Wednesday 25 January 2023

Best Supporting Actor 2022: Brian Tyree Henry in Causeway

Brian Tyree Henry received his first Oscar nomination for portraying James Aucoin in Causeway.

Causeway tells the story of a woman Lynsey (Jennifer Lawrence) recovering from a traumatic brain injury in her hometown of New Orleans. 

The central element of the film is Lynsey's friendship with Brian Tyree Henry's James, an auto mechanic, who she naturally meets when getting a truck fixed. I've previously covered Henry for his brief though memorable turn in If Beale Street Could Talk, and he seems like the kind of actor I'll be reviewing more than a few times. One time came a little earlier than expected with his surprise nomination here. Causeway falls into a certain group of Independent films with someone in somewhat dire circumstances evaluating their life, often through their relationship with someone else. How well this works typically is dependent upon how much you believe in the relationship and how much you believe in the performance. Henry is an actor who brings a decidedly relaxed presence that grants a certainly given reality to his work and can make an impact through that reality even with something as simple as his bit part as an orderly in Joker. His role as James here is more than a bit more substantial, however, what success there is falls into the same notion of Henry's naturalistic manner as a performer. His first scene with Lynsey is somewhat perfunctory as he runs down the options for the truck. Even in such a scene Henry's delivery just has an immediate sense of James as a mechanic, years of doing the job just in the rundown itself, and it is great simple delivery. The situation changes quickly as James gives Lynsey a ride home and they have a connection through James's sister. Henry's performance accentuates history without even putting too much on it. As talking about their mutual experience from being in New Orleans, Henry speaks so much of it with a certain joy he has when talking about, while also speaking about the character's history as his eyes instantly denote someone closing off emotionally almost immediately when Lynsey starts asking more about his sister. What the scene also does is create a convincing chemistry with Lawrence in the scene, it isn't too much or too little, as Henry builds off of it with her in the shared history of their town and sort of the joy of the mutual memories growing up. 

The main progression of the film ends up being the connection between these two characters, which needs to be believed for any of this to work at all. Although I don't love Causeway by any measure, the majority of what works is when it is just Henry and Lawrence together. The two work together, particularly Henry's work which is an exercise consistently in saying a lot even when he's not saying a lot. A lot of moments aren't about big revelations, sometimes they're just about sharing a drink or a snow cone. Henry's performance in these moments though is what gives them substance because there is a real depth through any word, even not particularly meaningful words. His deliveries, and his reactions, just feel bluntly real in a way that grants a needed reality to the scenes. Henry does this by really never coming into any of these scenes with a singular path, but rather finding a particularly naturalistic flow between ideas as people do. The reserved nuance of his work is incredibly remarkable because Henry finds his way through an average conversation is always a new way, yet never does it feel gimmicky. In every case, this just feels like we're talking to James and in turn walking into this conversation between Lynsey and James. That is particularly essential because it is the potential cliché of the two disparate people coming together, the African American mechanic who is missing a leg, and the white lesbian soldier with a brain injury. It could very easily feel that way, but it doesn't because you do believe both people in their scenes together. Every interaction between the two just feels honest within the performances, and the scenes, including the most casual of scenes, have a fundamental lived-in quality that gets the relationship over the potential hump of the artificial design within the screenplay. 

Speaking of artificial design, where the inherent drama of the pieces enters is the two sharing their mutual troubled histories as one, as both are broken in some way and we share that. Again something that can easily twist towards melodramatic if off, even as written here potentially, but the performances earn in. In part, because the two feel authentic together when they're discussing a matter of great importance but also by how Henry performs the most intense emotions. There are really three major scenes in this regard. The first is when James describes the accident where he lost his leg, which also led to the death of his sister and nephew. Henry's performance throughout the scene is brilliant. His delivery is weighed with regret and the history of the invention. Every word he says is an omission of something, while still having so much hesitation in even what he is admitting. His eyes nearly closing but also pressing, as though he is directly thinking of the memory at the moment, going through the pain again. Henry though doesn't go big, he goes small and is so poignant in the small. Henry presents the moment as not someone who has made peace with the event but has spent some time with it. He knows how to avoid feeling some of the emotions, and Henry presents that process in such a powerful fashion yet also with natural detail. The second scene that tackles this is when he and Lynsey are lounging around a pool she is treating, where she gets him to join her in the pool, where he reveals his injury. Take Henry's physical work around the scene, he doesn't give too much attention to it, however, in such subtle discomfort shows the man in no way is confident in this state or still with his permanent injury. This leads to them first making out, before he rejects that which she follows with her feeling sorry for him. Henry is great in this scene in just exuding such pained frustration and sorrow in every word, while still showing the attempt to hold it all together. Even when he lets out a little more about his crash, that he was driving, he had drank, and allowed his nephew to sit in a vulnerable spot, Henry's delivery is masterful by being so human in releasing the emotion in equal measure with holding it in as a defense mechanism. Evoking a potent shame while showing a man still wanting to hold himself together. Henry creates such a moving and complex portrayal of guilt, that he never simplifies it into easy sentiment, rather it is a complicated and nuanced sorrow weathered but not lost by time. We see within this eventually what really connects the two isn't romance, despite the aforementioned moment, but companionship. This is illustrated I think by a scene that one might not think about too much but is one of the best in Henry's performance, as he asks Lynsey to move with him, not as a lover or wife, but just as a friend. Henry speaks the words in a straightforward way however just within every word there is real hope and his eyes the sense of the sad loneliness that defines the man deep down. Again Henry brilliantly plays the layer of the man revealing himself but still holding it all in. Although I don't even love this film, or even like it entirely, what unquestionably works for me is Henry's dynamic and always convincing portrait of grief and the need for companionship. 

33 comments:

Luke Higham said...

Very happy for Henry.

Luke Higham said...

Thoughts on the Director nominees.

Lucas Saavedra said...

Louis: thoughts on the cast? (other than Lawrence)

Matt Mustin said...

Well, there goes my predictions. Although I should've seen this coming.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Glad I changed my predictions last minute, Henry is phenomenal here.

Michael McCarthy said...

Got the prediction wrong, but am more than happy to do so for the sake of of such a talented young actor get his first five here.

Aidan Pittman said...

Was so thrilled that he was able to sneak in, he's just so great. Hopefully this nomination is a sign of many more coming his way.

Robert MacFarlane said...

One of the most satisfying nominations in recent memory. This category was made for character actors like him. Such an unshowy, modest performance making it all the way is inspiring.

Oliver Menard said...

Love that he got in instead of Pitt or Redmayne. Excellent performance here. Both Henry and Mescal getting recognized for their naturalistic turns is indeed inspiring.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Re-reading the review, I love that you mentioned the scene where he offers Lynsey to move in with him. The film has more than a few faults (like why Lawrence's character is more drawn to the army than Montgomery Clift in From Here to Eternity), but Henry's performance really is an example of an actor making the most of what they have.

Louis: Your thoughts on the scene between Lynsey and her brother, and the ending?

Emi Grant said...

Really glad to see him get a 5. I might've even underestimated how high he'll rank. Out of this year's nominations, Henry's was probably the most pleasantly surprising.

Louis: What would be some of your dream past roles for Henry?

Mitchell Murray said...

Hot damn...now my interest in this performance (which outweighs my interest in the film, frankly) has been bolstered.

I don't doubt we'll be seeing/talking about Henry a lot more, because what I have seen from him shows a particularly authentic and dependable performer. He and Hiroyuki Sanada deserve props for carrying the mess that is "Bullet Train".

Mitchell Murray said...

Also wanted to mention I finally watched EEAAO tonight...

I will need time to properly digest the film, of course. What I can say right now is that Louis and I agree on some of the humour/imagery not matching our personal tastes. That is the mother of all nitpicks, though, since the rest of the story is so funny, energized, innovative and compelling in it's concept/execution. It really throughs you through the ringer, and in a way that's the entire purpose in tackling the fractured, contradictory nature of multiverse theory. I have a feeling this is one of those pictures that will stay with me for years.

Bryan L. said...

He definitely has a high chance of winning an Oscar sometime in the future, since this suggests that he has plenty of fans amongst the actors’ branch. If he gets another in a film that’s quite beloved, look out.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I saw Women Talking. Agree the aesthetic is bad, but Louis and I are diametrically opposed on who the standouts were, because I really liked McCarthy and Ivey and thought Buckley was (bafflingly) the weak link. Taken aback beyond all reasonability at how much I didn’t like her given her batting average, but honestly now I’m glad she didn’t get in.

(Don’t agree with Whishaw as a 2 either, he was a solid 3.5)

Calvin Law said...

I've never been more happy that my predictions were wrong. So glad he got a 5 and for me, this was the most pleasant surprise of nomination morning with regards to the acting categories - kudos to those of you who were predicting him to the very end. One of those performances that very much got in through organic word of mouth.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Calvin: It’s weird, I kept him in my predictions since November and never once considered taking him out. Not even out of personal bias, it just “made sense” to me that he’d get in. Apple was pushing him, well-loved in the industry, universally liked performance. I didn’t buy Redmayne or Pitt, so I figured it was him and one of the Fabelmans guys. I just guessed the wrong one there.

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

btw, I revisited Louis' initial comments about EEAAO back in April, where he expressed surprise about saving a review for "short round"...

That's really been the selling point of Quan's performance, as many people (myself included) thought it cool to see him return to movies after his long hiatus. Watching Quan's abundance of charm, energy and genuine emotion in the film really made me sad/frustrated he didn't get to employ that talent for so long.

Side note: I also saw Hsu was initially rated a 3.5, and I fully understand that. Her Jobu Tupaki does wear thin and is less believable than I'd hope, though at the same time I didn't find her outright bad. As Joy, though, I did think she was genuine in an understated way. Her big reconciliation scene is particularly well acted, and I'm sure that's what secured her nomination.

Calvin Law said...

Robert: Now that you put it that way, it does 'make sense'. I'd had him in for months but swayed away when the precursors just weren't kicking in.

Mitchell: Hsu is an incredibly easy 5 for me and gets better on each rewatch. I do get why she's divisive on here for Jobu (I loved that work but it's not for everyone) but she's just as essential to the emotional core of why the film works so well for me, and the final reconciliation I find powerful (and particularly connected to) just as much through her as Yeoh. Definitely agree that's what secured her nom, which I would say definitely came through passion rather than name checking.

Calvin Law said...

Louis: any retro casting ideas for Henry? For some reason I could see him playing say, the American equivalent of Tony Leung's role in Happy Together (you mentioning his relaxed presence made me think of this).

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

A performance I really ought to re-examine, since he was a 4.5 for me initially.

Marcus said...

So happy for Henry.

Louis: Do you think Steven Yeun's nomination in Minari and Paul Mescal's nod this year means the Academy is going to recognize understated performances more in the future?

Tony Kim said...

Saw EEAAO a few days ago, thought I may as well post my thoughts here.

Ooh, I really wanted to like this, as I was enjoying it when it started out as a simple slice-of-life drama about a struggling family... but I was quickly put off by the film's sense of humour, which relies too much on puerile, "LOLZ! Random" jokes for my taste, which seemed to actively detract from the emotional core of the story. When the film pauses to delve into the characters' pasts and observe how the choices they made led them to different lives, it could be somewhat moving - until whenever the Daniels decide to indulge in their fetish for dick jokes again. Time spent watching a security guard get beaten up with dildos could have instead been used to flesh out Evelyn and Waymond's past a bit more, and delve into what exactly she saw in this man and his promises.

Any hope of me coming around on this was dashed by the entire last hour, which cycles through the same plot beats of "problem arises, character makes grand emotional speech, problems looks to be resolved, another problem arises". All this set to an overbearing score blaring over a truly excessive, repetitive amount of slow-motion, and after a certain point I was utterly enervated, just waiting for it to end.

All that said, Michelle Yeoh is indeed quite good in this. I'm more ambivalent on the rest of the cast. Hsu can't sell the character's shift to evil at all, but she's at her best when she's playing "regular" Joy in her interactions with Evelyn towards the start and end of the film. Quan can shift between debonair and dorkiness very well but for whatever reason, I was never truly moved by his performance. Curtis just left me slightly baffled: That's what I've been hearing about? Not that she's bad or anything, but... what does she do here that merits serious awards consideration?

Bryan L. said...

Tony: The main reason Curtis received a nom is her veteran status in Hollywood. They were probably just waiting for the right film to nominate her, since it sure wasn’t going to be for any of the Halloween movies or her other genre work.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

It's actually surprising Curtis didn't receive a nod for her part in A Fish Called Wanda, since the movie fared quite well with the Academy members.

Mitchell Murray said...

Tony: Bryan basically nailed it; Solid performance from a veteran actress, who a lot people like and wanted to see nominated for something. And sure enough, here comes one of the most talked about/praised films of her career, and she's along for the awards talk.

As for Hsu...I agree with Louis' evaluation for now, but a re-watch/time could help the performance. Honestly, her big emotional scene is so good, it sort of pushes her above Curtis for me.

And as for the movie itself...I again concur with Louis' evaluation for the time being. Excessive in parts and not all of it fully clicks, but the innovation, style and technical skill are more than sufficient for me. Not everything works, but the majority of it does, enough for me to attach the word "great" to the film.

Mitchell Murray said...

Also, I may have only seen EEAAO and "Banshees of Inisherin" right now, but that's still 8 out of the 20 acting nominees this year.

I'm not sure how that ratio compares to other years/catagories, but it has to be up there.

Anonymous said...

Rocky + Network = 9 acting nominees (that's the only one that I think tops it)

Oliver Menard said...

Tony: I agree with your general thoughts, though I might love and hate parts of it more than you. It's one of those movies that dives so deep down the parody rabbit hole that it fails to stand on its own two legs for me. Everybody kept going on and on about how inventive and crazy it was, so I was expecting something truly exceptional, but nothing in it seemed all that original. There were some great comedic moments from Quan and Yeoh, but the extended gags were exhausting. Even if you put aside any WKW or Ratatouille reference most of the extended gags were Rick and Morty/MCU tier.

By the finale with Evelyn and Joy I felt like I should've been feeling emotional. Yeoh's acting was great, but I didn't get the impact from it because it came at the end of a long sequence of Evelyn making up with every other character, which felt like a parody of dramatic moments rather than a meaningful dramatic moment in itself. I watched this around the same time I saw Multiverse of Madness which I might like more because I watched that movie expecting Sam Raimi Marvel tier ridiculousness. I watched EEAAO expecting a great film, not just a flick.

So even with so many human moments getting buried, I thought Quan's performance saw the most light. Everything that gets thrown at him he's up for. He has the best comedic moments, and pretty much any dramatic moment that does work ("I would've really liked doing laundry and taxes with you", sweeping up the glass, etc.) he's apart of it. He's my Supporting win not only because of the quality of his work, but I can't remember the last time a performance worked that much for me with so much around it not working. Some of Yeoh's big moments fall flat because of my reservations against the movie, but I can't fault much of her work. She's a deserving Oscar nominee. Curtis and Hsu were both good. Much like Bassett, Curtis' nomination is a career thing. Supporting Actress isn't the strongest category for 2022 but I can't see how anyone could argue that Curtis is the crowning female achievement of the year.

Bryan L. said...

Ytrewq: She did get a Golden Globe Comedy nomination as well as BAFTA, but I suppose the Academy as a whole was just more impressed by the waaaay more broad* Kline.

*100% not an insult

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Well here's my number 5:

Östlund is an east fifth for me, though that isn't to say I hate the nomination, though I do think there were greater choices to be made. Ã–stlund features many of his trademarks here. His observational long takes, which often are that of a single shot just examines behaviors and watch the actors do something, or interact with something. There is the awkward take, which is purposefully awkward, and particularly evident in the opening act. Ã–stlund loves to sit on the subject and watch them wallow in half of a difficult conversation or in an emotional state. All of this has a certain detachment. It feels less like Aronofsky who is performing a live autopsy, but rather someone who refuses to step in to help. This approach left me cold with all of his other films, yet for the more broadly overarching comedic nature of this film, it was less detaching for me. It also helps that Ã–stlund is less authoritative in his choice of style in this instance. Ã–stlund mixes it up here in terms of his editing and camera choices, to the film's benefit I think by not being so strict in his choices. It is still very much one of his films, but with a bit of allowance. 

Lucas:

I think almost everyone else is good, particularly Harvard, Houndyshell, and Henderson, however part of my frustration is how little they have to do.

Tahmeed;

The former is the best non-Henry scene, and I really wish Harvard would get more work. That scene though is terrific as you get an instant sense of their relationship in just a few minutes and it is moving in showing the complication there. To the point, I wish more had been done with that character, as again more Russell Harvard in things, please. I like the ending for its simplicity, doesn't put a lot on accepting the offer, just does it, and it works for me.

Calvin:

Smokey (Blue Collar)
Mitch (A Street Car Named Desire)
Willie Gingrinch (In fact for some reason I see him a great fit for a lot Matthau roles, has a similar hangdog face I suppose.

Marcus:

To a degree sure in that you can see pure passion can get a performance in, even quiet ones like actually I think Henry's nomination here also speaks to that.

Bryan:

That better not be an insult towards Kline, I will have to ask you to apologize the Otto way.