James Gandolfini did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Carol in Where the Wild Things Are.
The titular place is filled with large creatures, however, the large creatures act more like children than large creatures or adults, though they are voiced by adults. The main creature played by James Gandolfini who was most famous for playing the very mature content related to Tony Soprano, and honestly, I wouldn't say this is hidden, as Gandolfini's vocal performance is closer to Tony Soprano than his actual voice, which is a bit fitting because in some ways Tony was nothing but an emotional infant. So really this casting makes perfect sense, even if it might be odd on paper, and it might seem odder in execution, though it is quite brilliant. And what makes it all work is Gandolfini's performance, which, much like his work as Tony Soprano oddly enough, makes a fairly despicable character likable. And one has to kind of wonder why. And yes Gandolfini is a charismatic performer, and I guess the incredible part here shows that his charisma comes through even when just being a voice within a "wild thing". And Gandolfini plays the most childish of the Wild Things, and as Carol, Gandolfini is wonderfully childish, to say the least. You just instantly understand this fact, and is also strangely disarming immediately, despite his character going around destroying things when we first meet him. And what is going with him is kind of this perfect depiction of petulance, in a way that is very bizarrely endearing, if you'd probably hate having to interact with a Carol in real life. Gandolfini though brings anger into his voice, but that anger is just always mixed with a child's vulnerability, even though he doesn't hide the age in an obvious way, he captures the spirit of a child's emotion so tangibly. And there is something special about the way Gandolfini so naturally flows and there is a beautiful purity in the moments where he is speaking the excitement of Carol as Max brings new games. He's just as honest though in his meek shyness when he tries to encourage another of the wild things, who he clearly likes, to stick around. Gandolfini is great because he's everything a child can be in terms of emotion, in that it can be very sweet, very endearing, very moving, but also in a way dangerous if not entirely caustic. Gandolfini though is all of these things, so naturally, and in such a way that you just understand him. He's great in the big expressions, but the quiet ones such as wanting a place where only what you what to happen happens, Gandolfini's performance captures this poignant sense of the comfort anyone may seek, however, especially a child. Gandolfini is great in making the way Carol is all over the place, which includes loving Max one second and then wanting to eat him the next, wholly logical in this way of a child's logic. It is genuinely a moving performance because Gandolfini never winks once, never once seems to say "Hey look I'm Tony Soprano in a kid's movie", he rather seeks to truly articulate all the vulnerabilities, all the difficulties of a child who can control their emotions, in a way that grants a real empathy to what is really in so many ways a mess of irrational thought. Gandolfini's work I think more than any other aspect of the film, realizes its specific ideas of truly exploring a kid's logic in a way that dances around absurdities, but also remains very true and almost covertly heartfelt. And while at the time, Gandolfini wouldn't have been the first person you'd expect in this film, he made himself essential to the film, and showed yet another aspect of his considerable talent that we saw all too briefly.
37 comments:
Ratings and thoughts on the rest of the cast.
Yes! It’s such astonishing voice work in how he managed to convey so much childishness without “changing” his voice or sounding cloying. Carol could have turned into some Baloo-type supporting character, but Gandolfini and Jones found so much complexity and dimension.
Can I just say...it's really cool to see vocal performances making their way into these reviews. Some just grab you with a specific tone or power, like Wagner Moura before this, and Tony Jay before that.
Obviously there's a viable field for these sorts of performances (animation, games, what have you), but again, seeing them be analyzed on a site normally reserved for live action is pretty interesting.
I hope Levi Stubbs gets a review for Little Shop. I recently did a deep dive into the various productions and recordings of the show, and none of the other plant voices have as high of a laugh ratio. His readings are funnier, weirder, and with just the right level of androgyny.
Louis: Your thoughts on these scenes https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Iu02kQAWE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=95sMEdYRufU
Always love a surprise review, even moreso when it's a vocal performance. This film seems right up my alley too.
Just finished watching "Stand By Me"..... LOVED IT!!!! Hadn't watched it in years. MAN, River Phoenix was a TALENT!!! He is an easy 5 for me here. So much heart in his performance. Way too lived in for someone that age. Had a great time honestly.
Louis: Slightly old news, but any thoughts on the TCA Awards winners?
Also, thoughts on this David Lynch short? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7EJwCr5Yew
Haven't seen WTWTA, but the premise of Gandolfini as a kid-friendly Tony Soprano alone makes me want to watch this.
Louis: Your thoughts on the Lonely Island skit 'Jack Sparrow' with Michael Bolton?
https://youtu.be/GI6CfKcMhjY
Perfectionist: Yeah, Phoenix is wonderful there.
Louis: Is it possible for O'Toole to go up slightly for The Ruling Class?
Great performance.
Louis: Thoughts on Spike Jonze as a director?
Louis: Could Josh Brolin get reviewed along with Gene Jones for No Country for Old Men?
Louis: Thoughts on the Maestro trailer.
Louis: Aside from the idea of Jimmy Stewart as Bernie Rose, I've also seen people who suggesting Spencer Tracy as Dudley Smith for a 50's L.A. Confidential.
What are your thoughts on that idea? For a 50's L.A. Confidential, it's important to not pick James Cagney as Dudley Smith because you know, his iconic gangster leading roles and stuff.
Louis: When it comes to ranking/assessing directorial achievements, how much more technical do you have to be compared to how you feel about a movie's more subjective qualities? (i.e. acting, or how much it impacts you emotionally). Asking this because it's often something I struggle to separate when discussing or reviewing films.
Luke:
Ambrose - 4(Her vocal work is very interesting in essentially somewhat the most mature, yet there are some childlike elements of her work regardless. Her work though has a certain nuance about the way she carries this sort of confidence mixed in with a retiring shyness. Offering a protective parental quality among the creatures, while also still creating a sense of childlike quality, as she manages to be less the parent and kind of the big sister who doesn't always want to engage in the same nonsense as the rest.)
Cooper - 3.5(I mean it is really all about his delivery of "that was my favorite arm" and his kind of reveal of the truth of it all without it really being anything at all. Cooper's delivery is straightforward, bluntly straightforward in just the right way.)
Whitaker - 3(Kind of leaves the least impression among the group but he's still completely fine.)
O'Hara - 3.5(In a certain sense most plays up the "monster" qualities, while also being kind of a wild child energy that once again wholly works in treading the lines.)
Dano - 3.5(The most obviously petulant always harping on "fairness" of the game, but there is a way of Dano so sincerely delivering every line to the point you do eventually feel bad for him constantly getting picked on.)
Berry - 3(I'd say the design does most of the work, but certainly still delivers.)
Anonymous:
I think what the show does well with Kreese is they give him more depth without making him good. And in this scene, you get that where he has an explanation for everything, that even might have logic or seeming purpose to it, but he's still coming from a place of conflict. And Kove's very good in the scene because he doesn't open up that much (to the point you know when he is manipulating rather than being completely honest), he alludes to only some vulnerability which feels much more honest to the character of Kreese. The scene itself, I think works, though the big swing of the young Johnny sells just slightly short because of the effect being somewhat distracting though the idea of it is great. The second scene, a wonderful choice of song, to the point you know it is set up immediately, though in the right way to sort put himself back in as the final antagonist.
Tony:
I mean from what I've seen fine choices, good to see Seehorn in particular win something at least somewhere.
Magnificently creepy because Lynch's ability to recreate sort of the earliest type of film, is extremely successful so when something doesn't quite fit in with the typical Edison company stuff, it is particularly unnerving.
Tahmeed:
I mean I haven't seen since I reviewed him, aka one of my earliest reviews, so maybe.
Marcus:
I'll say whether this was the specific purpose, for me is a hilarious, albeit extreme version, for sort of the rap ballad, where the rap portion and the ballad portions don't exactly cohere, though in this version they are to an extreme here.
Razor:
Well, first can we all take a moment and ponder why he hasn't made a feature in ten years? Did he just want to prove he could do it without Charlie Kaufman and then call it a day? Anyway, Jonze's specialty seems to be in the construction of worlds though kind of in very atypical ways, as all four of his films are some kind of non-reality. And each, even though I actually don't love the often most popular in "Being John Malkovich" his vision is successful in crafting a distinct sense of place, where that is a strange building or the mind of Malkovich, the place between a writer and truth of Adaptation, the titular place in this film or the near future of Her.
And if you compare it to Kaufman's fully-directed films, Jonze's touch seems to be to make them a bit more approachable, and often I think that is just how he shoots scenes of actors with great purposeful intimacy, whereas Kaufman likes to stand back and allow the squirm. Not that one is right or wrong in itself, but certainly different, and I would say again comparing his input I think was to bring more overt empathy, a least traditional, and then his solo effort, writing-wise, in Her was all about very specific care and empathy and couldn't be more loving in his depiction of a man with a machine. The other aspect I'd say was the use of his humor is a bit more overt, and in a sense welcoming, than Kaufman and in a way more mainstreaming. And I wouldn't say this is better or worse than Kaufman's approach, but you do see what Jonze's input was.
Ytrewq:
Well, he will be relegated to lead after finding out how dominant his screen time actually is over Jones and Bardem, but we'll see.
Luke:
Looks more focused on the relationship than I had expected, so it seems like Mulligan probably will be the lead then, which is fine. What I took more than anything from it was that is quite visually striking and as much as I don't always love Libatique, this was quite striking to say the very least. A good first foot forward.
8000's:
Well of course not Cagney, that's why Barry Fitzgerald is the correct choice.
Tahmeed:
Well, I will say that is where I perceive the difference between sort of picture/director in part. Picture/#1 of the year to me is the easier choice because I think that film should be whatever film sort of had the most complete/strongest reaction to you overall, and as an experience hit you the hardest in whatever specific way the film was intending to do so. That is 100% subjective and it should be.
Director, I do think one should try to be somewhat more objective, though often about subjective things, though some things are less so, and there are those who argue every facet of a film is subjective, again I don't think that's entirely true as one can identify say a blurry short over a non-blurry shot. And that is often an excuse to hate something wholeheartedly and not even give minor credit where it's due. Although that also shouldn't be misused particularly when some take an imperious approach, like declaring a performance/film as an objective best.
Anyway, with the direction I think you should try to look at what sort of vision intention with every aspect of a film and whether were they successful in achieving their vision and two was that vision appropriate to the story/subject matter. The first half I think you can recognize with a degree of objectivity, the second half will speak to that "impact" you mentioned and really is subjective. For example, I think Darren Aronofsky 100% made the film/experience he was seeking to make with Mother! I just hate everything about that. I wouldn't though say his directing was the worst of the year because I do think that half of achieving the vision was successful (the objective half) while the subjective of me liking it or thinking it was the way to tell this story (or to even bother than story) would keep it from anywhere near a best-directed film.
Now speaking to the first half, that in itself I do think has some objectivity, in terms of editing, shot choice, consistency in production values, and even the acting strangely enough. Now the third point is probably going to lean towards more subjective, but I do think one can try to be objective in looking at if there is consistency in performance, which is very much where you see the director's hand is probably the most obvious with acting. For example, I think a bad bit of directing in Spotlight is Mark Ruffalo's performance, not just because I think Ruffalo is bad (he is) but because his performance is a stylistic showboating turn in a film that was otherwise acted with a subdued reality by Tom McCarthy. And that performance is not only conflicting with my enjoyment of the film, it is also a break in the vision McCarthy seems to be trying to cultivate within the film.
So in short, I personally think when assessing directing, there are aspects of it that one should be objective about, but even then it is up until a point. Did they achieve their vision or not successfully? Again still a grey area, but I will contend there is some objectivity there. Did you personally like that vision, that's on you therefore subjective.
Jesus. You go on vacation for a week and then this happens ...
R.I.P. William Friedkin and Arthur Schmidt
Louis: What are your thoughts on Laurence Olivier in Clash of the Titans? I notice he's relatively low in the ranking that year.
Louis: Your past roles for Jeremy Allen White, Ayo Edebiri, and Ebon Moss-Bachrach.
Also, have you been watching any new TV shows lately?
Tony: Not exactly what you asked, but the Safdies should definitely cast White in their films. Has a very 70's lead screen presence, and think he'd do really well as Ratso in Midnight Cowboy in particular.
Tony: Not a past role, but I always thought White would be a good choice to play Ric Flair (then again he's gonna appear as Kerry Von Erich in The Iron Claw, so that casting choice of mine is not going to happen).
So, I've been watching The Bear, and I just got to "Fishes". Maybe it's my Community bias, but I actually think Jacobs was MVP of that episode. Her scene with Ebon Moss-Bachrach was probably the warmest I've seen on the show, and so unexpectedly moving in an episode with as much chill as Uncut Gems and Whiplash combined.
Louis: retro casting choices for Greta Lee? For some reason I could see her excelling in Ellen Burstyn in the 70s kind of roles, I'm thinking Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore especially.
And yes, this indicates I have seen Past Lives and I loved it as much as you all would imagine.
Oh, and Gandolfini is wonderful here, glad to see his high rating.
Louis: Thoughts on 'Tennessee' from Pearl Harbor (Another film I doubt you have any desire to watch).
Louis: Your thoughts on this article? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/movies/tiktok-movie-reviews-critics.html
Louis: Your thoughts on "The Yankee Doodle Mouse", "Mouse Trouble", "Mouse in Manhattan", "Heavenly Puss", "The Cat Concerto".
Louis: Who do you think are the 10 most severe examples of actors/actresses who only seem to be giving worthwhile performances when working with their favorite director? To provide some background, I decided to ask this after combing through the filmographies of Michael Biehn and Michael Madsen.
Louis: your thoughts on the "The Cat Concerto"-"Rhapsody Rabbit" controversy?
Tim: They're practically the same short, but Tom and Jerry did it better.
Louis: Your thoughts on this South Park bit?
https://youtu.be/m1JakODvYhA
Hey Louis
Today Robert De Niro turns 80!
To celebrate, name your Top 10 Best Performances of his career:
1. Ranging Bull
2. The Deer Hunter
3. The Irishman
4. Goodfellas
5. The Kong of Comedy
6. The Godfather Part II
7. Mean Streets
8. Midnight Run (this deserves a review in the Backlog)
9. Taxi Driver
10. Once Upon a Time in America
Hopefully in Killers of the Flower Moon he gets another 5 from Louis. It would be a good duel with Downey Jr.
Matt:
I don't think he's phoning it in, but I don't think he's exactly giving it his all. He's kind of giving just "enough" in every scene, and while I don't think he's bad, it isn't exactly Olivier at anywhere near his best.
Tony:
I'm behind on most shows at the moment, including the ones I typically watch like "Only Murders" and "What We Do in the Shadows".
White:
Ratso (Great choice Tahmeed)
Sal Naturile
Jack Terry
Moss-Bachrach:
Mr. Grey
Jimmy Fingers
Dave Moss
Edebiri:
Little Dorrit (Iannucci style)
Natalie Keener
Lena Younger
Calvin:
I could certainly see that.
Otherwise:
Susy Hendrix
Jane Craig
Luke:
Well, I should probably watch it at some point due to its sound win but not in a hurry.
I'll be honest sounds like a less powerful rendition of Journey to the Line.
8000's:
Well, let's just talk Cat Concerto, which you could say is an improvement over Rhapsody Rabbit with the accurate piano and what not, though I definitely prefer Bugs Bunny's smug face, however, I think you have to give the credit to Rhapsody because the sketch is almost the same beat for beat, and it was the one that actually came up with the bits.
Ytrewq:
I wouldn't *quite* agree on Biehn because I'd contend he was good in The Rock and Tombstone. Madsen's very on point though.
Here are a few where a favored collaboration is by far their best work, but I wouldn't call them all "worthless" outside of it necessarily.
Penelope Cruz (Pedro Almodovar)
Derek Jacobi (Kenneth Branagh)
Simon Pegg (Edgar Wright)
Tahmeed:
I will say deep behind the bit is a bit of Parker/Stone's nihilism that gets more tiresome the older you get, but the bit itself around the form of "friend" is pretty hilarious.
Tony:
Quite the depressing read, but just one example of the growing culture in general that favors the quick reaction over the nuanced one. And yes, the studio-supported "subjective" reactions are extremely questionable, however shilling has always been a thing, it's shame that it has become more popular than actual criticism. But it falls into this odd thing where often I see people accusing someone of having a "biased" review simply for criticizing, and the whole idea of what a critique actually is has become painfully skewed.
Post a Comment