Tuesday, 22 August 2023

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2009: Paul Schneider in Bright Star

Paul Schneider did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning NSFC, for portraying Charles Armitage Brown in Bright Star. 

Paul Schneider seems perhaps an actor best outside of the modern world, where his performances seem to make less of an impression, then when crafting a man of a specific time. Just as he was convincing as an outlaw of the old American west in The Assassination of Jesse James, he is even more convincing as a businessman and writer in London during 1818. Trickier I suppose is he's also specifically a Scottish businessman and writer, an accent often butchered, but Schneider merely makes himself seem a Scottish actor all along, as if one were to only listen to his performance without seeing it you might think it were Ewan McGregory in the part of Brown, aka a genuine Scotsman. And while I have often stated that the importance  of accent work can be overstated at times, when one truly thrives with it, it is something well worth noting which is the case here as Schneider's accent makes you just instantly accept his Brown as a man of the period of this place, and just you'd never guess that Schneider was a California born actor, which is most impressive. Schneider's first appearance sets up what will be Brown from the point of view of Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish) who views him as a bit of an overly critical rogue. And Schneider owns this idea and brandishes, even as he insists he wasn't as critical towards her way of dress as presumed, he still puts a bit of criticism even in that. Schneider is wonderful as even his body language here is so very specific in the lack of stiffness in his performance as he arches over his tea. And even in conflict of sorts Schneider's reaction creates a man who loves the idea of it and there is such a sense of delight. As such Schneider has a roguish charm in the way that he presents Brown's manner, that is very direct for the time in particular, as something that he relishes in his methods, even though it doesn't win everyone's favor. Schneider in fact reacts so wonderfully as Fanny is as sharp tongued and in her attack on his writing, Schneider's faux shock suggests a man who lives for the verbal sparring. Schneider creates a man who very much exists in this state as a kind of lifeblood for himself. 

Schneider's performance is an essential sort of bit of id within the film that is so reserved otherwise, including our central characters of potential lovers of Fanny and John Keats (Ben Whishaw), where Brown exists as a certain barrier between the two being able to come together. And every scene that Schneider is in offers a bit of a very distinct energy within this film, because he is so sharp in every sense with his cynical and often irreverent manner. His position is interesting because Brown is Keats's best friend and how he relates to the potential couple is a source of conflict though not in really an obvious way. Schneider brings that chaotic energy that feeds some source of tension, while also being just entertaining within himself by so naturally creating really an alternative sort of man to the period, while not feeling anachronistic from the period. And I think a reason for that is Schneider's performance does evolve, as much as early on he seems there just for that cutting remark that constantly breaks up the potential romantic tension. In the scene when Fanny makes it quite clear she will not be turned off, and that Keats is receptive to this, Schneider presents the inherent burden of jealousy of losing the time with his friend at his beckon call. Internalizing the frustration so effectively, even while his delivery still maintains this certain blunt disdain that at a certain point begins to fake the irreverence. And Schneider modulates his performance to become more pointed towards Fanny and in general his emotions he begins to wear more evidently on sleeve. And Schneider's particularly effective in playing off the emotions and even his vulnerability regarding the importance of his friendship that in his expression denote someone who to a degree begins desperately holding onto it even while trying to maintain his expected manner. And Schneider is excellent in the moment of "warning" Keats more directly, where he couches everything in less cynicism and brings the nervous energy of essentially losing his companion to the situation. 

And Schneider's work finds well the complications of Brown, because as Keats health worsens, the genuine concern in the moment is honest, but he is as much despicable in again his nearly petulant insistence on being the one to take care of Keats. Schneider so naturally segues between the qualities, and we see the way the man kind of loses his power of disregard as the story proceeds. This includes when Brown's sort of roguish manner becomes more obvious when he impregnates a servant woman Abigail, and tries to dodge guilt. Schneider's lying again is so artfully done because he tells the truth by seeing that typical confidence of the character so absent even as he is able to articulate his lies Schneider shows that Brown himself isn't able to entirely believe them. And Schneider is terrific in bringing so much humanity to his faults, I love in particular the scene where he shoos off Abigail during a public discussion where his expression is this remarkable mix of shame while also still having a lack of shame all at the same time. Schneider's work creates such a wonderfully flawed person, who you can write as the villain of the piece, always complicated is he. No moment expresses this better than after he's sent Keats off alone to Italy, and Fanny calls Brown on not being there for his friend. Schneider is amazing in the scene because everything about him is this defense, even his physical manner towards Fanny at first seems to move to avoid her too directly, until she insists on his failure as a friend. Schneider's initial delivery still being this way of the man dodging the truth, trying to obfuscate the truth but in her persistence Brown fully grants the truth. His repeated delivery of "I failed John Keats" is incredible work by Schneider as in every repetition the guilt and the heartbreak reveal themselves more completely, and more painfully, and as much as Brown remains a failure as a friend, we see that deep down he did care, even if that was not enough. And there is a real odd power to Schneider's portrait of a deeply flawed man, where he finds a strange poignancy by so naturally revealing those human flaws even when his repetance remains so tragically limited. 

70 comments:

Matt Mustin said...

I've seen him in I think two things. Parks and Rec, where he's just less than fine, and Jesse James, where he's really quite good. I should check this out.

Robert MacFarlane said...

This dude needs a resurgence. He had a promising career as a go-to prestige character actor, and an NBC sitcom killed his momentum. We need to get Del Toro to cast him whenever he plans on doing a costume drama.

(Also, this film has one my favorite credits ever: A special thanks to Mr. Schneider's Accent Coach.)

Bryan L. said...

I’d also it’s more of that NBC sitcom not really knowing how to use him, since Parks & Rec as a whole was definitely a critics darling. It seemed like they were trying to make him the Jim Halpert of the show (both The Office & PR share creative DNA), but didn’t fully commit to that idea. Most likely why he left to try to restart his film career.

Bryan L. said...

*I’d also say

Matt Mustin said...

It's on him mostly, he seems to not really want to do much of anything.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Yeah, I do remember an interview he did a while ago how he feels pretty jaded about Hollywood. Though he’s been taking more roles the last few years, so I guess he needs the money.

Anonymous said...

Louis what would be your cast for a Peter Bogdonavich biopic.

Michael McCarthy said...

As someone who adores Parks & Rec, here’s my take on Paul Schneider’s performance and character in it: It wasn’t bad, it was just wrong for THAT show. It belonged in a much dryer comedy, something like Veep for instance.

Calvin Law said...

He's spectacular. Loved that critics went to bat for his performance here, would've loved to have seen him get in over any of the nominees not named Christoph Waltz.

Matt Mustin said...

Michael: Yeah, what he was doing would totally fit in on Veep, good call.

Robert MacFarlane said...

So I saw A.I. Artificial Intelligence for the first time, and I think I’m going to be an emotional wreck for the rest of the week. Years ago I would have had some cynical gripe or nitpick, but this fucking broke me. And Frances O’Connor should’ve gotten every goddamn Supporting Actress award. Yet another film where critics from 2001 had no appreciation for when they had a great thing on their hands.

Shaggy Rogers said...

Hey guys
Update on my Top 10 prediction of Louis' supporting actor in 2009:
1. Waltz
2. Schneider
3. Morgan
4. Haley
5. Melamed
6. Rago
7. Francella
8. Capaldi
9. Arestrup
10. Gandolfini

Luke Higham said...

Shaggy: It was Francella who got the 5. If it was Rago, he would've been chosen for the prediction contest. Same with Bencherif and Arestrup.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Louis: Do you intend to watch the upcoming reboot of Frasier?

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Well I think you could focus on his rise and semi-fall, through both his romantic relatioships and his relationship to film, both as the art form and personified by his relationship with old Hollywood (particularly Welles). I think you could kind of frame it from his start as the fan to when he's rooming in Tarantino's guest house, which couldn't be more fitting as Tarantino can be seen as kind of his successor (or perhaps usurper) as the cinephile turned wunderkind filmmaker.

Bogdonavich: Paul Dano
Polly Platt: Britt Lower
Cybil Shepherd: Sydney Sweeney
Dorothy/Louise Stratten: Elle Fanning
Orson Welles: Robert Downey Jr. (For some reason I think if he went full Chaplin he could pull it off, I also wouldn't go Burke or McKay, because I think you'd need someone with a bigger innate presence for the story.)
Billy Wilder: Mark Rylance
John Ford: David Lynch
Howard Hawks: Peter Weller
Alfred Hitchcock: Ian McNiece
Boris Karloff: Charles Dance
Ben Johnson: Anthony Edwards
Cloris Leachman: Toni Collette
Ellen Burstyn: Amanda Seyfried
Eileen Brennan: Carrie Coon
Ryan O'Neal: Austin Butler
Burt Reynolds: Chris Evans
Ben Gazzara: Luke Kirby
Quentin Tarantino: Harry Melling

Ytrewq:

Probably not, the lack of Pierce/Niles is particularly concerning, unless it gets stellar reviews, which would surprise me.

Marcus said...

Louis: What films do you think could be considered the 'Great American Film', the same way Gatsby is considered to be that for novels?

Louis Morgan said...

Marcus:

Well if we're talking great films where kind of the perceived values/ideals of America are a predominant theme then:

The Godfather
The Godfather Part 2
There Will Be Blood
Citizen Kane
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
It's a Wonderful Life
Badlands
Rocky
The Right Stuff
All the President's Men

Shaggy Rogers said...

Luke: Ooops. What a fault of mine.
So my ranking remains the same, it just changes the positions of the actors mentioned.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Louis: You’re forgetting Roger Corman in there.

Shaggy Rogers said...

Robert: Audrey Hepburn and Jeff Bridges too

Robert MacFarlane said...

Also, the ideal Welles for that era is David Harbour. If you’ve never seen Frankenstein’s Monster’s Monster, Frankenstein, skip to the part where he goes on a monologue about acting.

Louis Morgan said...

Robert & Shaggy:

Corman and Bridges are indeed essential, not sure Hepburn would be necessarily, I think from that film's cast it sounds like John Ritter would be more important in terms of the relationship with Bogdonavich, but regardless:

Corman: Michael Shannon
Bridges: Nick Robinson
Hepburn: Embeth Davidtz
John Ritter: Jack Lowden
Hugh Hefner: Billy Crudup

I'll have to check that out regarding Harbour.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: I don't mean to sound oblivious, but could you explain why you skipped responding to the Slings & Arrows songs I posted earlier? I've seen you give thoughts on original music/title sequences from TV shows you haven't seen before.

Also, thoughts on this Denis Villeneuve short film? https://vimeo.com/75251217

8000S said...

Louis: Your cast for a Kurosawa version of Crime and Punishment.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Louis: Who would be your choice for the role of John Huston (for the purpose of scenes involving the production of The Other Side of the Wind) and the director of the Bogdanovich biopic?

Matt Mustin said...

Dune Part Two has been delayed to next year.

RatedRStar said...

RIP WWE wrestler Bray Wyatt, I know he was ill but wow I did not expect this.

RatedRStar said...

Weirdly enough, I don't feel as bad about Dune Part Two being delayed as I might have, maybe because I was somewhat worried that it would just win every tech category just like when it dominated in that 22 ceremony, but I might have been wrong.

RatedRStar said...

I guess I'm not really a fan of when one film dominates the Oscars, unless its the Lawrence of Arabia/Return of the King type where its a masterpiece that should win everything.

Matt Mustin said...

Dune deserved all those tech wins, though, but that's not the point.

RatedRStar said...

Matt Mustin: I do agree that it did deserve them but I think you know what I mean.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Your reasoning for casting Sydney Sweeney, Luke Kirby, Amanda Seyfried, and Harry Melling in those roles? I'm particularly curious about the first two as I don't believe you've seen either of them in much (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

Matt Mustin said...

Melling is PERFECT for Tarantino.

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

I sometimes miss comments, particularly when they are just before a new comment from me responding to other comments.

Masterful asethetic from the food, to the makeup, to the costumes, the cinematography and especially the sound, as you can see the attention to detail of slightly later Villeneuve that is less obvious in his later work. In fact it is easy to see this as kind of bridge between low budget and high budget Villeneuve. I wouldn't say it is much more than a technical exercise but quite eye catching as such.

Ytrewq:

Personally I'd say the focal points in terms of productions would be Targets Last Picture Show, Saint Jack, At Long Last Love, They All Laughed, (though the latter two would mostly be the fallout of each) with maybe snippets of others. I'm not sure The Other Side of the Wind would factor in too much. But regardless just make it easy and get Danny Huston.

Not sure on director I might've said Chazelle if I hadn't seen Babylon. I think whoever you get would need to strike a very specific balance, as I think it would be easy to get too nostalgic or punitive, and you'd need a balance between the elements to show both his failings and his achievements for the story to work.

8000's:

If late 40's.

Raskolnikov: Toshiro Mifune
Sonya: Machiko Kyo
Razumikhin: Minoru Chiaki
Dunya: Miki Sanjo
Luzhin: Reisaburo Yamamoto
Svidrigailov: Masayuki Mori
Petrovich: Takashi Shimura

Matt:

I am not pleased by this.

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

Sweeney - (I have techincally seen her bit part in OUTIH, however I've been in the room while Europhia has been watched by others on two occasions, and I'll admit my exact knowledge of her specific talents is relatively limited, however you need a specific, for the lack of a better term, "va va va voom" for Shepherd at that time, and from what I've seen she certainly has that, while also having at least a vague resemblance.)

Kirby - (I've seen No Man of God, where I thought he had a particular bluntness about his delivery there that would be ideal for Gazzara, just would need a bit less psychosis and bit more exasperation.)

Seyfried - (I mean as a long time proponent of Seyfried, where she has proved all the naysayers wrong after having been bashed for the dumbest of reasons, I'll cast her in almost anything. But I also think she has the right general look for Burstyn at that time, while also having the needed dramatic chops to pull it off.)

Melling - (Again the right general look physically, but even more so I know Melling will go for it, and you need to go for it with Tarantino. Furthermore, he'll go for it, and make you believe it.)

Anonymous said...

Louis: What about your reasons for casting Lower, Fanning, Rylance, Dance and Evans?

Tim said...

your thoughts on the Screenplay and Direction of The Brothers Bloom?

Tim said...

RatedRStar: honestly, i kind of dig that (if it's a film i like). And i honestly would like for a movie to sweep those and an above-the-line win again as we haven't seen since Gravity. No, Everything Everywhere doesn't count, since most of its wins were above the line anyway.
If we factor in Best Picture too we haven't seen that since Slumdog Millionaire really. La La Land almost had that, for two minutes.

If it happens to films like Out Of Africa though ... yeah, let's not talk about that

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Oh, I see. In that case, your thoughts on the Slings & Arrows songs? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMYD2CfJM2o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_LLGLdfQTc

Also, your comment about Chazelle makes me wonder if you've soured on Babylon - I recall you being relatively positive on it at the time.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

RIP Bray Wyatt

Perfectionist said...

RIP Bray Wyatt

8000S said...

Louis: How do you think Jimmy Stewart fare as Jack Torrance in a late 40s/early 50s The Shining?

8000S said...

*would fare

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Found a copy of OSS 117: Lost In Rio.
ok.ru/video/2862820494022

Perfectionist said...

Louis: Can Williams get an upgrade for One Hour Photo???

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Lower - (I think she has the right sort of more down to earth look about her, I also think she has great dramatic talent as shown in Severance, so I think she really could deliver on that similar pent up anger as we go from the two are partners to the unpleasant dissolution of their marriage.)

Fanning - (I mean she's extremely talented, has enough of the look, but more than anything I think she could sell both Stratton's very delivery though effectively.)

Rylance - (I don't think I need a reason to cast Rylance, but he generally looks like Wilder, could pull off the accent certainly, however more than anything I think he'd excel at being this sort of trolling presence among the old brass.)

Dance - (I'd like partially just to see him return to his Phantom of the Opera style of performance where he had a lighter Karloffish voice at times, he also has the stature and gravitas for it. It would also be fun to have a reverse Dance role, where he'd be one purely positive mentor early on.)

Evans - (The right stature and general look, though I also think his Scott Pilgrim performance, turned down a few notches, would be a good starting point for Reynolds as sort of the overly masculine bluster who comes to clash with Bogdanovich.)

Tim:

The direction I think is the weaker of the two elements and is often the case for me. There is a little bit of a rinky dink/televisual quality in some of the choices in terms of cinematography at times, and when he uses CGI that's not really ideal. However where his work does thrive I think is with sort of creating the right energy among the cast and pushing the sense of fun. Clearly in particular his directing of the cast has this nice sense of warmth and easy going quality to it. Although here I like some of his choices more because I think he knows when to pull back for a bit more gravity particularly in the climactic moments, where I was impressed with frankly how seriously Johnson allowed it all to play out. Along with that I think some of his more eccentric choices work well with the con artist style of film, and any direction that chooses to include Ricky Jay narration is always a good thing.

The script is wonderful in entertaining the conman genre in its own way where Johnson's want to subvert is ideal here because con artist films are all about the trick, however what I like is that he actually doesn't trick too much, as there is one particularly obvious potential trick he doesn't do, and I REALLY appreciated that. What he does do is cultivate the right sense of fun in the progression of a particular con that you may lose the trail of at times, however he never loses you through the characters who are implementing it. I think he does excel in creating the emotional stakes of each brother who has very conflicting feelings towards their lives and explores that effectively, building well towards the fake climax and then the real climax. Supplementing that are the two eccentric female characters one being a bit, but a fun bit, the other being just a lot of fun in giving his trademark supernatural trait here that works in balance with the character's awkwardness. The only thing I would say about the script overtly negatively is I wish their dad had a bigger role and we explored that a bit more, or perhaps I just wanted the great Maximilian Schell to have a bigger part. Regardless it is a fun con movie as written, though with enough heart to bring you into it beyond that limitation.

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

Well the first time is a fun classical pub ditty, simple but entertaining in going down the bits of Hamlet.

Liked the second least, I think it's very kind of amusing but found it more generic overall, and a bit less engaging as a song in a musical sense.

No, I *still* like Babylon but think it has a lot of flaws, so I would not want that theoretical film to be good with a lot of flaws, I'd rather it just be great.

Luke:

Not necessary, it's on Tubi.

8000's:

I mean can Stewart show a man go deeper and deeper into very dark places? Yes, as evidenced by both Vertigo and It's A Wonderful Life. Not the most obvious choice, but actually more in his wheelhouse than one might think, particularly when it comes to villain roles.

Perfectionist:

Probably not.

Glenn said...

Luke, what are your 2019 Lead and Supporting suggestions.

Luke Higham said...

Jean Dujardin - An Officer And A Spy
Liam Neeson - Ordinary Love
Mads Mikkelsen - Arctic
Josh O'Connor - Only You
Daniel Craig - Knives Out

Aldis Hodge - Clemency
Chiwetel Ejiofor - The Boy Who Harnessed The Wind
Louis Garrel - An Officer And A Spy
Baykali Ganambarr - The Nightingale
Timothée Chalamet - Little Women

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Your take on this Bob Rafelson profile? https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a26454547/bob-rafelson-interview/

Luke Higham said...

RIP Bob Barker

8000S said...

R.I.P. Arleen Sorkin.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

RIP Arleen Sorkin

Matt Mustin said...

RIP Bob Barker and the ONLY Harley Quinn Arleen Sorkin.

RatedRStar said...

RIP Bob Barker and Arleen Sorkin

RatedRStar said...

I feel like playing Batman Arkham Asylum once again, one of the greatest video games ever made, Arleen Sorkin was fantastic as usual.

RatedRStar said...

2009 was one of the best years of my life, I still remember looking back.. before Batman Arkham Asylum came out, nobody believed it would be this good, there had never been a Batman game that was basically an Oscar contender, and then this came out, wow I was in shock at the time, such an incredible experience, not just in terms of combat, but its story, atmosphere, and most importantly, its acting.

RatedRStar said...

This wonderful scene between Aileen and the late great Kevin Conroy is what I will miss.

https://twitter.com/RyanHippFTW/status/1695547026488905787

Calvin Law said...

RIP Arleen Sorkin

Louis: your thoughts and ratings for Alex Descas and Matt Diop in 35 Shots of Rum?

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: What movie would you say you've seen more times in your life, Amadeus or Back to the Future?

Robert MacFarlane said...

Just rewatched The Last Picture Show for the first time in a decade. Louis, I know the rest of his work leaves a lot to be desired, but don't you think Bottoms deserves to be a little higher in the rankings that year? On revisit, I'm struck by how lived-in his body language was, how generous he was to his costars in playing off of them, how much melancholy his eyes captured. I think he complicates a character who could have just been an annoying loser. Especially his final scene with Leachman, where he finds the perfect expressions to compliment her big moment.

8000S said...

Louis: Thoughts on Dean Cundey's work in The Fog.

Bryan L. said...

Louis: How do you think the following actresses would fare as Amy Dunne in a 2020s version of Gone Girl?

Emma Stone
Brie Larson
Margot Robbie
Alicia Vikander
Ana de Armas
Jessica Rothe

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

Well the opening of it is first hilarious, if also sad, particularly the story about the imposter Rafelson, to which I wonder if the film actually got made.

The rest seems a familiar tale of the "fallen director" and to be fair it sounds like his actions on Brubaker were maybe beyond the pale, as even in his version it does sound like he turned things to 11 really fast. Beyond that what it tells is the tale of an eccentric who certainly made what he wanted for better and for worse.

Calvin:

Will get to those in the results.

Matt:

Back to the Future, for a few reasons.

One Back to the Future is far more likely to be caught randomly on tv, particularly when watching things was often dictated by broadcasters.

Two these days my dvd copy of Amadeus is worn and don't get me started on the damn director's cut issue.

Three Back to the Future is the breeziest of watches (a comfort food watch), Amadeus is more of a savory food watch (though I do think it is also a remarkably "easy" watch given its tragic tale).

Robert:

Well where he is currently ranked indicates I do like his performance plenty, but it is certainly possible he could go up, the film is frankly due for a re-watch.

8000's:

The fog in general is an amazing candidate for disparity between direction and screenplay, as the latter is extremely weak if not outright dumb, but the film isn't a failure because of the strength of the direction, particularly the visuals. Cundey's work being paramount in this as he crafts just a beautifully tranquil setting in the seaside area, then crafting the villains of the piece, that would be fitting in Scooby-doo plot as something genuinely terrifying because of the cinematography behind them. That is the exact striking mystical quality that masterfully shrouds them as the figures in the fog, figures that would likely look ridiculous if not for how they are so specifically and effectively lit.

Bryan:

Stone - (Based on The Favourite, I think she'd be perfect because she'd easily do the amazing half, but easily has the gear to do manipulative psychopathy.)

Larson - (I honestly don't know where I'm at with Larson, given her last few performances have been all over the place. Maybe as she did overtly, though in a comedic way, in Scott Pilgrim, though I'm not sure about her specific ability for that kind of intensity.)

Robbie - (Feel like she'd go too broad with the psychopath part, and maybe the amazing part as well. I do like Robbie but she has some tendencies that might go in the wrong direction there.)

Vikander - (I like her in general but she doesn't seem to fit either the "image" of the character nor the truth innately, though maybe she could pull it off.)

de Armas - (The amazing part sure, the psychopath? Maybe, I mean Deep Water isn't something anyone should go off of as the standard for the performers in that film, so hard to say for sure. I do think she's only shown to have more talent the more tested she is though, so maybe.)

Rothe - (Well can we get more substantial things for her anyways? As her Happy Death Day performance really should've been a "cast her" announcement with how much charisma she had there, but in general she's slightly untested though certainly could do the amazing part with ease, and I'd love to see her try the other half.)

8000S said...

Louis: So, it looks like the project Laughton wanted to direct was an adaptation of Norman Mailer's The Naked and the Dead, a novel about American troops in the Pacific theater of WWII, and he wanted to reunite with Mitchum and Cortez for it.

Thoughts?

8000S said...

*direct after Night of the Hunter

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Your general thoughts on these actors?

Alison Pill
Sarah Gadon
Amanda Peet
Lio Tipton
Imogen Poots

Also, your take on Howard Hawks' "three good scenes" maxim?

Marcus said...

Louis: Your thoughts on this scene from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia?

https://youtu.be/9jlaZL7CWHY?si=i_KwCuMAn3dclEwb

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on the Rustin trailer.

Louis Morgan said...


8000's:

I mean it's a shame we didn't see it, and it sounds like what we did see didn't really hold muster, so whatever Laughton's final product would've been could've been very different. It is also notable how different that sounds from Night of the Hunter so it sounds like he was intended on trying different things as a director. It's a shame it didn't work out.

Tony:

Pill - (Brilliant in her brief bit in Snowpiercer, otherwise have found her consistently fine in a lot of things, though in the cases typically it is someone who does with what she has rather than failing to achieve potential, as usually she makes something out of very limited roles.)

Gadon - (Love her in 11.22.63, however found her atrocious in Cosmopolis and Indignation, and just kind of "there" in several other films, so a bit of a mixed bag there. From this I can only say perhaps she's someone who needs the television expanded format to dig into something deeper, perhaps like Jeremy Strong, or that series was just the right role for her.)

Peet - (Found her pretty forgettable in most things, and a bit of "acting" actor, in that you always feel the performance to at least some degree.)

Tipton - (Wonderful in a brief part in Mississippi Grind, and the far less tolerable part of Damsels in Distress for me, otherwise haven't seen enough to really say for sure overall. Those are two nice performances on their own.)

Poots - (Falls a bit into not sure how much she's pushed as I liked her a great deal in her biggest show of the year with Green Book, and have found her always at least decent in the more limited roles she's often cast in. She feels to me as someone who needs to be given more chances.)

Have to say Hawks's statement is untrue, because a film can have a bad scene and not only be good but great Psycho (Psychiatrist speech), Pulp Fiction (Pot Belly Speech), Return of the King (some of the Denethor moments).

But even the three scene maxim in itself isn't really true, if a film is three hours long and has three scenes, that really isn't enough, it is only true in that if a film is just *fine* throughout, that isn't enough.

Marcus:

Hilarious scene from every bit of Mac's noting "there's no system in place" to Charlie's delusion as the "fat funny friend" to their inability to make their "manly men" thinking not to immediately seem more specifically homosexual, particularly in the flyer and each of their failed conversations to try the otherwise. Especially the ad itself where the emphasis on "nothing sexual" twice makes it seem more sexual.

Luke:

Looks fine, but also very standard film of its ilk (though Chris Rock acting is always a questionable choice). At the very least does look like a showcase for Domingo, and does look will probably be enough for him to get nominated or at the very least be in contention.