised he was never in the show)
Kirill (Eastern Promises)

Roache:

Richard Strickland (The Shape of Water)
John DuPont

I could see Headey in a few roles, but to be honest I do think she's "relatively" limited.

Calvin Law said...

Louis: your thoughts on the SNL skit monologue scene, and Star Lasso experience scene in Nope.

Tony Kim said...

Louis and to everyone who's seen BB/BCS: Given all that you know about Jesse Pinkman and Nacho Varga, would you say they were good people?

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Is it more likely that Backlog Vol. 4 will be done after the 2022 reviews.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Tony: No to Jesse. He’s got many sympathetic qualities, but he did some truly reprehensible things over the course of the show that fans casually gloss over (trying to sell meth to recovering addicts). He’s a better man than Walt, but let’s be real: If he wasn’t tortured and enslaved by Neo-Nazis for six months, Gilligan would have had a MUCH harder time trying to justify sparing him some sort of comeuppance.

Nacho is more complicated. He’s a career criminal, but he never truly crosses any sort of moral line that would make him irredeemable. It’s not as if he ever wants “out” of the game, he just wants the Salamancas out of the picture.

I think about Mike’s last scene on Better Call Saul with Nacho’s dad: To the outside world, whatever moral “code” the characters justify themselves with is pure nonsense. We can’t really call these characters good people in our standards of morality since they’re working in a very different wavelength of right and wrong.

Mitchell Murray said...

Tony: As someone who has yet to watch BCS (Treasonous, I know), I more or less agree with Robert's take. Bottom line, the characters of "Breaking Bad"/"Better Call Saul" do not operate in the same world as ordinary people. They are engaged in unquestionably illegal activities, often with the deaths or suffering of innocents attached to them. Whatever motives, backstories or character beliefs they possess, their line of work and the consequences of their business remains the same.

Let's take "The Sopranos" as another example. One of Tony's justifications for his crimes is something along the lines of "bigger corporations do more damage/make more money". Whether or not that's true is irrelevant, because if you hurt three people and say someone else hurt ten, that's still a weak defense. That's part of the challenge, and honestly staying power of the series; It's a decidedly frank depiction of some truly amoral people - with varying degrees of sympathy and weaknesses, yes, but amoral all the same.

8000S said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the direction, screenplay and cinematography of Three Colors Blue.

8000S said...

Louis: Also, Tim Blake Nelson as Perot is fucking perfect.

Mitchell Murray said...

Random note, here, but I was re-reading the 2021 best actor reviews as it relates to a performer from 2016's race (Andrew Garfield).

I have to say, even though I wasn't immediately ecstatic about Garfield's "Tick, Tick...Boom" performance (though I still liked it), Louis' evaluation rings very true with me. Its a great example of an actor committing every fiber of themselves, and singlehandedly saving an otherwise uneven film.

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the following scene from Breaking Bad? I like how Saul chases Jesse at the end like a high school counselor, as if he's trying to get him straightened out.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhsUHDJ0BFM

Also, thoughts on this one? Love how Walt & Jesse look at each other when they realize just killing Badger would've been easier, and how Saul turns the tables on both of them when he realizes who's behind the masks.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82Vo4d3-tQ

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Louis: Your rating and thoughts on Elliott Gould in American History X?

Michael McCarthy said...

Watching Silver Linings Playbook for the first time in many years, and I’ve gotta say it is NOT aging well. Particularly the screenplay, which I’m realizing is BLATANTLY misogynistic (the standard set for what severity of mental illness is “acceptable” for a man is far lower than it is for women), as well as Cooper’s performance, where he plays the character as such an immediate red flag that it’s unbelievable he wouldn’t have been sent back to a treatment center after a single night.

You know who’s performance absolutely holds up though? Robert De Niro. He captures a very specific toxically masculine neurosis in a way that never begs for attention and always carries nuance. I feel like if an unknown actor had given the exact same performance, it would be an across the board 5 on this blog.

Louis Morgan said...

Calvin:

I mean both scenes speak to my wish that the majority of Yeun's story wasn't left to off camera implication and we could've seen more of it, because both scenes are great acting from Yeun, and I think sell this delusion that I would've loved to have dived deeper into. The first scene Yeun is great in playing the surface of the guy excitedly telling the SNL skit that features him, and the trauma that is just under that particularly emphasizes "killing it". Then Yeun's whole performance I think sells the horror of the abduction scene, which is great altogether on every front from the way it plays with the audience looking up slowly in this kind of awe that segues to terror, with Yeun leading the pack as you see this loss of confidence as he begins as the salesman and you see the scared boy by the end of it.

Tony:

They're both bad people. Both theoretically could've been redeemed I suppose is the difference from them and others, though I think that wasn't even true for Nacho, he just cared about his genuinely moral dad. Both are "less bad" but still amoral by a typical metric. I mean out of the main character in "the game" only Hank I'd qualify as close to a good person, and even he definitely has his flaws.

8000's:

Blue is Kieślowski's most internalized work of the three, comparatively particularly to the comedic White and Red that has pain but also so much love and warmth in it too. Although Blue is said to represent "Liberty" and there are elements of that, the representation also feels that of sadness particularly what can be left in an unfinished relationship essentially. In turn Kieślowski beautifully creates the sense of this more internalized journey that combines just a specific beauty, even within hardship, built around Binoche's great performance that he emphasizes to show all that's going on with her throughout the story. It's the quietest in many ways, and in that quietude Kieślowski cultivates a gentle power in just very much absorbing moments, much as the central character absorbs the new in her life from her liberty, Kieślowski carefully grants a unique perspective that both has distance and intimacy at the same time that is particularly impressive. By creating such captivating sense of place, but always having an emotional anchor with Binoche. Really an exceptional example of where you see visual directing with the directing of actors and how it can be such essential tandem.

Bryan:

It's a great scene for Odenkirk just laying everything out and actually being as helpful as possible given Jesse's situation, in contrast you see how really bad at the game in terms of a long run situation Jesse really is in his immediate dismissal and treating his position as a criminal as basically a safeguard when it should be the opposite. Also just great comic writing in doing exposition with humor and built totally within the two characters.

Well other than the Lalo line which I don't think totally holds up with BCS (it kind of does, but...eh), a great scene that shows the unique brilliance of Saul's methods. I'd say that realization isn't that it would easier to kill Badger (at least definitely not with Jesse), but rather both of them realize just how criminal Saul is in the moment, shifting the power dynamic instantly because they now know he's dealt with probably tougher costumers than the ones they are pretending to be.

Ytrewq:

It's been awhile but I recall liking him by playing it straight as really a guy who just isn't on the wavelength of the psychotic intensity of the family he's found himself around, to the point he's apologetic moment about getting the fight is so honestly spoken. At the same time, his whole subplot seems massively underserved on the whole.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Louis: What do you think of Mike’s scene with Nacho’s dad? I think it might be one of my favorites from BCS. It fully rebukes the romanticization of Mike’s “honorable hitman” philosophy and puts into perspective just how our point of view of the character is only empathetic to him because we’ve seen his redeeming qualities. For me it addressed a concern I had considered that BCS was getting too soft in how it depicted Mike. It put it plainly that no redeeming quality or code of honor can justify what he’s done. Banks’ expression at the end said it all. It’s like it didn’t click with him until that moment how he’s no better than a man like Gus. It explains why he’s so much more ruthless in Breaking Bad.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the 'You come for me with love?' scene from the Succession season 3 finale, and the performances in it?

Tim said...

Michael: "a toxically masculine neurosis" sorry, can you explain that? i have no idea what that means

Louis Morgan said...

Robert:

I love as well for the same reason because it is that moment of whiplash for Mike, as Nacho's dad is genuinely good, not Mike's compromised, rationalized and really in long run meaningless morality. And it is so beautifully done because you see Mike coming in there delivering the message built around him thinking it is this truth, and Nacho's dad, who is just going through genuine heartbreak, shuts it downs with a perfect simplicity. Both as that no matter what happens it won't change what happened to his son, but also states the truth that all Mike is doing is trying to kill off one family of more openly psychopathic murderous drug dealers to replace them with a psychopathic drug dealer who is just a little bit less open about it.

Tahmeed:

An amazing final scene by how quick the turnaround is from them coming in with such confidence and instantly falling apart as Logan is once again one step ahead. What you get though is so much of what Logan really feels about his children. And less pivotally what their mother feels about it, as she is so blithe in cutting them out without a second notion for the sake of her current vapid affair. I love that we see how Logan dismisses each differently and shows the relationship with each person. At this point basically spending no time with Kendall, whose attempts at betrayal are such the norm it doesn't matter at this point. Cox portraying only real emotion towards him when it is all three, and he's great in the intensity of his frustration seeming to come out all at once with "make your own pile" of the old men tired of his children's vying for what he made. With Shiv you get actually the most ire, where Cox is particularly great in removing even the slight softness we sometimes saw between them when he mocks her argument back to her, and Cox makes it more than just a one time moment of anger, he's been fed up with her attempts at trying to manipulate things in her favor for awhile now. Then with Roman, and that line, which is brilliant, particularly with Cox's performance because in the moment Cox does allude to some genuine love in Logan, but filtered through hate. His particular delivery of just that line is stunning because you get Logan is genuinely heartbroken at the attempt but is able to hide it through disgust, in this case the most genuine betrayal with Roman who he had believed was still on his side. The cherry on top is the perfect double betrayals of sort of Gerry revealing that really she only uses Roman as she dismisses his pleas as nothing, and MacFadyen walking in with this perfect sense of gentle innocence and perfectly guilty satisfaction in Tom, as we see a confidence in him we haven't seen all season. Conversely Strong, Snook and Culkin are all great in showing the different stats of their reaction. Strong basically barely reacting, as it is just par for course for Kendall, Snook showing this sense of Shiv trying to recalculate the situation in her mind before the moment of realization where she brings just the right sense of physical illness as we see her figure out who sold them out, and Culkin who is genuinely moving by playing to the most honest emotion oddly enough. With asking Logan about love in a strangely earnest way, and then just being so beaten down and broken as he sees how little love there is for him after all.

Calvin Law said...

Watched Causeway. Have my issues with the storytelling which feels undercooked and rushed in parts but I did like the quiet lingering approach overall. Lawrence is the best she's been in awhile, Henry is magnificent and should definitely be up for Supporting Actor consideration.

Matthew Montada said...

Calvin: ratings for the cast of Causeway?

Calvin Law said...

Lawrence: 4.5
Henry: 5
Emond: 3
Henderson: 3.5
Houdyshell: 3.5
Harvard: 3.5

Louis Morgan said...

I guess this should surprise no one at this point but I loved everything about Banshees of Inisherin. I'd go into more but for now it's best for one to see for themselves how it develops.

Condon - 5
Shortt - 3.5
Kenny - 3.5
Neachtain - 4
Lyndon - 3.5

Tim said...

thoughts on the Banshees Cast?

Louis Morgan said...

Tim:

Also should note that I loved the cinematography by Ben Davis and Burwell's score. And though it is in many ways his most insular piece, I think it contains some of McDonagh's most assured direction, loved his use of animals in particular.

Also Gleeson is co-lead to me, though definitely the secondary lead and more so than one might argue in In Bruges, so I don't think it will be a tough sell for him to be placed supporting.  Will be relatively vague with some of these.

Condon - (Her performance for me was pitch perfect in a role that I think could be very tricky to pull off in the right way as there are two features that would've been so easy to overplay or really underplay but to me she is absolutely pitch perfect. As the "voice of reason" it is easy to see just unfunny or repetitive, Condon is neither as she is hilarious in playing this note in such a precise way that feels both honest while being funny. Her reactions capture the right sense of the ridiculousness in the eyes of someone who is not that, yet in a way the reaction in itself is funny. Just brilliantly pitched there and her timing is immaculate. Her performance as the voice of reason goes beyond that as even when she occasionally, and very bluntly, delivers some harsh words of reality, there is also so much heart she brings to the part. A natural contrasting warmth in her moments carries a real sense of her concern within everything that is going on and just very moving in her own way. Loved really every moment of her performance which I think is the perfect kind of facilitating performance that wholly allows the other performances to shine, yet she so easily shines in her own way at the same time.) 


Shortt & Kenny - (The properly hilarious duo of a pseudo greek chorus of sorts.)

Neachtain - (Just wonderfully creepy work and so much of it is just expressions that she manages to maneuver very artfully between chilling and comical in her way.)

Lydon - (In some ways a reprise of his performance in Calvary, nonetheless effectively callous, brutish, and altogether scummy.)

Calvin Law said...

God I'm so excited to see Inisherin and delighted to see Condon get a 5.

Particularly excited about the animals, I've been obsessed with the donkey ever since I watched the trailer.

Anonymous said...

C'est comme ça au https://streamcomplet.land/divers/ cinéma, n'est-ce pas ? La fausse sagesse ne peut pas obscurcir longtemps la vérité, même si elle semble parfois plus plausible que la vérité elle-même.