Best Actor 2022: Brendan Fraser in The Whale

Brendan Fraser won his Oscar from his first Oscar nomination for portraying Charlie in The Whale. 

The Whale is kind of a terrible film about a morbidly obese man trying to right the relationship with his daughter as he nears his death. 

As much as The Whale is a series of misguided ideas from a conceptual level, exacerbated by conflicting direction by the seemingly uncaring yet overwrought approach by Darren Aronofsky, I will say I'm glad the film exists if only to give Brendan Fraser a much-deserved return as a performer. A supremely likable performer on and off-screen, who seems like he has been in a bad patch for some time, and it is hard not to get some joy from his recognition just based on that. But forgetting the quality of the film, as far as I can, and forgetting the personal story of Fraser, let's actually look at the performance itself. The performance itself comes into specific makeup covered work, with a particularly extreme fat suit for the role. Although largely well done in terms of the makeup, the false body looks a touch artificial, it does obviously offer certain restraints within his performance. I will say from the outset what Fraser does well is acting within the fat suit and the makeup where there is no break within it. Although part of it may simply just be the weight of it, however, Fraser uses that to have the movements of a man who is constantly weighed down by himself and is a certain sense trapped within his body. Fraser's movements, but also just the way he carries himself innately bring this to life. His more labored breath and just difficulty of the natural task Fraser makes as just a part of Charlie's being. He does make the makeup just part of his performance and you do accept Fraser as Charlie the weight and all. You don't keep thinking about Fraser being someone surrounded by a fat suit, because Fraser does everything to support this physically within his work. He makes his physical ailments an innate part of his performance and they are connected as one. And that is a success on its own because it would've been very easy to just see a man covered with "stuff", but Fraser makes this all the man that is Charlie. This is to the point that the moment early on of Charlie thinking he is dying, and every ache or pain, is quite visceral and unpleasant in a way that is hard to watch, however in this instance intentional and reasonable for this purpose, because Fraser does embody this state. 

I guess the easiest way to speak of this performance is to examine it in its own terms, which is basically presenting Charlie's final relationships, as his weight has gotten to the point that he is likely to die soon. Should start with the worst first, and I mean THE WORST, of a missionary for some highly specific sect of Christianity (so specific that even as an overly didactic critique of religion, it holds little water since it is so specific), named Thomas (Ty Simpkins). A character who exists only in the mind of a playwright or a screenwriter, because the missionary exists solely exist as a missionary, and since there is no twist about him being a figment of Charlie's imagination, and has no relevance to any notion of reality nor does he work even as some overly symbolic idea. The character exists solely for the sake of revealing other plot/character points since nothing about him logically makes any sense. The character comes in essentially to convert Charlie, which initially starts with Thomas walking in on a masturbating Charlie, who goes into some intense pain asking Thomas to read "the essay" (more on this bit of contrivance later) before he believes he's going to die. This whole setup is more than a little ridiculous in itself, just the whole setup feels false that the missionary would storm in on this moment, in this way, with this result. Fraser though is impressive because he is almost acting his way through it, as difficult as it is. The pain of the attack is delivered honestly, as is his desperate need in the moment of needing to hear the essay, and best really is the rather unfussy delivery of his love for the essay and that he thought he was about to die. That whole notion, which only gets worse as the film goes on, doesn't convince me, but Fraser makes his emotion toward Charlie at the moment feel real, which is the purpose of the performance after all. It doesn't need to make the film work, to work in itself necessarily. I never believe anything about this relationship on either side in terms of the writing with Charlie leading the young man along, and the young man fixating upon Charlie. What I guess is impressive is I didn't think Fraser was ever false no matter how false it all felt on a conceptual level to me. As Fraser presents genuine curiosity in Charlie towards the young man, which is also filled clearly with some complication, as his old boyfriend took his life as related to this precise sect (contrived enough?), but also throws at him all his frustration in what is a contrived scene. However, does Fraser's delivery of this anger feel genuine as the man lashing out from his state finally, yes somehow? 

There is the seemingly minor relationship along the way, which is framed most consistently by Aronofsky's framing of everyone's extreme disgust at Charlie's appearance no matter what, as though they were all looking at the most disfigured thing you could imagine, which is frankly disgusting in the approach we see in the direction here. But having said that the moments of this of Fraser expressing self-loathing in just a singular look, does have some potency within itself and is convincing in itself. There's also the relationship with his class, also disgusted when they see him, but before that, we do get a brief glimpse of the man as the writing professor, which I do like Fraser's very formal delivery of the man's instructions that suggest a great passion for the art of writing, even at this most functional level. There's also his wife (portrayed atypically poorly by Samantha Morton), which I think is a failure of the film more so than of Fraser, though somewhat Morton. I don't sense any proper history really between their two interactions, again partly because Morton is on such an extreme note the whole time. And there's something missing even though Fraser is trying to suggest some kind of warmer history between the two, but it doesn't quite get there despite his best efforts. They seem more vague acquaintances, "but Louis that's IS their history" eh there should be something underlying there, something more, and there just really isn't. But hey I did kind of like his earnest delivery to the pizza guy who wants to know a random customer's name and then spies on him coming out of his house. Again garbage really with how all of it works, but I did think Fraser played the sense of shame of the man seeing him with real emotion, just as he did the reaching out in a bit of connection in the earlier scenes. Doesn't amount to much in my mind in terms of the film but it is something in terms of Fraser's own work. 

But forget all that again because we have his relationship with his daughter (Sadie Sink) which is the primary focus of the film, where he literally bribes her to visit him. The daughter is a terribly written character with the typically capable Sink stuck in a role that is so overly hostile that it comes off as more ridiculous than a convincing depiction of bitterness. Again though credit goes to Fraser for really trying to make it work. There is this complicated sincerity he brings in his offer as he is talking her through very much as the father. When she challenges him, the vulnerability on his face at the struggle in connection feels very much earned on Fraser's end, as you are granted the sense of regret for the years lost mixed in with the hope to try to make up for it. He brings a real warmth in every attempt mixed in with a believable shyness of the man trying as best he can to tiptoe around trying to connect with her, while she comes at him with the same note again and again. Fraser though makes such a guided effort that does very much reveal his side of the relationship at least, creating that juxtaposition between a sense of genuine love and also the pain of disconnect. His scenes of commenting on his daughter, the concern in his voice, and in his expression are of a truly loving father wishing the best, and whatever emotion I did feel in these moments were from Fraser's portrayal that felt very honest. Even within the nonsense. Speaking of nonsense all of this eventually leads to some truly contrived situation where the actions of his daughter lead the missionary kid to reunite with his family...I MEAN SERIOUSLY that is dumb, dumber is Charlie's interpretation that his daughter did it for good, proving the goodness of mankind to him in some way. Give me a break. Anyway, as cynical as I feel about the nonsense this film spouts, Fraser's delivery about the beauty of people in a microcosm is moving, if you attach some better scenario to it, but Fraser's mix of heartbreak yet hope in the line is moving in itself once again. Speaking of nonsense, the film ends with a super dramatic moment of Charlie standing for his daughter as she reads the "most beautiful thing" he has ever read. TWIST, is her old essay, which feels like the modern equivalent of the plastic bag from American Beauty in a filmmaker trying to attach beauty to some real nonsense. Now one can argue, though I think the filmmakers seem to think the essay really is great, that this shows a father's blindness based on just love for his daughter. And again Fraser's performance does sell it as such, his eyes fixed on this need for it, this need to believe and this need to care, that there is a certain localized power to even as I reject every notion the film is making. 

I purposefully saved two elements, the worst and the best of Fraser's performance, because I need to cover the first, to be honest, and I'll leave the latter last because again, I just like Brendan Fraser, seems always like a good dude and I would like him to have the biggest comeback of anyone ever. The former is the binge-eating scenes. Scenes where Fraser presents Charlie downing the food, backed by some despicable score, as though he is a monster feeding, a specimen, a whale not a man. And frankly, I think the whole depiction is disgusting, not because of it being a man struggling with eating but because it is depicted without a hint of empathy or even sympathy. Aronofsky treats Charlie like a creature mock and sadly Fraser plays into this. Now is this probably a bad direction given particularly the empathetic nature of Fraser's overall performance? 100% I'm sure. However all performances are a combination of performer and director, and if a performer gets the plaudits for a great directorial idea, they must also suffer for a poor decision, which is the case here. Leaving that unpleasantness behind, let's talk about the best part, which is Fraser's chemistry with Hong Chau as Liz, his unofficial nurse and the sister of his dead lover. They're great together as the two manage to levitate beyond what is in front of them to deliver something that feels real. They have a sense of history, there is a mutual sense of affection, even affection through connection and just an understanding between the two. To the point, the moment of anger between the two segueing to random humor, to just the deepest sense of warmth, just feels natural. The two speak to one another as long friends which are connected in hardship but also that appreciation for the past. Even when they fight, the two make it less melodramatic, because each has such a strong sense of the two as people and grants an honest sense of frustration in every delivery of the anger. Anger filled with care and frustration, not just anger. Fraser reveals his vulnerability, his shyness with her to his condition but also this understanding in his eyes and appreciation for her concern. He never simplifies that and we feel the palpable sense of the depth of their friendship. To the point, my favorite scene in the film is probably the two just lounging on the couch together and watching TV. Because the two together have such an endearing sense of camaraderie, of two real friends who have an unbreakable connection and in turn just have that casual sense of real care for one another. Going back to see good in people, part of the reason it does have some emotion is the connection in the reaction of Chau against Fraser's delivery. I don't believe that moment as written but I believe in the two at the moment. This might be one of the most frustrating experiences for me because there was potential in this idea, but the execution was so fundamentally flawed in multiple ways. However, even with all that, Fraser did at times move me, even when I was rolling my eyes at the film itself, there was a real truth, a pathos, and particularly a real heart within Fraser's work. It isn't perfect work, because he doesn't quite successfully avoid every failure of the film, but the fact that I just kept constantly thinking "Fraser is not the problem" in almost every scene does mean something. Fraser does find something in his portrait of Charlie, I did believe him, I was moved by him, even though I never believed The Whale.