Friday, 26 January 2024

Best Supporting Actor 2023: Robert Downey Jr. in Oppenheimer

Robert Downey Jr. won his Oscar from his third Oscar nomination for portraying Lewis Strauss in Oppenheimer.
 
Sometimes it is all in the casting, or at the very least casting can provide an immediate shorthand if not innate dynamic which the audience can identify within a certain actor. And Robert Downey Jr., who was featured little in much of the promotional material for the film, has the second most screen-time out of any actor in the film, providing a deuteragonist which allows for the one firm alternative perspective from J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy)'s own personal perspective. And what is the most familiar presence that Downey is known for general audiences at this point? Well likely Doctor Dolittle, but more likely I suppose, is Tony Stark aka Iron Man of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And who is Tony Stark, an arrogant, but also goodhearted genius who is a hero through and through. And that is where Christopher Nolan utilizes the outset of Lewis Strauss by placing Downey in this role. As we open the film with Strauss as a nominee under President Eisenhower for secretary of commerce, Downey comes into the film with a very specific choice in the amount of charisma he uses to realize Strauss. Downey of course has charisma to spare, being of the most charismatic actors on and off screen currently, so what we have here is a purposeful regulation of that to be more fitting to who Strauss is as a person. That isn't to say Downey rids himself of that charisma, in fact he uses just enough of it to immediately disarm you about Strauss in the opening scenes of the film, that he makes Strauss seem likeable enough. There's a slight seeming self-effacing quality as he talks to his aide (Alden Ehrenreich) about his relationship with Oppenheimer as just a professional relationship any other, if not even some sense of pride in the association before we flashback. 

The first flashback between Strauss and Oppenheimer is key to the film but especially essential to Downey's performance as Strauss, where Strauss is attempting to get Oppenheimer to take a position at Princeton. And the first scene is where Downey is creating the man we see and the man we come to know. A scene where every interaction is of Strauss attempting overt cordiality to get Oppenheimer into the position and seemingly every response by Oppenheimer being some slight rejection or accidental insult to Strauss. And Downey on the surface is putting on the reduced though still very present charm with every delivery being an invitation for good feeling towards Oppenheimer, which is somehow dashed each time. And in every statement that Downey makes is eager and wanting to make a connection overtly, there is more going on with his performance that will establish what will in fact be the real relationship between the two. And Downey's fantastic in this way he begins very subtly in the dismay of this as even his correction of Oppenheimer's mispronunciation of his name there's just a hint of annoyance as is his correction that he is also Jewish regardless of pronunciation. His moment of needing to state his lack of being a physicist and a self made man with a little more internalized frustration. And the moment where they do seem to make a connection about Einstein's Theory of Relativity, there's a genuine smile on Downey's face before allowing a modest remark of choosing to sell shoes instead of training in physics. But the biggest blow then is Oppenheimer's response to call Strauss a "Lowly shoes salesman", though in fact probably a statement of admiration in a way, Downey's delivery and reaction of "just a shoes salesman" speaks volumes of the very real dismay at the comment. Only for one more insult as he still puts on a smile as the prospect of getting to introduce Oppenheimer to Einstein, only for one more blow as Oppenheimer bluntly states he has already known Einstein for years, and Downey's glare at the two meetings without his intercession shows the real seeds of bitterness quietly. But overtly Downey just shows a more general frustration of a man just hoping to get Oppenheimer to work with him. A brilliantly acted sequence by Downey because he manages to give it all away about Strauss in the margins, while not overtly giving any of it away.

Chronologically the next we see Strauss and Oppenheimer together are as members of the Atomic Energy Commission, of which Strauss was chair and Oppenheimer a key member. And there are two key scenes, the first seemingly a small but important one in a hearing where Oppenheimer again humiliates, perhaps more intentionally though perhaps not as maliciously as Strauss believes, Strauss by showing his expertise over Strauss on isotopes, and again Downey plays two shades at the same time, one being just the gentle modest smile of man accepting a hit, and the eyes where a hostility is ever growing. The second scene is more fundamental where we see a group meeting between the members over the discovery of the Soviets having successfully tested their own Atomic bomb, therefore leading to both questions about security on the creation of the original bomb and the potential of creating the Hydrogen bomb. And Downey's great in the scene by again playing two sides but playing two different sides in this instance. On one end he's bringing the passion of a potential lead of a different film, that Strauss might've written himself, as a man intensely dismayed at this outcome with a real fervour in his voice to make sure his country's safety is secured. His eyes convey a man with this belief and determination of someone who is ready to do what it takes in doing what he believes is the right thing for his country. BUT, Downey also accentuates parts of lines that skew towards some pettiness towards Oppenheimer, some direct passive aggressive emotion, not overtly but part of it. And within his delivering creating the moments not just of disagreement over policy but directed anger towards the man. Downey creates the duality effectively of just the man perhaps concerned genuinely for what this development is, and the man who just hates the man who seems to belittle him at every turn, even if largely unintentionally. 

The framing device of Strauss follows his testimony before Congress for his potential appointment and we see the phases of essentially what Strauss presents to the public. And Downey initially again seems humble, funny even in his way of being more than willingly to accept merely knowing the great man of Oppenheimer, speaking about this relationship with almost shades of nostalgia. When questions continue over his potential part with the security clearance inquiry for Oppenheimer, Downey plays just this befuddlement of any idea that he could have anything to do with it. Presenting as the trustworthy Downey one would expect from the day of Tony Stark, even his way of saying "he's easy to blame" is just waiting for someone to say "no you're not". Downey though shows the facade slowly breaking first in his idea of saying he fought Oppenheimer and "the US won" though this as just an imagined almost playful idea. But again Downey again alludes to a break as he comments on who the scientist who might be testifying on the matter of Oppenheimer may be, as first asking if Chicago, again as just curiosity seemingly sincere just to find out, but then proceeds to mention Los Alamos, Downey again is doing clever way of just barely holding the bile in as he notes those scientists to be in the "cult" of Oppenheimer, but just a little bit at the end of the sentence. And through this though is revealing in plain sight that Strauss has always been the man who undermined Oppenheimer, something I knew before going into the film, but still found it wonderful how Nolan utilized the presence of Downey to craft this twist. And it isn't just presence, though it starts there and Downey knows how to use it to create the wool to blind you into believing Strauss as the innocent man of circumstance, but also how Downey blend that with the real truth of the man throughout the film. 
 
Downey creates the effective double meanings to every action of Strauss between the phony surface and the real. A fantastic moment in this regard when Strauss is revealing to an already down Oppenheimer that one of his scientists was a soviet spy. Downey puts on the perfect face of a phony sympathy while in his eyes loving every minute of the humiliation of the man, and just holding back the slightest smile that he just barely keeps inside. And when we see the truth of the man orchestrating this attack on Oppenheimer, Downey shifts completely to the master politician in his performance, detecting every movement as the master tactician with an ease of every manipulative suggestion and a determination of a different kind. No longer the man who is confused by the accusations or humbled by his connections, but we see the true ego of the man displayed with an intensity in his vindictiveness in every decree. But the other true side of the man we see even more bluntly as it is clear that his nomination will not come easily or at all, and Downey explodes in a moment his performance has been leading to throughout the entire film through every single instance of the quiet bitterness and the hints of pettiness that come to a climax. It all comes out in his portrayal of anger, which is outstanding work by Downey. The reason it is great is because Downey isn't conveying a single type of outrage at Oppenheimer. There's self-righteousness as he denounces Oppenheimer's moral faults surrounding the bomb, there's jealousy in every word as he mimics Oppenheimer's words as false, there's personal bitterness as he so venomously notes that Oppenheimer turned the science community against him, but most of all it is a near petulant manner of the most fragile yet oversized egos in his nearly breaking voice. Where Downey speaks the heart of all of it, is just feeling slighted and never being able to be the "great man" so many viewed Oppenheimer as having been, as he speaks it with indignation but also a sad resignation all the same. Downey delivers one of his best performances. It goes beyond a return to being more than Tony Stark for him once again, as the measured restraint he utilizes properly builds towards this most explosive finale (no pun intended). Crafting a dynamic unwinding of a parallel portrait for Oppenheimer of a man not haunted by his ambition as the titular man, but rather haunted by his failure to coexist with such a man.  

45 comments:

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Thoughts on the Visual Effects.

Anonymous said...

A lot of people think this will be an average win but I thought he was mesmerising.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Is Downey Jr in The Sympathizer your most anticipated TV performance of 2024.

Anonymous said...

Louis, are you still saving Damon?

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

That final outburst in front of Ehrenheich, and his resignation when saying "I'm denied" are some of his best acting moments. He's not my personal choice, but his Oscar win will be very well deserved.

Emi Grant said...

I love that last smile he gives Ehrenreich after the latter insists Einstein and Robert may have been talking about something more important. Now showing how easy it is for him to put on the act after he fully reveals the truth.

Also not my personal choice (out of this line-up I'd go De Niro, and outside of it maybe Melton), but it will certainly be a nice crowning moment for him.

Robert MacFarlane said...

I need to rewatch, but I feel like the praise for the performance is overstated. It’s not THAT revelatory, and frankly I preferred Ehrenreich in their scenes together. Clarke and Damon also left more of a mark for me. It would be a kind of disappointing win for my money.

Matt Mustin said...

Fantastic performance. "Just a shoe salesman" is one of my favourite line readings of the year. I think I might actually be leaning towards De Niro for my choice, but I'm not gonna complain when Downey wins.

8000S said...

Louis: How do you think Goldblum would have fared as Strauss in a 2000s or maybe even early 2010s version of Oppenheimer?

Matt Mustin said...

You kind of touched on it in your review, in a way, but what I liked about his work is it's kinda what Tony Stark (specifically, let's say phase one Tony Stark) looks like from the outside. By which I mean, if we weren't following him the whole way, and we weren't won over by his charisma, what would that kind of guy be like?

Mitchell Murray said...

Having still not seen the film itself, I would somewhat agree with what Robert is saying, though perhaps not for the same reason.

What I mean by that is the general movie going audience and critics alike are gushing over Downey's quote-on-quote "unrecognizable" performance. The thing is...Downey's ALWAYS had the ability to transform into a part. Just look at his two oscar nominated performances (the latter is helped greatly by the makeup department, but Downey's work can be seen regardless). Point being, he has commited himself several times now into shedding or modulating his typical persona; I would simply argue that he hasn't done it in so long, that many viewers see this performance as something totally new.

All that being said...at the end of the day, the thing people should be talking about is the actual performance, which I won't comment on specifically until I've seen it for myself.

Matt Mustin said...

Well, I agree about it not being revelatory because of course he's obviously always been a great actor, but on the other hand, I don't want to take someone being a great actor for granted either. This is actually a very tricky part, well illustrated by Louis's great points here, and Downey pulls it off beautifully.

Matt Mustin said...

Luke: I can't wait for that. I read the book. Don't know what roles he's playing, but I can guess.

Calvin Law said...

Louis: thoughts and rating for Damon unless you're saving him?

Really well written review.

Marcus said...

Wonderful performance. Judging by the review, I don't think he's Louis's win, but he should be in the top 3 overall.

Perfectionist said...

Luke: Who you predict for overall supporting actor winner on the blog?

J96 said...

Did I pair Anatomy of a Fall with Mystic River? I meant Frozen River. Gone Girl could also work, maybe.

Luke Higham said...

Perfectionist: Whoever wins this Lineup.

Perfectionist said...

Luke: No one from the Alternates??? Like no one else has a chance?

Luke Higham said...

Perfectionist: Dafoe has somewhat of a chance but I don't feel as if he'll beat De Niro for example.

Luke Higham said...

And being wrong doesn't bother me at all so we'll see.

J96 said...

For all I know,

1. Two Roberts TIE
2. Ruffalo
3. Gosling
5. Brown

Willem DaFoe
Paul Mescal
Dominic Sessa
John Magaro
Alden Erenreich

SUPP ACTRESS
Sandra Hüller “Zone of Interest”
Taraji P. Henson “The Color Purple”
Rosamund Pike and Allison Oliver “Saltburn”
Florence Pugh “Oppenheimer”
Cara Jade Meyers and Tantoo Cardinal “KotFM”
Margot Martindale “Cocaine Bear”
Scarlett Johansson “Asteroid City”
Parker Posey “Beau is Afraid”
Vanessa Kirby “Napoleon”?

J96 said...

Oh and how could I forget Charles Melton?

Marcus said...

J96: Melton will be ranked in Lead.

Tony Kim said...

J96 and Marcus: Same goes for Sessa.

Louis: Do you think KOTFM and Foxcatcher's pairing makes more sense in terms of both having a dynamic between a rich capitalist and a "ne'er-do-well" type whose loved one has tragedy inflicted upon them by the former? Also, both share themes of greed, corruption, evil being conducted under a veneer of philanthropy, etc.

J96 said...

Louis, I haven’t seen “Jobs” either, but that and “Maestro” are both biopics that have been panned by audiences. However, “STEVE Jobs” (2015) matches Maestro more stylistically, and the fact that the lead does not look much like the character being portrayed, the difference being that Fassbender’s performance was better received.

I also haven’t even seen Maestro. Lol! And I have Netflix!

Tony Kim said...

Louis, I'm assuming you won't get to Payne and Gerwig's direction of their films until after the alternates, but can I ask why you think they were both snubbed?

Matt Mustin said...

Tony: He's given his thoughts on Gerwig's direction already.

Tony Kim said...

I'd just remembered that he had and came back to delete my comment when I saw Matt's reply, lol. Anyway, he can disregard the bit about Gerwig's direction but I'll let the rest of my question stand (her and Payne being snubbed).

Bryan L. said...

Tony: I think it's safe to say that the Directors' branch doesn't usually go for "crowdpleasing" films that much, like The Holdovers and Barbie are. Recent films such as The Martian, King Richard, Top Gun, Ford v. Ferrari, Darkest Hour, and Hidden Figures (among others) have also blanked in Best Director. Seems like they prefer something a bit more idiosyncratic/unique/has more of a director's stamp on it.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Gerwig missed out due to the Director's branch being more internationally inclined now, usually one contender who shows up everywhere else does get snubbed in favor of that contender. Barbie also just wasn't considered as obvious a directorial achievement as the other nominees.

Payne, there's obvious baggage regarding him even disregarding his work in The Holdovers.

J96 said...

Louis, you and Stephan Davis aka Psifonian have very similar opinions. It’s always interesting for me to use your blog to predict his videos, and compare and contrast the similarities and differences. He is openly NOT a fan of Gerwig and he didn’t seem to like Payne’s Sideways, based off of his nods that I have seen. But he did like Nebraska. He has a very distinct taste, that about 80-90% of the time aligns with your picks. He is full of surprises. I doubt he liked Barbie though.

Robert MacFarlane said...

J96: I’m actually Facebook friends with Stephen, and he likes Barbie with reservations similar to Louis’s.

Matt Mustin said...

That's kinda how I am with Barbie too, I'm at like 3.5 stars for it.

Matt Mustin said...

3.5 out of 5 I should say.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

The VFX is fantastic practical work, and it is such a shame that the category has basically turned into best CGI at this point. And I think in a way it probably suffered from honesty as some effects were really simple tricks, yet brilliant tricks you'd never guess were so simple, like the light rod in front of Murphy as he was in bed. They crafted eye-catching designs as the theoretical mind of Oppenheimer beautifully realized visually, along with the different methods of the bomb, which really were truly extensive beyond just the main explosion, rather the "in the mind" explosion seen by Oppenheimer, even the depiction of the after effects of the bomb, were such fantastic touches and just work that simply is part of the piece as natural bits of wonder and horror.

Certainly looking forward to it.

Anonymous: Yes.

8000's:

I could potentially see it, also would be interesting to see Goldblum also downplay himself to play Strauss.

Tony:

I mean on the whole sure.

J96:

Fair enough.

Tony:

Ask me about Payne's direction in Giamatti's review.

To echo the others director's branch is more international more "highbrow" than DGA. In fact a common thing with DGA is the biggest box-office hit among the nominees ends up being the one snubbed at Oscar. Barbie fit all those elements to a tee, just like Dune and The Dark Knight. I think Payne could've been six quite frankly, but there might've been enough hesitation from the personal baggage to make it so the passion picks of Glazer and Triet got in over him.

Tony Kim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tony Kim said...

Louis: To be clear, I didn't ask you about his direction, only about his snub.

I also doubt his baggage had much to do with it. Given what many people in the industry are like (and the fact that it hasn't even been really brought up this awards season), I suspect most in the industry would rationalize it or just not care about that.

Matt Mustin said...

Tony: Well, maybe they just liked the five they nominated better then.

Tony Kim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tony Kim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

I don't think it was a major factor, but if it made one voter hesitate it played a part. But more so, the branch has gotten more into their specific tastes and Triet/Glazer represented this more so than Payne.

Tony Kim said...

(Reposted to fix a typo.)

Matt: Fair, but it doesn't exactly make for much of a conversation if that's the answer you're going to give, is it? I think Bryan is closer to the mark in suggesting the international faction of the branch being less partial to crowdpleasers.

The reason I brought it up, though, was not out of any grievance about the omission (much as I liked the film, I'm fine with him not being nominated for obvious reasons) and more that Payne's been nominated every time a film of his has been up for BP. Holdovers breaking the pattern suggests to me that his brand has faded.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Tony: It's impossible to pinpoint it down to one exact reason, likely all of those played a part in Payne's snub. It also does show, I guess that The Holdovers isn't as strong a contender, or #2 behind Oppenheimer like some people were guessing...although CODA and Green Book did win Picture without Best Director nominations.

Deiner said...

I personally liked him a little less than you, but it still is a great performance, and he's going to be a deserving winner.