Christopher Lee did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Mohammad Ali Jinnah in Jinnah.
Jinnah is two things as a film, one being an attempt to fit a puzzle piece in or perhaps offer a different perspective of the film Gandhi, that depicted Jinnah not exactly as a full-on villain, however a cold patrician man who sews the seeds of dissent to create the partition of India, and where that film fairly quickly leaped to the results of the partition, rather than specifying more details within the reasons and the essential figure within it, this film attempts to rectify that. The other thing it is though is the rectification not as a straight biopic but rather in a Heaven Can Wait, 1943 Heaven Can Wait that is, where a man needs to explain himself to a representative of the afterlife in order to determine whether his actions were righteous or not. I would say as trying to fill in what Gandhi left out, it doesn't entirely work and often seems like "Gandhi at home", particularly due to "not Ben Kingsley" in that role, than a fully successful film, in part because that framing device feels more like a gimmick rather than something it could've fully explored, since the moments that do play with the idea have potential, albeit never fully explored. Christopher Lee in a way plays two sorts of roles therefore as Jinnah, who much of the film is also played by a younger actor depicting him in his early years, as both Jinnah of the man of history and the man in the afterlife attempting to explain himself to the court of eternity.
Lee on the former half of the performance unquestionably delivers his usual striking presence particular via his always powerful voice in order to reinforce the command of Jinnah as we see him trying to fight for the Muslim in the next phase of India, for what he believes is the best way, via the creation of Pakistan. Lee is a force to be reckoned with and is captivating to watch every moment we see Jinnah go about addressing a crowd of people, whether Hindu or Muslim, both groups that often question Jinnah's intention the former for his obvious support of the Muslim population of India and his refusal to treat Gandhi as more than a man, and the latter for his non-extremist views on the doctrines of Islam, particularly that of the roles of women. Lee is terrific in just having that quiet passion that does exude in every moment of specifying where there is a real natural controlled intensity, where Lee manages to basically paint the perspective of Jinnah of Gandhi and the perspective of the film. A great moment to illustrate this is when we see an early scene where his sense of humor is question, where before that cold and incisive stare seems to speak of a cold man, but then Lee's casual way of dismissing such charges by being humorous himself is a wonderful bit of bringing more humanity to the role than we saw in Gandhi. Lee is able to articulate a perceived image of Jinnah that some might've obscured and the image of a man of a more gracious charismatic ruler at the same time.
A flaw in the film though is where Gandhi even struggled to a degree to tell the tale of India's fight for independence in over three hours, this film obviously was never going to do it in less than two hours, even when allowed to just hone in a bit more on Jinnah, but there is so much to tell, one thinks perhaps just telling the partition progression probably would've made the most sense. Instead the film has very brief moments that don't add up to too much where it covers Jinnah's personal relationships with his wife who died young, his willful sister, and even his daughter, who wants to marry out of Islam against his wishes despite essentially doing that himself. In the present phases, Lee's effective in presenting a certain degree of deficiency in the scenes of trying to admonish his daughter or his sister, and presenting a less passionate man as he speaks the specific dogma that leads to these conflicts. In each Lee presents the hardness of this belief, though in these instances creating a greater sense of conflict by speaking the words with a degree of hesitation and weakness that is far from the nature of the man we see the rest of the time. As quick as these moments are, Lee does what he can to bring a bit more depth, as we also see the man as he deals with the very difficult question of partition and the unexpected results of it. One great moment is when Jinnah is offered evidence of an affair between India's expected first prime minister Nehru and the wife of the final viceroy of India. Lee's great in creating the sense of old loyalties and friendship, and this sickening refusal to sink to basic politics with a sense of blunt disgust as he refuses to use the blackmail for his gains. Lee is equally powerful in the final moments of the film where we see Jinnah react to the violence of the partition, where Lee brings in his reactions such a striking sense of the horror and heartbreak in the man as he sees the results of India's independence bluntly in front of him. Lee's very moving in showing the weight of decision on the man as this existential crisis regardless of his beliefs.
Speaking of existentialism, that crisis is the forefront of the judgment on Jinnah as he attempts to defend his actions to a representative of an afterlife. An idea that fluctuates between a silly gimmick you might find in a bad history channel special and to something far more striking and potent. The gimmick moments are of the direct conversations with his guide that feel too simplistic at times and too straightforward as though Jinnah is explaining his performance review. Regardless, Lee gives as much gravity as he can to these scenes by presenting a man still steadfast in his belief he did the right thing, and elevates the concepts as much as he can, bringing that understated passion to every word of his defense. Equally effective is even his wistful commentary on the relationship with his wife, where Lee brings that haunted sense of reflection to a man who managed to live on past the relationship but never emotionally removed himself from it. The most striking moments though are those of interaction with the past, such as when older Jinnah speaks to his younger self to promote the concept of non-violence, where Lee is moving in being more supernatural himself in showing the convictions of a man who can now look at the past rather than life in it as the present. We also have an all too brief scene where Jinnah becomes a prosecutor himself of the British viceroy on his failure to stop the partition violence, which seems like perhaps where the film should've started as it seems like a lot of potential if it had been set up as a trial where Jinnah both defends himself and lays blame on others, however this is swiftly rushed through. Although to Lee's credit he does deliver on the sheer power of his performance and brings the force of a man seemingly fighting with more than just his own experience but the whole of history. That is however essentially the entirety of Lee's performance, which is elevating what he has but can only do so much due to the limits of the film.
72 comments:
Louis: Now that you've finally seen it, do you think Lee was underexploited as a performer and are there any roles that you believe he would've been perfectly cast as.
How did you watch this?
I guess the natural continuation to Gandhi/Jinnah would be a biopic on Sheikh Mujibur Rahman... although that would be a bit of a challenge too structurally.
Also, thought I'd share with everyone that I graduated college today with the highest honors in Economics, and I'll hopefully be starting grad school in fall.
Way to go, Tahmeed! Congratulations.
Louis: I do think it's a decent movie with a great Peck performance (one that I wouldn't want to take away from him), but what do you think of an Anthony Mann version of The Bravados with Stewart in Peck's role?
Congratulations, Tahmeed!
I liked Kingdom of the Apes quite a bit. LOVED everything to do with Raka.
Basically the same exact ratings for everyone that Louis gave.
Congrats Tahmeed, great achievement!
Congratulations Tahmeed
Congrats Tahmeed.
Thank you everyone.
Congrats, Tahmeed!
On the topic of Louis' thoughts on the screenplay of The Big Lebowski, I've watched it like 6 years ago with my father. Normally he really dislikes weird and cooky films, but he truly enjoyed this one.
RIP Jan A. P. Kaczmarek.
Congrats, Tahmeed!
Luke:
Yes, though not I think in terms of the display of his overall range, as Lee showed what he had, unless he truly had a "didn't know he had that in him" type of performance, which I don't think Jinnah was, rather this is an example of his known presence effectively used in a slightly different way. I think the roles he would've excelled in are those he alleged to have turned down according to "notstarring" anyways.
Dr. Rumack, Dr. Loomis, Mr. Dark, and Grand Moff Tarkin, are all roles I think he would've been great in, though no disrespect to those who did play the parts, however all of those, except maybe Rumack (though his performance in Captain Invincible showed he could do comedy, even in a bad comedy) where Rumack I think might've opened more opportunities, though I think with his presence still in mind. I also will say would've loved to have seen him as Sweeney Todd in the Joe Dante version, which might've been some kind of perfection technically and taken his talent to its apex...side note I would like to see his deleted scenes from the actual version that were taken out.
Matt:
As is common for the out of circulation films, bing video search is the best bet.
8000's:
I mean in this instance I say keep Peck, add Mann who I think would've taken all the good qualities of the film and taken them even further.
Tahmeed:
Congratulations.
Louis: your ratings and thoughts on the rest of the cast?
Ytrewq, 8000S and Louis: Thank you.
Tahmeed: Congrats! Cheers. 🥂
Louis: I managed to find Kon Ichikawa's Her Brother on ok.ru.
It was Japan's darling back in 1960, winning every main Japanese award for best picture, with Kurosawa claiming it one of his favorite movies.
Supposedly, Kazuo Miyagawa pioneered bleach bypass to achieve the look of the film. Interested already?
Maybe I'll recommend to you whenever you feel like watching movies from years you've already covered.
Tahmeed: Very happy for you, man.
Congrats Tahmeed!
Question for everyone: What got you started down the rabbit hole of getting interested in the Oscars? Mine was a combination of The Dark Knight getting buzz and googling "Best Supporting Actor", followed then by watching Ed Wood because it was on the list.
Louis: When you review The Truman's Show, do you want to do a Carrey Analysis post? Along with Tony Leung (In the Mood For Love) are the actors that were cited in the Overall that I was most curious to see an analysis.
Oh Congratulations Tahmeed!
Robert: The first time I ever really became aware of it was winner of 11 Academy Awards on the VHS box of ROTK.
Robert: Finding this blog.
Robert: Keeping track of Moonlight during awards season. You can imagine my joy (and surprise) at seeing it win Best Picture.
Bryan, Mitchell, Robert and Shaggy: Thanks guys.
The first Oscar race I followed actively was the 2015 one. Before that, my awareness of it was cursory at best, like knowing and watching The King's Speech and 12 Years A Slave with my folks because they won Best Picture.
I've been following it since The Departed won.
Lucas:
Lintern - 4(Co-lead as he has about half the film to his own, and I would say artfully matches much of what Lee is doing, though portraying this specific charisma more so in its infancy stages and in some respects less refined. He's good though in portraying the youthful Jinnah and hitting the moments, even if it all is far too rushed through to make a feel meal out of any of it.)
Fox - 3(Interesting that he plays perhaps the most passive representation of British control, where his brother portrayed the most vicious representation in Gandhi. Fox's performance in turn is just this general cordiality of the man who wants to try to please all but perhaps is less than faultless all things considered.)
Aitken - 3.5(In part again the attempt at graciousness even in hostility, and is effective in projecting sort of this attempt at being considerate while still having kind of the airs of the old regime in her manner. The relationship with Nehru however is also fascinating though just a quick bit that alludes to much, and is well played by Aitken, however is treated as largely just a footnote in the scheme of the film.)
Ashby - 3.5(Speaking of, again perhaps the failing of the film is as much as it covers more, it doesn't cover enough, as the moments with him allude to a more captivating film of political maneuvering, and he's quite good in delivering this easy kind of charisma in contrast to Lee's performance. Additionally, again he's most effective in his key moment with Aitken, in this unsaid, but very much said moment between them, however again, wish there had been a bit more to it.)
Dastor - 2(To say he's no Kingsley is an understatement, and does come off as more of the Gandhi you might expect in a sketch about Gandhi, as he just is so surface level in every choice, and you have no sense of power or charisma needed for the character.)
Varma - 2.5(She's fine however the role is so underserved in every imaginable way that it doesn't really matter what she does.)
Shah - 3(I liked her presence and her dynamic with Lee, however again it feels like a missed opportunity to make a truly compelling pair, instead we get just some brief moments of potential, that Shah herself shows potential in, one just wishes they took it even further scriptwise.)
Robert:
Saw parts of the ceremony pre-2006, 2006 I followed it closely late in the season, but 07 was when I followed it full on throughout the season.
Louis: Curiously, the reason why Nakai didn't reunite with Kurosawa until High and Low after he shot Throne of Blood is because the two argued over night shoots.
Of course, Nakai is a fantastic cinematographer, but it's not like The Lower Depths, The Hidden Fortress or The Bad Sleep Well are poorly shot because he wasn't there. They're brilliantly filmed.
Robert: i had a bit of a gradual approach. First, my parents' LOTR DVDs listed the Oscars those had won on the back. That was my first slight interest, but not a lot.
Cut to 2014: I had heard something about Grand Budapest Hotel on TV because that film had been shot in Germany. Cut to early '15: TV Guide had a gigantic page doing an Oscar prediction through which i got vaguely aware of Birdman and Boyhood. Back then i had hoped that Budapest would win, but once it was Birdman i got interested in that movie and bought the Blu-Ray that summer (we don't have a theater in my home town). After that, i turned the Wikipedia pages for the Oscars into my personal "what-to-watch"-list.
Cut to early 2016: a YouTube channel about movies i already followed did a prediction video for the Oscars. That was the first time i had heard somebody talk somewhat in depth about the nominations. Then i asked my parents to record the ceremony for me (remember, those start at 2 am over here) and watched it the next day after school. That summer i would then spend virtually all my pocket money on buying almost every film nominated for Best Picture that year, and more. That was when i really started collecting movies (needless to say, i was not a very popular 15-year-old)
This sytem then became my tradition until 2021 when i was already out of school and started watching them live
Jesus, i remember being so shocked that Brie Larson had been nominated for an Oscar, as back then i only knew her from 21 Jump Street ...
Louis: Before you watch Central Station for De Oliveira, could you also watch The Butcher Boy for Eamonn Owens.
Robert: Eerily enough, the same as Tahmeed; 2015. Before that, I was really only aware of the Best Picture nominees, as my parents would rent and watch them (Slumdog, Juno, TWBB, 12 Years a Slave, The Artist, etc.)
8000's:
Interesting tidbits.
Luke:
I intend to watch The Butcher Boy, but don't see any reason to do so before Central Station specifically.
Robert: The first time was when Million Dollar Baby won, only at that time I only cared about the categories of best picture and director. It was from 2007, when there was a duel between the country for the old men vs there will be Blood, I became more interested and understanding all categories.
Congratulations Tahmeed
Tahmeed: congratulations!
Robert: I vaguely knew of the Oscars. As a toddler I heard of the 2011 nominees (Social Network, King's Speech, Black Swan) and remember being marveled at the idea of the ceremony.
Eventually, after becoming a cinephile thanks to Whiplash and Black Swan around 2017, I overheard a classmate of mine talk about Moonlight, which lead to me looking it up, falling in love with it after multiple watches, and then making my way through some of the 2010s nominees.
Later in the year I got into the awards race after stumbling upon GoldDerby and this blog (which at first I didn't realize was active), which further fed my growing fanatism. By the time early 2018 had come around I was posting full predictions on the SAGs and Globes in FB like a maniac.
Louis: I'm using my request I got from winning 2023 Best Actor: Daniel Craig in Infamous (my 2006 Supporting win btw).
Robert: My mother takes some of the credit as she has watched them for years, I first caught a glimpse of her watching the 2004 ceremony purely because I noticed LOTR, Pirates and Finding Nemo which were films I did see get recognised.
I followed them casually without seeing any of the films until the 2007 season which was a lucky break considering how amazing that year is for films and videogames. I started to actually watch the films in contention from that season onwards, starting when I asked my parents if I could go see Atonement in the Cineworld in Sheffield.
Louis: May I have your first Oscar predictions of the year for Picture, Director and the acting categories with thoughts on each once Cannes is finished.
Watched Furiosa last night, but decided to ruminate on it a bit, and it hurts deep in my heart that the more I think about the film, the less I like it. The action is of course good, well shot, though Seale is perhaps missed a bit with the slightly more artificial look to everything here, and doesn't quite have the same *wow*. Additionally while there are good sequences, they feel like alternate, lesser though good, ideas from Fury Road. There's no true reinvention here, it's just extra, and good extra, but not great ones. The acting is all decent though no one is on the level of the main performances from Fury Road.
But, the storytelling is what makes the film suffer most, and perhaps illustrates most strongly the problem with the prequel, not because we already know everyone's fate, but rather it is setting up a story we've already seen, watching a world built we've already seen get blown up. There's very little truly new here, and again, I have to say the prequel idea was perhaps the biggest mistake, since it just takes us right back to where we were, rather than a new place. When at one point a character says there's only three locations in the wasteland, all I could say was, "well I guess so", and it makes the world seem so small. But it also limits the style since most of what we see here, is things we've already seen. The problems continue unfortunately where the first hour takes almost forever to really just set up two ideas, Hemsworth's villain being a jerk, and the motivation for Furiosa. This feels arduous though since it must also give us bits we already knew or could presume from Fury Road, like "How did Joe get the Organic Mechanic", well know we know (and apparently he's immortal for some reason), but what does that add to this film or Fury Road. The screenplay seems written as though Fury Road doesn't exist, or we haven't seen it, as a true "first film", which is a serious mistake. When Taylor-Joy finally shows up as Furiosa, which takes FAR too long, I did think the film finally found some decent momentum, however it gets occasionally derailed at times, and is a bit simplistic in its details with some difficult to understand choices. Such as the random use of narration, particularly, when it describes a war that sounds like a better plot than the one we get, which it decides not to show us, or the final showdown which sadly is a drawn out anti-climax where we get a dialogue but mainly a monologue that seems to go on forever, when there's no reason not to wrap it up at this point.
Taylor-Joy - 3.5
Browne - 3.5
Hemsworth - 3.5
Burke - 3.5
I do think it's notable that for me the best scene in the film (which I liked more than you but had issues with), was the one with Furiosa and Jack fending off the bike horde, which also feels the most like...Fury Road.
Calvin:
I would agree it is the best scene, and harkens back to Fury Road...though you could argue too much in that you could almost take the scene as an alternate version just of that film if Burke was cast as Max instead, and they had Furiosa be younger. As the staging really is just an alternative idea in the same vein instead of something completely different, as instead of being attacked by the pole riders they were being attacked by paragliders in the convoy.
And side note, I will say the defenders I see saying "don't compare it to Fury Road" is such a nonsense take, as Godfather part 2 can be compared to Godfather, Aliens can be compared to Alien, you can live up to the prior film, even if it is a great one, you just also need to make another great film.
Luke:
Yes.
Louis: Thoughts on the cast.
Luke:
Taylor-Joy - (She's good, in that she generally evokes what Theron did to a degree, but there's just never as much potent emotional intensity, or even complication to it. Again it is part of the thinner script, which yes is thinner despite being more complicated, because it lacks so many of those little moments that let the actors express more of their character. Except the brief scenes with Burke, she mostly just needs to keep the same vengeance seeking demeanor, which she does well, but I wanted more...though that's not her fault.)
Browne - (I mean she plays Furiosa not for the prologue, but rather nearly the first half. Unfortunately much of the time she's getting dragged around by others, but she certainly carries a similar intensity with just a look that again is impressive, while doing what she can in other moments she has in silence. Again not enough to it, but she's good with what she has.)
Hemsworth - (He is fun to see let loose as he does, as really this slovenly fool where he manages to play it up in a way that is over the top, however it works. I really probably liked most where he had some reactions that kind of had a Sarandon in Princess Bride quality of making a villain who gets by his sheer sliminess that any kind of true brilliance. He's entirely good, though I think he probably had the most potential to be great, and he doesn't get there. There are moments for potential pathos that really Hemsworth fails to hit with a real depth to make them speak a bit louder, and that is part of my problem with his last scene as his work is too thin on the whole to try to sell the moment as more insightful.)
Burke - (Could've totally potentially played Max himself, as he brings a true charismatic swagger, he brings a lot in little moments, again his big scene is the closest to Fury Road, and does truly try to make something out of his heart to heart scene, and doesn't fail. He only has so much to do though, but does quite a bit with what he has.)
Plemons wins Best Actor and I can't believe I'm saying this, Zoe Saldana and Selena Gomez win Best Actress over Demi Moore.
Sean Baker has won the Palme D'or.
To be fair I have heard good things about Saldana and Gomez, I mean Selena Gomez is quite good in Only Murders in the Building so it wouldn't surprise me if she was good here, my complaint might be.. aren't Saldana and especially Gomez supporting performers?
I do love that Mikey Madison is getting recognition, another Scream 5 alumni becoming a star alongside Jenna Ortega, Melissa Barrera and Jack Quaid. All we need now is Jasmin Savoy Brown to get that big role.
It would be so fun to see a Scream actor get an Oscar nomination but I think Mikey Madison in Anora might be more Adam Sandler in Uncut Gems or Ally Sheedy in High Art at the moment.
Luke:
Cannes really didn't help much as all the winners are out of classical academy taste, though given Palm D'Or's are starting to become BP nominees, perhaps it is time to reconsider.
I'll say for me the most notable thing to come out of Cannes is that Omar gave Megalopolis a 4.5, which gives me hope.
Anyways here truly goes nothing:
Picture:
Dune Part 2 (Winner)
Blitz
Sing Sing
Kind of Kindness
The Piano Lesson
The Apprentice
Joker: Folie a Deux
Anora
Queer
The Outrun
Placeholder winner with Dune, that I think will be BP nominee regardless of how strong or how weak the slate is. But it will be a tech giant no matter what so no need to doubt. Blitz sounds like the ideal return for McQueen for Oscar glory, but I will say 2 WWII films winning in a row seems very unlikely. Sing Sing is already has great reviews, though its release date gives pause, maybe they're going for a build up of goodwill campaign, which could work based on the seeming feel good nature of the piece. Kind's release date also gives pause, as does it harkening back to his less academy successful films, however maybe he's turned the corner in every way, we'll see if he needs that McNamara recipe or not. Piano Lesson, why not, though seems only if a weaker year given the staginess of these adaptations, and if Jackson is definitely going to win. The Apprentice did not get great, though not bad, reviews but I think the already brewing controversy could potentially help it get vote, even if perhaps spite votes. I mean Joker 2 looks like Joker, so if it is more of the same, the academy should theoretically love it. Baker has not been embraced, but again the academy does seem to be noticing that Palm win more than ever before, so now could be the time. Queer really is only if Challengers can't keep momentum, as I doubt he'll be able to get two in, but this sounds perhaps more "prestige". The Outrun is purely in as potential actress winner extra support. I'll admit I was going to put All We Imagine as Light when it seemed like it could win the Palm, given non-English contenders are now almost guaranteed, maybe it could still for sure if it gets the push.
Director:
Steve McQueen - Blitz (Winner)
Denis Villeneuve - Dune Part 2
Todd Phillips - Joker 2
Sean Baker - Anora
Luca Guadagnino - Queer
Sure, these five seem more so up the director's ally off my previous list.
Actress:
Saoirse Ronan - The Outrun (Winner)
Lady Gaga - Joker 2
Mikey Madison - Anora
Angelina Jolie - Maria
Zendaya - Challengers
Ronan at this venture, seems like she has the role, she's already beloved by the academy, and if both this and Blitz are contenders, it would seem hard to pass her up this time. Gaga sure, if I'm going Joker 2, she definitely should be in there. Madison certainly got great reviews, and if I'm going with the film, best go with her as well. Larrain's gone 2 for 2 with the juicy biopic role for an established actress so far with these, so a welcome back nomination for Jolie, should seem obvious enough, even if likely the film overall won't get embraced. Zendaya already has the reviews, is like at her buzzy near apex it would seem, obviously will be more difficult given how early her film is, but I'd say she could do it.
Karla Sofía Gascón (the lead) and Adriana Paz were also co-winners of that Best Actress award.
Actor:
Colman Domingo - Sing Sing (Winner)
Jesse Plemons - Kind of Kindness
Daniel Craig - Queer
Jeremy Strong - The Apprentice
Joaquin Phoenix - Joker 2
Domingo as a follow-up after going the distance to the nomination seems like a more than decent bet, and seems well liked, so why not a win? Plemons I think could go supporting given it is an anthology, even if it sounds like he leads most of it, but this win is a good start, and he's certainly a very well liked performer. Craig, sure at this point. I'll admit I didn't read the reviews close enough to be sure who would be going lead or supporting, so maybe Stan goes here (particularly since he also has A Different Man), but Strong is on a current hot streak so why not, and I could also see "voting for Roy Cohn" being an easier sell (even if I will say anyone who thinks that voting for a performance as a person is voting for that person, is dumb). And Phoenix, if the film is doubling down, he'd likely be as well.
Supporting Actor:
Samuel L. Jackson - The Piano Lesson (Winner)
Willem Dafoe - Kind of Kindness
Harrison Dickinson - Blitz
Brendan Gleeson - Joker 2
Drew Starkey - Queer
Well we'll finally see if Jackson has the goods in this role, if so seems like an easy avenue for the win. Dafoe almost got in last time, who doesn't like Dafoe, so why not at this point. Dickinson, I mean he's been building goodwill, I'm sure there will be a standout maybe it will be him. Gleeson might have a nothing role but here's hoping he gets to have a great big number and we get a follow-up nomination. Sure on Starkey with Craig why not.
I truly have no idea for supporting actress at the moment, not even in a decent bad guess.
Tahmeed: Belatedly, my congratulations.
Louis: Any reason for your hesitance in predicting Nightbitch for anything, not even Best Actress?
Tony:
Well the name obviously...seriously though it's supposedly comedy horror, which isn't a particularly friendly academy combo, so far Heller's films have done okay but not great with the academy, so I wouldn't be surprised if they passed the film up altogether. Searchlight can do great, but they typically hone in on one horse to really push such as last year where obviously Poor Things did great with the academy but All of Us Strangers bombed. Maybe that is Nightbitch, but they definitely have other contenders that might get the preferred treatment.
Louis: Doing research on Japanese dubbing of live-action movies, I found it interesting that Stewart and Mitchum shared the same dubber.
I mean, Stewart and Mitchum had different voices.
Louis: The horror aspect is not that pronounced, judging by what's known about the book; it's not like we're talking about The Lighthouse here. If you're skeptical about the genre's appeal, you may as well have more doubts about the Lanthimos film, seeing as how by all accounts, it's far more intense than his last two AMPAS-approved films.
As for Heller's track record, even if they don't get much traction outside of those categories, her films have successfully secured those acting nominations. I'm not ruling out Anora doing well with the Academy, but Adams being Adams, it strikes me as odd to not predict her in favour of Madison when Sean Baker is a far less AMPAS-friendly filmmaker. (In other words, a director who landed only Dafoe a nomination vs. someone who did so for McCarthy, Grant, and Hanks.) And if you think Searchlight has other priorities, I'm curious if you think A Real Pain has a much better shot at any of the major categories.
8000S: *laughs in german dubbing*
8000's:
They certainly do, but I guess they both have relaxed voices, as say opposed to a Kirk Douglas.
Tony:
Well as noted above I do have doubts about Kind of Kindness, though I am also always skeptical about these declarations about content, I remember one reaction said Poor Things was 100x more extreme than Antichrist, which it obviously was not, but twitter reactions at festivals in particular encourage hyperbolic statements. BUT, Lanthimos now has an "easy pass" with the academy, where he's going to be incontention to some degree no matter what, because he's now had two major hits, he's a "favored child" that gives all his films an easier, though not guaranteed, pathway.
Well again, Heller, got limited nominations for films that were definitely in the academy wheelhouse, this seems less so, so I would not be surprised if this was the one they passed up altogether. Heller hasn't gotten that big hit with the academy so she's not in a favored position yet. Additionally Adams has been on a little bit of a cold streak, so she won't get on her name alone.
With Anora, I'm going with its Palm D'Or win to see if there is a vein of voters who truly are noticing those winners, since with Parasite every film that's won, except Titane (which let's be honest is about as much of an extreme as a "non academy film" as you can name), has gotten nominated for BP, which is notable for Triangle of Sadness and Anatomy of a Fall, neither film that would've been academy hits before recent years. Maybe Anora breaks that trend, or proves the trend, if the latter, it would be hard to see its much lauded lead performance be completely left off as well.
A Real Pain seems like the type of lowkey film that if the academy does love it, it still would probably only a get Picture and a screenplay nomination, like Past Lives.
Louis: Assuming that you've been watching it, could you do an LB review for The Sympathizer and a cast ranking after its finale tonight.
I've seen All We Imagine As Light, and it's absolutely wonderful, but I would be very surprised if gets any Oscar attention due to just how modest and low-key it is. Then again, who knows.
The reviews I read of The Apprentice say that Stan is Lead and Strong is Supporting.
Luke:
Yes.
Calvin:
As I said if it had won the Palm, given the current trend, but since it didn't I don't think it will be doing anything.
Anonymous:
Well if that is the case then, throw Strong in over Starkey and Stan instead of Strong.
Man...Stan's career may very well crash and burn if "The Apprentice" bombs. It would not be good press for him to tackle this role, of a man I'm sure many of his peers dislike, should he also win in November. Of course, the movie might not even see a wide release, considering that cease and desist letter (no surprises there).
Mitchell:
I don't see why given it is not a sympathetic portrait of Trump.
Mitchell: The reasons for the cease & desist letter does seem to suggest that the film will be far more critical of him than I initially thought. So while the discourse will be inevitably exhausting, (as we all obviously know, portrayal = endorsement), the blowback should be tempered slightly by that.
Louis and Tahmeed: I'm more commenting on the timing of the film rather than the intentions, here. The film apparently shows Trump's plastic surgery and rape of his wife - not exactly a flattering depiction, there. However, it's still released in election month, and so whatever happens in November is going to cloud the film, and the press Stan recieves. If he wins, I can easily see people pointing fingers at the filmmakers. If he loses, than this is more ammunition certain people could use against the so called "hollywood left". But if the movie just fizzles out, then Stan is sort of left in a wierd spot of taking such a career gamble, but not having produce any results.
I think he'll be fine, Brendan Gleeson suffered no career setbacks whatsoever, nor really any career boost, from playing Trump in the Comey Rule which was designed, in part, to impact the election that year.
Louis: Fair enough, I suppose, though the stakes are higher this year, I would argue. Gleeson was also perfect physical casting, to be honest; Same vein as David Morse as Washington.
I imagine that after 2024 Stan's reputation will still be in a pretty good shape in comparison to Dennis Quaid playing Reagan.
Ytrewq: I had no idea about Quaid playing Reagan until now.
Looks like he's doing a fine impersonation by the trailer, and he made for a pretty good Clinton. Voight is a question mark for me...as is the rest of the film which is similarly "timely" in it's release.
Post a Comment