Thursday 10 August 2023

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2009: Guillermo Francella & Pablo Rago in The Secret in Their Eyes

Guillermo Francella did not receive an Oscar nomination nor did Pablo Rago for portraying Pablo Sandoval & Ricardo Morales respectively in The Secret in Their Eyes.

I've already praised to high heavens this film, and I don't always give the academy credit, but this was one of their best decisions in the then foreign language film category. But now it is time to praise it some more, as it isn't just a film with an engaging protagonist in the judicial officer Benjamin (Ricardo Darin), trying to figure out a murder/rape investigation both in the past and present, it also has a fantastic supporting cast. Guillermo Francella is front in center in this regard as Benjamin's friend at the judiciary office. Francella simply must be described as a delight who is kind of the ideal supporting performer very specifically as the supportive friend to Benjamin we see right away, as they both react to their immediate superior Irene (Soledad Villamil), with whom Benjamin is in love with both hesitates to say anything. I love Francella's openness in his performance as he compliments her with this earnest ease. Only bested by his sly ribbing as he notes that Benjamin struggles to have the same ease around her because he's infatuated with her. Francella brings such a sincere loving manner in this gentle teasing. In just a moment you see Francella bringing this perfect emotional honesty that defines Pablo, but also the immediate sense of the strict sincerity of his friendship even when being sarcastic with his friend. Pablo loves Benjamin whole heartedly and Francella makes it hard not to love Pablo. 

Pablo Rago basically performs at a polar opposite tonally from Francella, and the film's success in bringing both sides of this story to life with such ease is one of the joys of the film. Rago plays the husband of the victim of the central crime, and every visit with him by Benjamin is a remarkable moment in the film. His performance one is that immediately grants us the sense of potent grief that obviously pains the man, whom we see initially as just really a loss for the reality of it all. His face filled with heartbreaking disbelief. We see him next trying his best to help Benjamin with the investigation by just going through possible suspects in his wife's past. And Rago is again effective in showing this sense of grief within this quiet conviction of the man in trying to get justice for his wife. There's a strict sincerity in Rago's performance in every moment of trying to affirm help to Benjamin, and an important sense of kind of this focus is with the man in a way holding his grief back. Unfortunately, the man, Isidoro Gómez (Javier Godino), cannot be located. And we next see Morales as Benjamin finds him at a train station, waiting there every day by the chance he might find the man who is probably his wife's killer. Rago's performance is so moving because of the actual subdued delivery of the explanation. There's a fixation to be sure, but there's also this calm in his voice and importantly this love in his eyes, of a man who is steadfastly committed to his duty to his wife. 

The rest of the investigation is on the end of Pablo and Benjamin, and even though it is a murder investigation we actually get more comedy, as Pablo pushes Benjamin to skirt the law just a bit in their attempts to track down Isidoro. Francella is just wonderful in bringing this physical comedic energy in these scenes of showing the man who very much is almost a fully blown comedic performer, though he never goes too far. He finds just enough in this sort of hapless conviction in his manner that makes him very funny while never being just a joke. And part of the reason for this is the balance of when the two are talking about the severity of the crime and the importance of finding the killer, Francella's work is 100% dialed into the seriousness of that. Francella shows that Pablo is absolutely dogged in his own attempts to find the truth himself, even if his methods aren't always practical and that is where the comedy comes in. A favorite bit of mine in that regard is when the two of them get chewed out for their trespassing and Francell's reactions throughout the scene are pure gold. Because he plays it less as a man in genuine trouble, and more so as a kid who knows he stepped out of line but intends to step out of line again as soon as possible. Only feigning any embarrassment. 

And what is kind of fascinating is as much as Francella is the comic relief, he quite frequently shows that Pablo has perhaps the best sense of detecting the truth in terms of actually tracking down the killer. And we see this as Pablo suggests a plan when the trail goes cold, where Pablo runs down his plan to Benjamin in a bar. This is just a highlight and frankly amazing scene for Francella. Francella begins the scene relatively low-key in his encouraging delivery where there is just this spark in his eyes of a man with some keen ingenuity at the moment, and it is hard not to go with him as he keeps speaking his mind. This even recognizes his hobby of being drunk, despite having more or less a happy life, which Francella performs with this certain pride of a man who knows exactly who he is. Francella continues the scene like a circus ringmaster as he basically runs the whole bar to make his point, such as having another patron detail his obsession through his own knowledge of sports, to make the point that they could catch, Isidoro, also a sports fanatic as a game. A simple point theoretically, made so beautifully complicated by Francella's performance that brings such passion as he shows this realization a point of pure jubilation. 

Following the realization we have the two track down Isidoro at a stadium, looking for the man, and what is amazing is as much as Francella doesn't exude the leading man or the action hero type, he kind of becomes it in this scene. And the frenetic energy he brings is perfection as we see Pablo move around doing his absolute best to track down the killer and refusing to back down. Francella brings this unlikely yet wholly convincing conviction that makes Pablo an unexpected hero in the best of ways. And spoilers for the rest of this review, because this again a great film, and anyone who hasn't watched it should. But while they manage to catch Isidoro, he is quickly set free by the corrupt government who hires him as a killer. And we find Pablo now raging as a drunk at the system, and Francella is fantastic in creating the sense of the loss of that passion now. Showing instead someone defeated by the circumstance, even if the glint of the happy-go-lucky personality is still in there. Unfortunately, that is nearly the last we see him, when left alone Benjamin comes home to find him murdered by government thugs. And it is just alone an absolutely devastating moment because Francella has made him such a likable character up until this point. 

Meanwhile, we get two immediately contrasting scenes with Rago as Morales, one where we silently see Benjamin inform him of the good news, as just his reaction shows this quiet weight being lifted off his shoulders. Unfortunately, this is followed almost immediately by the bad news, where again Rago's performance is penetrating through the sort of unexpected way that he approaches the scene. The grief and the love are just givens within his performance, you sense them, but he plays them internalized as the man stays as this calm, even when knowing the killer is out there. Rago's performance though is oddly the one that is more reassuring than Darin's in the conversation, with Rago presenting this clarity in every delivery as Morales so calmly states that killing Isidoro would be too easy and quick for the man. Again he doesn't state with vicious revenge, but rather this separated sense of again a man speaking the truth. And that is the last we see of him before we catch up with the running later timeline where Benjamin is still fixated on the case after many years, and he goes to visit Morales now living very isolated in the country. 

And the two men meet up, each in a weird way having this certain state of being arrested in the past though very different ways. Rago again has almost this monk-like manner in the way he speaks of the past though with this assurance and calm. It is only when Benjamin presses him about Isidoro, we see a change where suddenly Rago becomes more present and it is so powerful because suddenly snaps at him wanting him to forget it. It is such a striking moment because it is so different and reveals the truth, though not the one we'd expect. But before that, Benjamin reveals his own memories of thinking about Pablo's death, and we get one more scene with Francella as a flashback to Benjamin's presumed memory of his friend's execution. This scene manages to make an already devastating death even more heartbreaking because Benjamin believes Pablo in his last act protected Benjamin by making the killers think he was him, by hiding all photos of the two and acting as their target. And Francella is amazing in the scene because he doesn't show fear, though the gravity of the situation is immediate in his reaction, there instead this extremely moving determination in his eyes as he goes about defending his friend in his last act. And if that was not haunting enough to contemplate, we have the finale of the mystery. First where Morales tries to set the record straight by telling Benjamin that he killed Isidoro years ago, having tracked him down because he knew he was looking for Benjamin. Rago's delivery has this vicious specificity of it as he explains his method but still this exact clarity. It is almost as if we've known Morales, but not entirely. And it is this whole brilliantly performed bit that earns Benjamin thinking back to all of Morales's words to check back to Morales once again to find that Isidoro is dead, but has in fact been imprisoned by Morales for years. Rago doesn't have a long moment in this scene but is absolutely haunting and we see the truth of the man entirely again. As we don't see vicious revenge, but this calm determination of duty as he dutifully completes the man's sentence for the death of the wife he adored so deeply. Both performances represent the strengths of the film, with Rago giving such specific yet soulful depiction of a revenge defined by love rather than hate, and Francella in a way being able to embody the very different successful tones of the film, being the loveable "sidekick" but also the heartbreaking hero. 

(Rago)

36 comments:

Matt Mustin said...

I liked them both quite a bit. Don't know if I'm feeling a 5 for Francella necessarily right now, but looking at this review again, they both should at least be 4.5s for me. Supporting performance from the film that left the biggest impression on me though was Godino. It is an amazing film though.

8000S said...

Louis: Thoughts on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIeSHPUNE7M

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Which 8 non-english films from 2023 are you most looking forward to.

Louis Morgan said...

8000's:

Uhh, he's certainly yelling.

Luke:

Zone of Interest
Monster
Perfect Days
Anatomy of a Fall
Cobweb (even though it didn't get amazing reviews)
Close Your Eyes
Fallen Leaves
The Boy and The Heron

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Would Bastarden (The Promised Land) be of any interest.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

I mean I'm typically only truly uninterested in banal bad films, so a Mads Mikkelsen led film I'm probably going to be interested in.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Thoughts on these Seinfeld performances?

Heidi Swedberg
Barney Martin
Liz Sheridan
Len Lesser

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Finished watching the first season of The White Lotus. It was overall quite enjoyable with the biggest problem being the writing behind certain characters. Nevertheless I'm excited to see what season 2 has to offer.

1. Jake Lacy
2. Murray Bartlett
3. Alexandria Daddario - 4
4. Steve Zahn
5. Brittany O'Grady
6. Sydney Sweeney
7. Connie Britton
8. Natasha Rotwell - 3.5
9. Kekoa Scott Kekumano
10. Jolene Purdy
11. Molly Shannon
12. Jennifer Coolidge
13. Fred Hechinger
14. Jon Gries - 3
15. Lukas Gage - 2.5

8000S said...

Louis: Thoughts on the "Blue Cat Blues" Tom and Jerry cartoon?

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Would you be interested in checking out The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel? It's quite refreshing in terms of its ability to balance comedy with drama without becoming too sentimental or self-serious, and being genuinely well-directed.

Louis Morgan said...


Tony:

Swedberg - (It was said that she was removed because her comedic timing wasn't quite there, and I do think that's fair. Because she was less straight man and more so mostly *there* though I don't think she was bad. She did plus a scene though, she just didn't minus them either and facilitated Alexander enough but didn't truly amplify him.)

Martin - (One of the best recurring performers on the show, as he always managed to be hilarious as Jerry's dad, and did his own thing successfully away from the rest of the cast. This hits this sort of very specific comedy that was interesting as he was not based on any kind of anxiety just being overly specific. And in being overly specific he was hilarious with his tinting being expert with the most random lines "tell him to eat a plumb" "Smart like a computer", or everything in his brief conflict with Peterman. I honestly always thought he was in more episodes because he leaves such a strong impression when he was.)

Sheridan - (Here's kind of an example of what Swedberg should've been doing as she managed to be mainly straight in her performance but funny in that way, of facilitating Martin off, but occasionally her own moments such as her adamant declaration of "how can anyone not like you". But mainly just provided enough of the sort of eccentric mom without going too far, but also playing it straight as the loving mom that made the comedy often like every reaction when Elaine wanted her urine sample.)

Lesser - (I mean you just have to say hello to this performance. And again one where I would've thought he was in more episodes because of how essential Uncle Leo feels in a way. And frankly, Lesser gives one of the most accurate depictions of that relative who wants familial connection in the most badgering way possible. And Lesser is consistently hilarious in playing that note with the right balance again in being eccentric but never quite wacky as extreme as he would get occasionally. But always consistently funny.)

Well as per usual, it isn't something that I'm opposed to watching.

8000's:

I mean clearly where Lee Chang-dong got the inspiration for Peppermint Candy if we're being perfectly honest.

I mean one of the darkest concepts for a cartoon short I think of all time perhaps? Anyway, I do appreciate the non-typical Tom vs. Jerry routine, and there are some good gags like Tom as the poor romantic fool. And the final twist, is pretty great, even if absolutely pitch black.

Emi Grant said...

Louis: Your thoughts on Won Bin and Jin-Goo in Mother, if you're not saving them?

Robert MacFarlane said...

Louis: Since Amadeus is your favorite movie, I have to ask: How is Richard Frank not higher on the rankings? Surprised he’s not in the top 10 that year.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Your top 10 least favourite Simpsons episodes?

8000S said...

Louis: Don't you find it odd that Warner Brothers never had a movie with all three gangster stars, Bogart, Cagney and Robinson?

With how often Bogart made movies with either Cagney and Robinson, it's interesting how they never thought of having all three appear together in a movie.

Louis Morgan said...

Emi Grant:

Ask again in the results.

Robert:

Well it is not as though I have him buried in the ranking, he is in my top 20 after all, but I suppose I could be even more generous given I have nothing but affection for his work which is one of the best nearly purely reaction shot performances.

Tony:

Well just from what I've seen.

1. Gump Roast
2. Elementary School Musical
3. Bart-Mangled Banner
4. Barting Over
5. Politically Inept, With Homer Simpsson
6. Jaws Wired Shut
7. The Regina Monologues
8. Brawl in the Family
9. A Star Is Born Again
10. Homer of Seville

8000's:

I think it was a matter of timing, as sort of dual star films wasn't always the approach then. Cagney was only briefly not a star, so he and Robinson both became stars so them being in the same film became more difficult after Easy Money, basically the one time Cagney wasn't a star. On the other end Bogart was a character actor until 41, which is why he was in films with both, as the character actor. This became less strict later on, but then I think it just never naturally came together.

Although for theoretics one could imagine Cagney and Robinson as the other two "angels" in We're No Angels, which might've made that film better.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your thoughts on South Park's 'Elementary School Musical'?

Tony Kim said...

Louis: If it's not too much trouble, your quick thoughts on the above Simpsons episodes? I have to say I'm a bit surprised by your inclusion of Jaws Wired Shut and A Star is Born-Again, which I thought were more middling than outright bad.

Louis Morgan said...

Tahmeed:

Kind of an "okay" episode as their musical performance at the end is funny, and the football dad as the theater dad is also kind of amusing. Feels like they could've gone further one way or another with the idea, as it just is amusing enough.

Tony:

I mean my thoughts will be basically always the same. Messy story structure, unfunny jokes, characters are now wacky, nearly zero emotional stakes. Gump Roast is just a particularly bad clip show though I guess.

Partly this is basically the episodes I've actually seen post-13, but I genuinely hate Jaws Wired Shut, for the complete madlib mess of a story, every development is totally random. Found the bits with the jaw wired completely unfunny, I especially hated the "view" parody, and found the demolition derby a terrible climax.

A Star is Born falls into the tonal problem of the entire series of later seasons, where it is too goofy to ever deal with anything seriously, yet is never funny in its goofiness. Found that to be the case there, I also just hate later Flanders, almost as much as I hate later Homer and Moe.

BRAZINTERMA said...

Hello Louis and folks!
Let's talk about some 2009 movie translations in non-English speaking countries. The names that were in Brazil were:

Mother = Mother - The Search For Truth
The Hurt Locker = War on Terror
Up in the Air = Nonstop Love
Up = Up - High Adventures
The Blind Side = A Possible Dream
Precious = Precious - A Story of Hope
A Single Man = Right to Love
The Lovely Bones = A Look From Paradise
Bright Star = Shine of a Passion
About Elly = Looking For Elly
City of Life and Death = City of Disenchantment
The Brothers Bloom = The Swindlers
Mary & Max = Mary & Max: A Different Friendship
Nowhere Boy = The Liverpool Boy
(500) Days of Summer = (500) Days With Her
The Hangover = If You Drink, Don't Marry
Funny People = What Are You Laughing At?
Away We Go = Far We Go
Whatever Works = Everything Can Go Right
The International = International Plot
Bad Lieutenant = Frantic Addiction (Kept the same name with the 1992 film by Abel Ferrara)

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Well, that reminds me of what you've said regarding The Joy of Sect and Trash of the Titans, in that they both feature problems that much of later Simpsons suffer from (increased absurdity, Jerkass Homer, lack of emotional stakes) but you're able to enjoy those episodes despite that. Do you think the reason for this is as simple (and arguably subjective) as the jokes just being funnier, or do you think there is a greater purpose to such elements being incorporated in those episodes?

You've also criticized absurd moments like the Prisoner parody in Joy of Sect - what makes a gag like that different for you from, say, the It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World homage in Homer the Vigilante? Despite being a S9 ep, Sect was actually produced by David Mirkin, who ran much of seasons 5 and 6; do you think you might perceive the episode differently had it been included somewhere during those seasons?

I'm sorry if these questions seem more interrogative than usual, it's just that I've lately been thinking about the decline of the show and how some of what we criticize newer episodes for can be seen - to a lesser degree - in classic entries (celebrity guest stars, absurdity, messy structure, etc). What I'm curious about is what exactly saves those episodes from seriously suffering from such problems, and if there are reasons beyond more straightforward ones like the writers just being better back then, the humour being seen as more revolutionary in the context of both the series and TV sitcoms, etc.

Matt Mustin said...

Tony: No offense, but I think the differences between classic Simpsons and modern Simpsons has been discussed to an exhausting degree, both here and many other places.

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

Well they are just funnier to me, but I do also think the story structure is a bit stronger as are the plots. I mean Jaws Wired Shut's first act plot is that a theater is having too many previews...which seems like the type of bad television plot earlier seasons would've parodied.

And I'll say the two gags ARE very different to me, because of how far you tip in one direction or another can be all the difference. Driving through a billboard with a plane is pretty crazy, but isn't science fiction, which the orb from the prisoner is. The former is also balanced by the plot of a cat burglar being relatively realistic on a basic level, and with at least basic emotional stakes (Homer trying to protect his family/getting Lisa her sax back). Joy of Sect on the other hand is already fairly ridiculous concept at a basic plot level (though at least it does have some basis in reality unlike say elf Jockeys), so adding any more absurdity makes it go off the deep end. I have no perception based on when the episodes are positioned, just the quality of the work. The same creative can make great work and lesser work, just look at the career of any writer or director to see that.
.
Well again rare is it a single ingredient that defines the quality of something, but many, or how those ingredients are implemented. Take your examples.

Guest Stars - (Used to be done with purpose, but so many in later seasons boil down to "Hey I'm so and so". Even when overt, say the baseball players, there was a very specific purpose plot wise for the inclusion of the guest stars, or if it was just for a gag, the gags were better and usually made more sense.)

Absurdity - (Again I think there was less in general, but it is also always the implementation. Everything else was far more grounded, but also they usually were wiser in their use. For example, take Itchy and Scratchy land, the robots attacking is pretty absurd, however they build towards it the whole second half of the episode, then never tip it too far either. It also helps that the Simpsons themselves act in a more grounded way towards this, making it less absurd.)

Messy Structure - (Again, I think this was only really true for later seasons, earlier seasons are far tighter in terms of the development of their plots, where later seasons it is common to completely switch plots from act to act.)

And why is this? Well to be honest, the new writers weren't as good, and the formerly good writers ran out of great ideas, or at least out of steam. Any show that goes on for too long has a decline because there is only so much juice in a given idea, and when it becomes basically like a machine there is more than a little lost in the process.

Anonymous said...

Louis what are your thoughts on this? this might be my favorite SNL sketch just simply because of how cool it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwVh8pmOot4

Tony Kim said...

Matt: I wasn't trying to start a discussion on that particular topic so much as I was simply trying to explain why I was asking those questions in that way. I wasn't really expecting Louis to respond to the last part of my post, actually.

Louis: Understood, but I wasn't suggesting Mirkin is infallible so much as I simply view Sect as being very much of a piece w/r/t his sensibility in earlier seasons and so what you took issue with just didn't strike me as being that far afield. I agree with most of your points overall.

On the subject of things that Simpsons fans have debated for years, who do you think was more responsible for the downfall of Powell Motors - Homer or Herb?

Anonymous said...

Do we need this much discussion on The Simpsons, a show that has been bad much longer than it has been good?

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your updated top 10 TV episodes? You don't have to rank them.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Brazinterma: Here are some Polish titles.

The Brothers Bloom = The Incredible Brothers Bloom
A Perfect Getaway = Fear Island
Up = Flight
Cold Souls = Without Soul
500 Days of Summer = 500 Days of Love
Up in the Air = Up in the Clouds
The Lovely Bones = The Angel's Nostalgia
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus = Parnassus
Bright Star = Brighter Than Stars
The Hurt Locker = The Hurt Locker. In the Trap of War
Invictus = Invictus - The Unbeatable
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo = The Girl with the Tattoo (that's kinda anticlimactic)
The Informant! = The Schemer
My Sister's Keeper = Without My Approval
Into the Storm = In the Time of Storm (yes I'm including TV movies in this category)
Where the Wild Things Are = Where Do the Wild Creatures Live
In the Loop = Looped
The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler = Children of Irena Sendler
Big Fan = The Fan
Nowhere Boy = John Lennon. A Boy From Nowhere
The Hangover = Drunk Vegas

(also I see that things are heating up in the Simpsons fandom)

Marcus said...

Louis: How would you rank the following directors and why?

Martin Scorsese
Steven Spielberg
Francis Ford Coppola
Alfred Hitchcock
Stanley Kubrick

Anonymous said...

Could someone who is close to Louis tell me what the next year to look at after 2009?

Anonymous said...

Louis: My winning requests are:
Tatsuya Nakadai in Goyoki
Nicol Williamson and Alan Arkin in The Seven-Per-Cent Solution

Marcus said...

Anonymous: Maybe a year from the 50s based on Louis's usual pattern, but I don't know the exact year.

Anonymous said...

Marcus: I wish it will be 1958

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Your thoughts on this clip of Brian Cox discussing Titus Andronicus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yr4UV7nvGg

Anonymous said...

Louis: Your thoughts on these scenes https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Iu02kQAWE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=95sMEdYRufU

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

I always question how SNL would do multiples of a single joke sketch, in this case dancing stupidly to What is Love and acting like a creep, which is funny enough I suppose, though helped greatly by Jim Carrey offering his physical talents to this version, which I assume probably makes it the best iteration of the bit.

Tony:

Entirely Herb, Homer warned him, and Herb didn't provide even a hint of oversight. The fact that he didn't know how much the car cost proves it was all his fault. Herb wanted Homer to make the car he wanted, so Homer did, it's Herb's fault that he didn't cultivate it into something more marketable.

Tahmeed:

Ozymandias - Breaking Bad
The Castle - Fargo
All The Bells Say - Succession
Last Exit to Springfield - The Simpsons
Pine Barrens - The Sopranos
The Nightman Cometh - It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
Plan and Execution - Better Call Saul
Heart of Ice - Batman: The Animated Series
Vichnaya Pamyat - Chernobyl
Part 16 - Twin Peaks

Marcus:

Well, that's not fair.

Kubrick probably has the biggest advantage in that his worst films are his first two, and I always think one should be most generous towards a filmmaker when they're honing their craft. Although I'll say his more clinical films aren't the first I turn to and he does have fewer films to take from on the whole. I mean don't think Sergio Leone is the greatest filmmaker of all time (though I love his work), just because he only made one film that isn't well regarded. Spielberg, Scorsese, and Hitchcock are similar in that they're not writers/directors for the most part so less consistent in a certain sense but you can usually feel their touch even in their lesser films. Although I guess I can give point more to Hitchcock and Scorsese, in that I think Spielberg's trademarks can become grating when he's at his worst which isn't the case for the other two. But Spielberg also kind of invented what modern cinematic entertainment is, so. hard not to give him a lot of credit. Although the other two are proving greater longevity in terms of the strength of their output in a later period (though I don't hate late Hitchcock), though I was concerned with Spielberg for a bit, his last two films in particular have shown he's still got it. And then there's FFC, who has the greatest run of any filmmaker ever probably with his 70's output, as you could take these five and do a top five, and if four of the films were just his four from the '70s, you could make a strong argument for it. Conversely, though his 80's and 90s work is wildly inconsistent, and at its best doesn't touch his 70's work, and at its worst it's Jack... And to badmouth Scorsese, I guess, since I've been kindest to him, he...made Cape Fear and New York New York...sure. I guess he has the fewest films that are often broadly considered classics...I guess.

So by that I mean:

At their best:

1. Francis Ford Coppola
2. Martin Scorsese
3. Steven Spielberg
4. Stanley Kubrick
5. Alfred Hitchcock

At their Middling:

1. Alfred Hitchcock
2. Steven Spielberg
3. Martin Scorsese
4. Stanley Kubrick
5. Francis Ford Coppola

At Their Worst:

1. Stanley Kubrick
2. Alfred Hitchcock
3. Martin Scorsese
4. Francis Ford Coppola
5. Steven Spielberg

This gives us if we somewhat arbitrarily assign a point per ranked voting system of:

Scorsese - 10
Hitchcock - 10
Kubrick - 9
Coppola - 8
Spielberg - 8

Resulting in a final ranking of

1. Scorsese/Hitchcock
2. Kubrick
3. Spielberg/Coppola

Which I don't think clarifies much of anything honestly.

Tony:

Well, quite the captivating performance, easy to see why he won an Olivier for the role as he's a master of that speech. All I can say it's a shame we haven't gotten more Shakespeare from him onscreen. I'm sure Branagh wants to cast himself for Lear eventually, maybe he should forget all that, do it now, and get Cox to handle it.