Sunday 26 May 2024

Alternate Best Actor 1998: John Hurt in Love and Death on Long Island

John Hurt did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Giles De'Ath in Love and Death on Long Island.

Love and Death on Long Island follows a prestigious widowed British writer as he becomes obsessed with a d-list grade American actor.

The role of Giles De'Ath is an extremely idiosyncratic character to the point that artifice could've immediately realized itself from the outset, as from the outset we begin with a very specific man as a widower who shirks all technology, and lives a most solitary man of time gone by, including the death of his wife. And perhaps with a lesser actor this might've been obvious as a caricature of such a man, but thankfully John Hurt was cast in this part who has a way about getting into tricky parts. A tricky part this is, and Hurt from the outset makes us convinced of Giles, who I think one might've gone too hard on the sort of stiffness of the character, Hurt though brilliantly creates this convincing sense of history in this shyly withdrawn manner. Not shy of people in the traditional sense, but shy of the world that isn't the world of his literary genius that he obviously has been in for some time. So much of this film then becomes Hurt creating the sense of exploration when just by chance he is left out of his flat in the rain and stumbles upon a cinema, going accidentally to dumb teenager romp. Hurt's performance is beyond key because so much of this could come off as weird posturing or absurdly specific, however Hurt's many that creates a very real sense of confusion and discovery, with just the right tinge of comedic value to each that makes it work. The comedy being something that Hurt finds in the earnest way he presents the fish out of water mentality of the proper literary type suddenly watching the equivalent of a Porky's film, which is being both taken aback and in a kind of disbelief. However, things take a bigger turn when while watching the film he comes across one of its stars, Ronnie Bostock (Jason Priestley) and Giles is changed forever.

Again I think the idea of Giles specific shift where his whole world is changed by one glimpse of Ronnie, is fairly absurd as this isn't just a cinematic crush, this is a fundamental destruction of everything that was the closeted and cloistered Giles. Something that could be ridiculous if Hurt was anything less than perfectly convincing, thankfully he is perfectly convincing. Hurt's performance brings this sort of naivety even that works so well within the idea of the man's fascination, as with every moment of finding out more about Ronnie, who really is a run of the mill nothing actor, Hurt  combines this specific fascination, eagerness but also boy like adventurous manner of someone going on some kind of exposition. It would be easy enough to pinpoint it as just lust, but Hurt makes it more complicated effectively of Giles nearly leaving his own state to engage in this, something that is partly this falling in love, but just as much this man breaking those confines in his becoming something quite different. As it isn't just discovering Ronnie but Giles also discovers the whole world of technology, even if in technical pursuit of Ronnie. Hurt is fantastic in managing to be idiosyncratic with this indeed somewhat comedic manner of the amateur being most taken aback by every new bit of it all, but empathetic within that idiosyncrasy by also being so very nuanced in the moments of the very human way one can be excited to change one's world with the right motivation. Hurt gives such depth to every step of it, that while amusing because of how extreme it might seem, he never loses the sight of the man being so earnestly finding life in this new way, even if it is technically just fanboying over one specific actor, however he balances it beautifully to make something tangible if also out there at the same time.

Of course the film doesn't stop with such fascinations as Giles decides to use his literary clout to pursue Ronnie at his home, in Long Island itself, a move that honestly could be portrayed as stalker horror in many films, at the very least very unhealthy obsession in others, however here it is treated as almost charming eccentricity, something that again might not have worked if it had not been for John Hurt. Hurt manages to be both comedic and earnest, comedic by being earnest, by being so properly English and literary even while essentially fanboying his way into Long Island. Hurt has all that dignity in his performance, though showing a real fascination, but doing so again in this very proper way that makes it funny even if it is very serious when it comes to Giles's own feelings as presented by Hurt. Giles goes so far as to purposefully run into Ronnie's girlfriend, a scene that again would be too much in many ways if not Hurt's performance, who manages to even sell the pseudo physical humor of ramming his cart, because he manages to be oh so very sincere as he apologizes to her, despite lying through his teeth, as he will continue to do so in either lies or half-truths as he tries to get closer to Ronnie. Hurt when finally meeting Ronnie, manages to modulate his performance ideally within the subtle glances and moments of reservations of a man holding much in, but finding ways to explore when making suggestions and overtures of his career. Hurt putting in this reasonable delivery of every word of support, as much as it is just glowing fanboying, in stating his love for the young man, while keeping that very specific reserve on the surface that slowly wilts away as spends more time with Ronnie. And here is unfortunately where I think the film doesn't know exactly what to do, so it just kind of does a sudden speed run to an ending where Ronnie's girlfriend wants him to spend less time with Giles, so Giles has to speak one more time to Ronnie. A great scene for Hurt however in the way we see within the scene of Giles's finally letting that veneer go as the conversation goes. As he begins with that reserve, that artificial regalness and intelligence, that segues to such natural desperation in Hurt as he makes more of a plea, and then just genuine vulnerability in Hurt's eyes as he speaks as honestly as possible about his love for the man that he has felt all this time. Unfortunately then the film wraps it up a little too quickly for its own good, leaving a bit on the table. Regardless, Hurt delivers a captivating turn that consistently elevates and really sells the material that could've gone wrong in the hands of a lesser actor. 

79 comments:

Matt Mustin said...

I'm gonna be amazed if we get through this whole 10 without a single 5. Anyway, I think he's amazing here and definitely a 5 for me.

Luke Higham said...

Ratings and thoughts on the rest of the cast.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Matt: Gonna be Lillard. Not even sure I'm kidding, I do know some real champions for that performance.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

I hope that at the very least Mullan will receive a 5.

Louis Morgan said...

And to anyone who looks, yes I did lower McKellen and Gleeson down, because just looking back, I think I might've convinced myself (in a very rare instance) that I needed to give someone a 5 that year, but even reading the reviews and my current thoughts, neither are written as a 5, nor is my passion for them a five. Though I will still defend the former and do like the latter.

Luke:

I mean despite there being other characters it is nearly a one man show in the way the film is structure though everyone else is fine in their bit parts.

Priestley - 3.5(I mean much of his performance is giving a purposefully bad performance as the bad horny teen comedy actor, which he certainly is convincing as, and really he's not supposed this great insightful guy the rest of the time though I do like Priestley's earnestness. But I definitely did appreciated his final performance of confusion, uncertainty but also a potent degree of empathy in his reaction to Giles's declaration.)

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

As long as Khan makes the overall top 10 (and top 3-4 of this lineup) I'm fine with it.

Matt Mustin said...

Yeah, I quite liked Priestley too.

Luke Higham said...

Can't say I'm terribly surprised as I figured they'd be lower than whoever else gets a 5 from you.

Shaggy Rogers said...

Everyone: Has anyone managed to watch Twenty Four Seven on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEWn6n8NwwM)? Because this link only has 1 minute and 32 seconds of film and no audio.

Matt Mustin said...

Shaggy: I've just resigned myself to the idea that I'm not gonna be able to see that one for quite some time.

Tony Kim said...

And another one bites the dust. Seems like almost everybody thought he would be a 5.

Louis: Regarding our earlier conversation, fair enough, though I'll stand by my previous points, and I have my doubts regarding Lanthimos having an "easy pass".

On another note, what do you think of McKellen playing this role, and Hurt in both of McKellen's 1998 films?

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

Well with all due respect I'm not sure you are seeing what I mean by "easy pass", Lanthimos already has the easy pass, it is doubtful Poor Things would've had the success that it had, had The Favourite not broken through as his most accessible film. With idiosyncratic filmmakers, once they make that film that hits big with the academy they have the "easy pass", like PTA after There Will Be Blood, or McDonagh after Three Billboards, it doesn't mean their films are guaranteed to be a hit with the academy, but it increases their likelihood substantially. And practically speaking it isn't some unknowable thing, rather they've become a name with the members, meaning they'll more likely check out their films and probably earlier than an unknown filmmaker, or one who hasn't already been deigned worthy by the membership. Lanthimos has the easy pass because members will more likely make time for Kind of Kindness because he's the guy they embraced for The Favourite and Poor Things, now it doesn't mean they'll respond to Kind of Kindness as they did those films, but it will in all likelihood be seen....or at least started to be seen by many academy members, which is an advantage aka the "easy pass".

McKellen I think would probably be more overt in this part than Hurt, it could also work, but I think he might be more obvious in the character's homosexual leanings than Hurt, and that might not have worked as well for this specific character. For McKellen's parts, Hurt would thrive as Whale as well, but again probably more internalized, which in that case maybe wouldn't have worked as well or worked better...either would've been interesting to see. As Dussander, I'm sure Hurt would've tried to make a go of it in a similar way of trying to find his path in the trash.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: In regards to Hurt, do you intend to watch I, Claudius during 76. It's a top 3 performance from him.

Perfectionist said...

Hoskins will probably get a 5, and maybe even his 3rd win. He has a perfect record on this blog.

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Honestly I feel like y'all are massively overestimating Hoskins, mainly beacuse I found his film to be pretty underwhelming.

Perfectionist said...

I only found it out couple of days ago, that Norton used to be a 5 for American History X. Hopefully, on some recent viewing, he goes up again. A truly great performance, for my money. I do see Bridges and McKellen(GAM) getting an upgrade.

Louis Morgan said...

Regarding the Sympathizer I'm quite baffled that Park did not direct the finale, given so much of the written material seems most up his alley for visual representation, though Marc Munden does try his best attempts at seemingly "what would Park do?".

Anyway the series on a whole is an improvement over Little Drummer Girl with Park's second foray into the miniseries, though I liked that series, though I wouldn't say he's yet achieved a masterpiece here in the form. And within the form you see both the value and challenge of it within this story of a communist Vietnamese man pretending to be a loyal man of the southern government even after the war, while still being loyal to the north. The form allowing for much exploration in terms of being this far reaching exploration of the ideas of identity very specifically as this man who is twisted within whatever he represents and whatever he does for others that seems to curse him each time, and what he is as just a man trying to live his life both from where he was in where he has gone in America. The form allows each little segment of this experience to have more time and in the more time, there is value there in the exploration which it finds with emotional depth, amplified of course by some nifty visuals whether that be Park, or by the director's trying to imitate Park. However, the limitation is within the form, where this tale of pretend, doesn't quite have that tight grip or pressure cooker quality you'd hope for with Park's best, or even just in a story of this nature. We can breathe, and maybe that is a problem. That isn't to say the series is a failure, in fact there is much greatness throughout, but consistently great it also is not, as Park and company struggle to maintain a momentum, maintain something that truly thrusts you through as the very best of television can do. It's an imperfect piece, that suggests a greater one at times, though also living up to it. It never less than at least intriguing if not fascinating, but Park hasn't quite fully unlocked this slightly alternative medium from film...yet

Cast Ranking:

1. Hoa Xuande
2. Fred Nguyen
3. Toan le
4. Sandra Oh
5. Phanxine
6. Duy Nguyen
7. Robert Downey Jr. (Slightly difficult to rank because I thought two of his performances were very good and two were pretty bad)
8. David Duchovny
9. Vy Le
10. Alan Trong
11. John Cho
12. Max Whittington-Cooper
13. Marine Delterme
14. Ky Duyen

Luke Higham said...

Thoughts on #1-8.

Jonathan Williams said...

Louis: Thoughts on the production design and cinematography of Pleasantville.

Jonathan Williams said...

And Costume Design.

Tim said...

i saw The Age of Adaline today which really pissed me off!

With that premise (a romance about a woman who doesn't age) you would expect the Forrest Gump/Benjamin Button type story spanning many years, but this one mostly takes place in modern day. And i was into it! Just showing the consequences of having lived such a life, that's a different approach, i like it. Especially because this film is much more plot-focused because of it.
The romance is really good too; Michiel Huisman proves again that exchanging Ed Skrein with him might have been the best decision the creators of GoT ever made.
And once Harrison Ford enters, it not only gave me a fantastic performance by him, but also a legit brilliant setup! All the time i was thinking "YES! YES!"; i was literally on the edge of my seat.

Only to then get an ending SO STUPID, so forced, so inconsequential and in the end saying absolutly nothing; especially since in my mind i had come up with much more interesting plot progressions already. I know it is easy to rack on happy endings, but this one REALLY didn't seem like what the rest of the movie was about!



Lively - 3.5 (i found her good in the dramatic portions, but never really seemed like 107 years old, which i think is possible)
Huisman - 4
Ford - 4.5
Baker - 3
Burstyn - 3
Crew - 2

Mitchell Murray said...

Tim: I've always had a curiousity about "Age of Adeline" - namely since people really seemed to like Harrison Ford in it, and it also marked a relative highpoint for Lively.

Though speaking of her, I always found her casting funny in that she's playing a woman who stops aging, and Lively herself has barely changed in 15 years.

J96 said...

Louis, your ranking of Pixar’s performances?

Robert MacFarlane said...

Tim: You're not the first person I've seen praise Ford's work in it. I was actually musing to myself earlier today how tiresome the whole "Ford hasn't been this invested in years" mentions in the Dial of Destiny reviews were last year. If anything, he's probably been more invested from 2013 to now than he was during the entirety of the 90's.

Mitchell Murray said...

Tim: Direct quote from the Roger Ebert (Matt Zoller Seitz) review of the film...

"Ford's voice — always deep, lowered an octave by age and one more by William's longing — is even more powerful. This is Ford's best performance since "The Fugitive," maybe since "Witness."

Accurate?

Robert MacFarlane said...

Mitchell: I was specifically thinking of Matt Zoller Seitz, yes.

8000S said...

Louis: Thoughts on these casting choices for a Japanese X-Men.

Professor X: Takashi Shimura
Cyclops: Ryo Ikebe
Wolverine: Toshiro Mifune
Jean Grey: Setsuko Hara
Rogue: Ayako Wakao
Magneto: Masayuki Mori
Mystique: Machiko Kyo
Emma Frost: Michiyo Kogure
Toad: Daisuke Kato

Calvin Law said...

More or less agree with all of Louis' thoughts on The Sympathizer, down to the rankings, though I might go lower with Downey (a gimmick that works in spurts but overall I think the series would've just been better off casting four different actors in those roles, have him as Claude or the director). And HM to Kayli Tran as the communist spy who was incredible in the finale.

Have high hopes for Hoa Xuande's future prospects, definitely a great breakout turn.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: We are talking past each other somewhat. I must remind you that I originally brought up Kinds of Kindess solely in relation to your own doubts about whether Nightbitch's genre would appeal to the Academy. I understand the logic behind your position of "The Academy has preferred Lanthimos' past films to Heller's, and therefore they will prioritize seeing KoK over Nightbitch", but my argument in my previous post was that I'm skeptical about the "easy pass" working out to the degree that you predict. The reviews have made it clear that this is quite a far cry from past AMPAS-approved works like Poor Things, and the ones I'd cite are from more reliable sources than Alex Billington, who I'm assuming you had in mind with the Antichrist comment.

I should also add that I am seriously predicting Nightbitch for only an Actress nod at this point. And more importantly, there are other potential contenders I would predict over the Lanthimos film at the moment that you didn't mention, such as The Nickel Boys and Conclave, which I'm wondering if you consider to be at least on the bubble.

Matt Mustin said...

Tony: Once again, "Easy pass" does not mean they will automatically love it, it just means they're more likely to even watch it at all.

Tim said...

Mitchell: sort of accurate. It is his best since that era, that is true. But i find it weird to go from The Fugitive to Witness as the next stepping stone. I myself have never seen The Mosquito Coast but i heard that Ford considered that his best turn.

I would put Adaline above Fugitive and more in the same wavelength as The Last Crusade

Anonymous said...

Luke, who's your pick to win the 98 Lead overall.

Luke Higham said...

Out of the remaining 4 and maybe Nolte, probably Matthew Lillard because there's a death scene involving one character where he's truly heartbreaking.

Even when the dust settles, I think we may be in for a twist during Supporting. Rufus Sewell could be a dark horse and if Jim Caviezel gets moved to Lead then it'll be an easy victory for him.

Shaggy Rogers said...

I would really love to see Carrey win the overall. If that happens, call Jeff Daniels to celebrate.

Tony Kim said...

Matt: I don't believe I contradicted what you said. I merely said I have my doubts, and furthermore, I don't pretend to know with 100% certainty about any of this.

Anonymous said...

Shaggy: Me too

https://www.mandatory.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/gallery/dumb-and-dumber/dumb-13.gif

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Xuande - (This theoretically should be a star-making performance, however we shall see, because he is charismatic in terms of just instantly pulling you into the Captain as a figure to follow even as we know him to be a most duplicitous sort right off the bat. Xuande has the wonderful combination between ease and unease here, because in part you sense his unease on camera, and just very much playing into the Captain as this certain self-enclosed force of personality, while also balancing that with the internalization of the constant and consistent unease of the man who is living several lies at once. Xuande's performance manages to bring us into his internal logic that is important, because as much as we may not make his choices, perform his actions, Xuande makes us understand everything he is doing, at least in terms of his own internal logic. Xuande wonderfully is able to play the part, and fake the part from scene to scene, sometime within the same scene, where you see how he's faking his loyalties in one moment, then is genuinely distressed by his fake loyalties the next. Xuande never loses this, showing effectively the Captain's connection to certain people, just as he fixates on his "cause" even as sort of his conviction in that becomes thinner as the series progresses. Xuande never loses the personal narrative, creating really the right anchor, that could be extremely distant given how insanely specific the journey of the character is, but Xuande excels, in part just by being charismatic, but also knowing how to convey the very personal connections that do reveal themselves along with again playing the game that becomes consistently more frustrating.)

Fred Nguyen - (A performance that works beautifully in contrast to Xuande in portraying the man, who perhaps has a secrets himself, however his secrets are not something that weighs himself down in the same way, rather we see the man who is weighed down by his life entirely, as the man we quickly find the man in grips of depression. Nguyen finds the right progression of creating nuance within the character's struggle, where he manages to dance around the certain comedy with genuine pathos of the character's emotional struggle. Nguyen wonderfully shows the way the man is never able to fully escape his loss at any point and it is something he is "wearing" even when he seems at his greatest comfort. Contrasting that though is the nature of his place in the politics of the character where Nguyen is great in showing this unabashed conviction at all times, which is so strongly in-contrast to Xuande's performance, as the man has his loyalty to his friend and to his country, without exception which of course is the polar opposite to Xuande's man of constant conflict.)

Louis Morgan said...

Toan Le - (His performance I think could've very easily gone wrong given how much the General is depicted as this vicious buffoon that I think could have easily been just over the top or ridiculous. Toan Le finds just the right line to walk where he very much brings that bluster to the character of the man who is constantly just giving out orders to everyone around him as though he should always be in charge, and carries himself the same way even after Vietnam, which Toan Le effectively shows how there's a bit less of a conviction and a bit more of a show the further he gets away from this. He balances the overall approach though with more subtle moments in certain scenes where he for a moment shows his real exasperation at his suddenly lowly state, or the sense of personal dissatisfaction with everything he's dealing with. Although he is effectively the one big blowhard, he thankfully doesn't use that as an excuse only to be that.)

Oh - (I think another role that could be easy to overplay as the cynical older woman, and play it up too much. Oh most certainly doesn't do that instead finding the right nuance within the character's bluntness. Showing her manner is less so someone who is putting on cynicism rather presenting with a more seasoned sense of someone who has enough disappointments not to believe anything too much. She has the right way of letting out just enough genuine emotion, whether it be love, jealousy or even desperation, however never is overt with any showing the guarded state of her that will try to be as safe as she can be with emotion with the sense of the past in every action.)

Phanxine - (Brings the right sort of lightly comic manner for the character that you can't help but find him a bit likable in his somewhat hapless manner. In turn making him quite heartbreaking by being so sincerely simplistic in his manner, even when revealing secrets, and creating the right haunting quality in his performance by always being genuine in the state of the man who never should have been brought into the espionage as his very nature has no connection with it.)

Duy Nguyen - (Brings the right sense of overt confidence in his early scenes to present the man who is ready for everything to fall his way and become a man of power when the time comes. And becomes this idea of the image of the man of extreme confidence, which of course then is in stark contrast to what we eventual find in the other half of his performance, where he is most effective in portraying this brokenness that mixes in with the conviction, that now seems faulty in comparison and creates more of the state of an intense kind of paranoia of the actual result of such assurances.)

Louis Morgan said...

Downey - (Well let's go performance by performance. As Claude the CIA agent, Downey is overt, however in a way that is effective, in creating kind of the "ideal" version of the American brass who is very boisterous, very big, and just always ready to strong arm with confidence. He's effective though in the way he always reveals within that confidence this more incisive and underhanded manner, often in just a look, a turn that shows the much more cutting and dangerous man beneath that certain expectation. When he's Claude, the gimmick, does work by Downey in a way not exactly being the truth of the man but being captivating in this type. As the director, Downey entirely plays it honestly, and really is the most sincere performance by Downey. Of course it is as an egotistical director, so there is a bit more natural bravado about it but Downey plays all these scenes much more honestly, with sort of his quick talking manner used most successfully here. He's mostly playing within his type, and thrives quite effectively within that type. The third is as the professor which is by the far the worst performance by Downey and of the series, and in fact might be Downey's worse performance altogether. It is just such an over the top depiction of a broadly implied homosexual intellectual type character that is just ridiculous every second he's onscreen. I think if he had maybe pulled it in, played more sincerely, then something that the character does later on might've hit hard, but as he is you barely notice it since it is impossible to take him seriously. Then there's the politician who is also over the top in his Americaness but without the nuance he brought behind it like with Claude. He's not as bad as he is as the professor but he's still not good there.)

Duchovny - (He's a bit of fun playing into the over the top actor who wants to stress realism, perhaps because he's passionate or more likely as just an excuse to be a horrible being in every possible way. Regardless, Duchovny's combination between the soldier's manner and then his actor's random intensity as being "real" was an enjoyable surprise.)

Calvin:

I agree that the gimmick doesn't work consistently, I think part of it is because Downey is inconsistent, if he was great as the professor and the politician I think it might've worked entirely. Although I also think it might struggle due to the lack of a stylistic logic, as it would've made more sense if Downey played every white American male character, one could argue he's playing maybe the paternalistic characters towards the Captain, however I don't really think the director fits that bill so it doesn't quite make sense the way it is implemented, even sense as a stylistic flourish. In the end, I agree it probably would've been best to have just cast him as either Claude or the director.

Louis Morgan said...

Jonathan Williams:

The production design effectively realizes its major point which is to create the idyllic 50's sitcom world with this kind of folksy "perfection". Although the designs are played with just a tad to make it a bit more ominous and artificial than a pure 50's sitcom.

The cinematography I think only partially lives up to its great gimmick it has at its disposal which is using the color to contrast between it and the black and white. The shots that truly emphasize this are especially striking, like the courtroom shot. I would say though it isn't consistently making the most of this contrast, it does at times, and I wouldn't say the compositions here are consistently stellar as they could be in terms of reflecting the period, say if you compare John Lindley's work to Edward Lachman's for Far From Heaven, it doesn't quite live up to that. Not that it is bad, however it is one where it's good, but an even greater visual potential seems possible that is fully lived up to.

The costumes are relatively straightforward, other than choosing especially bright colors when they get colored, but again reinforce the 50's, but the "perfect" 50's as an ideal.

Tony:

Conclave I see predicted by many people, and while I can understand it by the awards friendly release date and the fact that Focus Features can be a strong campaigner, however, reading the plot which sounds Da Vinci Codeish, even if perhaps better and more successful, doesn't particularly sound like prestige material, reading reviews of the book, it does seem to be a thriller, set in the Vatican which doesn't sound like the typical academy's alley, nor does it really play into the new academy's alley. Additionally to speak on the former point a bit more, Edward Berger, despite the success of All Quiet on the Western Front does not have the "Easy Pass", because he was not a name before All Quiet, and wasn't made one fully by All Quiet. As that film was lauded and seen as great, but was not seen as a great film by Edward Berger, say in the same way Dune is seen as a great film by Denis Villeneuve. Maybe he'll later become a name director, right now though he has the chance to make the jump, but if Conclave underwhelms, or even is considered just "fine" he will continue to be a journeyman.

The Nickel Boys could go several ways. One is RaMell Ross struggles to make the transition from documentary, which more documentarians fail in that transition than succeed. Two maybe it is good, but not great, and given the difficult subject matter maybe voters don't rush to it leaving it as a "also ran". The latter could even be true if it is great quite frankly. Three Ross makes the transition, the film is great, AND is seen as essential viewing, all three could happen but there are definitely reasons to doubt the film as a contender at this venture.

8000's:

Fine choices, Shimura as Professor X in particular is ideal.

Omar Franini said...

Louis: I just read your comment on your previous post and I’ll be honest, I don’t know what you will think about Megalopolis. The movie is not subtle at all and it’s a bit messy in the first half. I wasn’t sure what to think about it after watching it, but on a rewatch everything clicked for me both thematically and also in the way Coppola handles the bizzarre tone of the movie. I’m a bit vague just because I don’t like to get into details if you haven’t watched the movie, but all I can say is that I I really hope you will enjoy Plaza’s performance as much as I did, she’s such a delight in the role of Platinum Wow.

As for your Oscar predictions, Strong is 100% supporting in The Apprentice. He has a lot of screen time but the movie is mostly focused on every aspect of Trump’s life and not only the relationship with Cohn.

8000S said...

Louis: It seems that in the 1956 comedy A Cat, Shozo and Two Women, Kyoko Kagawa played a character way different from her typical gentle and innocent roles. A trashy modern girl, according to a review of the movie.

She also speaks with an Osaka accent.

Still haven't seen yet, but sounds promising, don't you think?

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Regarding Seinfeld's The Parking Spot, who would you say the spot belonged to more, George or Mike?

Also, what are you general thoughts on season 9?

Louis Morgan said...

Omar:

Well certainly interested in giving it its shot no matter what...hopefully that can be soon than later.

8000's:

Sounds very promising indeed.

Tony:

George, you cannot parallel park into a tight space from the front first, therefore it is the right way, if you park headfirst it signals a breakdown in the social order, chaos!

I like it plenty, I know some decry it for being sillier and more outlandish, however for me that doesn't matter for one the series never attempted drama to begin with, as it is a pure comedy, and two, the bigger reason, it was still hilarious. The finale of course doesn't work, but most of the episodes do.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Thoughts on the skateboard chase scene in Back to the Future?

Bryan L. said...

Louis: Your 1930s and 1960s cast & director for Poor Things.

Matt Mustin said...

Louis: It reduces us...to *jungle law*.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Speaking of Poor Things, thoughts & ratings on Suzy Bemba? If you've given them before, I couldn't find them.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Thoughts on the "Merv Griffin Show", "The Strike" and "The Puerto Rican Day" episodes from Seinfeld?

Louis Morgan said...

Tahmeed:

A great action scene that proves it isn't what you're working with in terms of scale, but rather how you work with it. Because it's a skateboard versus a car, in what is technically a relatively modest set in terms of geography, and lower stakes, despite Biff "I'm gonna ram him" (which side note one of the most random directorial trademarks is both Back to the Future and Roger Rabbit featuring that line). But you get a great quick gag, from Marty creating his skateboard through quick thinking, to then just the relatively light but effective tricks from the car hang, to even better, the car run through, with the perfect punctuation of the manure truck...which is one of the gags the sequels did rather wonderfully. While also just moving everything along character wise, Marty accidentally impresses Lorraine again, George retiring off, and Biff having an additional reason for vendetta.

Bryan:

Poor Things 1930's directed by James Whale (Which honestly going by something like Sign of the Cross, pre-code, we could have a surprising amount from the current film):

Bella Baxter: Elsa Lanchester
Godwin Baxter: Boris Karloff
Duncan Wedderburn: Charles Laughton
Max McCandles: Joel McCrea
Alfie Blessing: John Carradine
Harry Astley: Paul Robeson
Swiney: Una O'Connor
Martha von Kurtzroc: May Robson

Poor Things 1960's directed by Stanley Kubrick:

Bella Baxter: Anne Bancroft
Godwin Baxter: Charles Laughton
Duncan Wedderburn: Peter Sellers
Max McCandles: Gene Wilder
Alfie Blessing: Christopher Plummer
Harry Astley: Harry Belafonte
Swiney: Ruth Gordon
Martha von Kurtzroc: Leopoldine Konstantin

Louis Morgan said...

Matt:

*Applauds*

Tony:

Bemba - 3.5(I think she offers find sort of basic support in her moments with Stone in her grounding reactions towards what Stone is doing as showing very much a more direct reality, mixed in with quite a bit of naturalistic warmth that services the relationship well.)

Anonymous:

The Merv Griffin Show services my point nicely, as all four stories are utterly ridiculous, from saving the squirrel, to Jerry desperately to play with toys going to most questionable action, to the sideler, and of course the titular bit that is most insane of all, but it doesn't matter because it is all hilarious. From George's "pact" with pigeons, and his "we don't have anything with them" when hitting the squirrel, to how the squirrel plays in with the hawk, to Kramer needing to go to check tricks for "ratings" with one of my favorite asides being Newman's guest host suggestions that Kramer will pretend not to hear, and of course really every Peterman does in the sideler story, from his breakdown of "Elaine"/the Sideler's bad work or his belief that tic tacs are merely slow torture for him. Totally over the top and wholly hilarious.

The Strike comparatively is less over the top, which is saying something considering it has the invented Festivus within it. But begins hilarious with Kramer's job being revealed, particularly his pride in holding out 12 years for the pay increase, to of course "The Human Fund" which is my favorite of all charities, to even the singular gag of the bad lighting woman, and of course the most petty of plots, which are sometimes my favorites, with Elaine wanting to get that sub card. Especially love before knowing who Tracy Letts is as the sleazy track guy along with Charlie who both are just wonderfully horrible in their lecturerness. And like the best episodes, it manages to climax by bringing all the stories together by building off each other in one or another, to make it indeed the best Festivus ever!

The Puerto Rican actually isn't great either, along with the finale, though I do prefer it over that. I don't love Elaine's Poseidon adventure which is very silly but not funny enough to be silly enough. Even the concept of the episode for just designed for the flag burning bit I guess which hosted much controversy, which the concept is the act is supposed to be offensive within the show, however it just isn't really a good bit anyways. Really the only bit that is at all amusing from it being the Puerto Rican day is when Kramer wanders into the wrong Black Saab. But there are still some good bits in there, I've always enjoyed the rival drivers referring to themselves as their respective vehicle names, the bits of the three being true stooges in faking their names to use the nice apartment's bathroom and George wanting the great zinger on Blimp, I've always enjoyed it. Definitely a mixed bag overall though.

Matt Mustin said...

The Merv Griffin Show has one of my favourite John O'Hurley line reads ever, which is "It reminds me of the Haitian voodoo rattle torture"

Anonymous said...

Louis: thoughts on the trailer for Wolfs?

Tony Kim said...

Louis: How would you rank Seinfeld's core four in terms of morality? Who would you say was the worst person of the group, and who was the "least bad"?

Robert MacFarlane said...

Tony Kim: I remember a meme made years ago that used Dungeons and Dragons alignments to describe Seinfeld characters. Jerry, Elaine, and George all fell under Neutral Evil. Kramer fell under Chaotic Neutral. Newman was Chaotic Evil.

Matt Mustin said...

Robert: That sounds about right.

Marcus said...

Louis: Same question as Tony's, except for it being the main characters of It's Always Sunny... (or at least your #2-#5).

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

Louis: Thoughts on these Seinfeld performances?

Lee Arenberg
Stephen Lee
Courteney Cox
James Spader
Sandy Baron

Shaggy Rogers said...

Hey guys.
Now that Cannes is over, how about making a bet on the dark? Tell us which directors, lead actors and support actors are favorite in 2024?

Director
Denis Villenueve - Dune 2
Robert Eggers - Nosferatu
Yorgos Lanthimos - Kinds of Kindness
Ryūsuke Hamaguchi - Evil Does Not Exist
Francis Ford Coppola - Megalopolis

Lead Actor
Jesse Plemons - Kinds of Kindness
Hitoshi Omika - Evil Does Not Exist
Ralph Fiennes - Conclave
Daniel Craig - Queer
Colamn Domingo- Sing Sing

Supporting Actor
Nicholas Hoult - Nosferatu
Willem Dafoe - Kinds of Kindness
Samuel L. Jackson - The Piano Lesson
Harris Dickinson - Blitz
Paul Raci - Sing Sing

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Clooney and Pitt as bickering fixers seems like an easy enough sell on their chemistry, but the trailer for me seemed a little jerky in its attempts to sell it all. Maybe it will be fun, but this didn't entirely convince me that it will be.

Tony:

1. Kramer (Least bad)
2. Jerry
3. Elaine
4. George (Worst)

Kramer has genuinely attempted good deeds, they don't work out for the people he's "helping" (like "mom" and "pop") usually but he is at least capable of good intentions. Jerry never stabbed anyone in the head with a fork and did try to do something nice with the Cadillac for his parents, though otherwise it's pretty close between Elaine and him in terms of general personal callousness. George of course is the easy "worst" based just on his treatment of Susan.

Arenberg - (Although he plays the same character in both episodes really his performance is very different in each. He's funny as basically Kramer's George in bringing the same type of stubborn passionate insistence on himself that matches nicely against Alexander in that episode, and in his way of also lying with his memorable "Michael Jordan he's so phony...WHY'D YOU TELL HIM". But he's also very funny in his other appearance in being enjoyably pathetic as a bookie, with this hapless eagerness to his whole performance that becomes filled with a broken pathos as he becomes the beaten down man, I especially love his hangdog manner when he doesn't have the money or his eager delivery of "I'm gonna fix it real good", and of course his passionate dismay at his final accusation towards Jerry.)

Louis Morgan said...

Stephen Lee - (Well as Conrad, Connie, Con, whatever I'd prefer, I think he's terrific in playing the note just so earnestly in the way the character is so specific with this kind openness, then his middle point of his confused disbelief when Jerry's not happy with his work, then his blunt cynicism when he's now become Conrad only. A hilarious arc handled with proper efficiency by Lee.)

Cox - (I wouldn't say Jerry's girlfriends always get the best material to work with, though I think Cox does nicely with what she has in terms of kind of playing it seriously in the "dramatic" conclusion of their "marriage", and makes it funnier by playing the ending of it so seriously as their mistake was getting married.)

Spader - (Amazing work by him and underrated within the scheme of guest stars, as he does some of his smarm here in his dismissive way of "apologizing" to George where Spader is indeed bip bopping and skatting, with just that relaxed ease of Spader that also can be so penetrating in that way only Spader can do. BUT he's also hilarious then in the ice cream scene where first trying to be genuine then when George doesn't stop his slow slipping into severe mania is just beautifully done in the intensity that grows to declare "I HATE STEP NINE".)

Baron - (One of the great repeating guests, as I think he does just the right balance between just nosy neighbor type to a degree of more severe nefariousness while being so hilariously horrible the whole time in his incompetence. His back and forths with Martin are great, as our his moments from Jerry where Baron really knows how to emphasize a knife twisting smile when he's got something over on them, but also can blow up himself rather nicely such as when "those crocs almost got him".)


Marcus:

1. Mac (Least bad)
2. Dee
3. Charlie
4. Dennis
5. Frank (Worst)

Tougher in parsing out the differences as all fall into nearly pure evil. Mac is only least bad in that much of his bad behaviors are built around looking for self-approval and general fear, that hardly excuses his actions but are less extreme in their maliciousness...sometimes. Dee and Charlie are a challenge between the two. Charlie being a constant stalker, and what he does Alexandra Daddario's character does I think makes him ever so slightly worse than Dee, who we now know is all due to a head injury, so at least has more of a reason for her own emotional abuse and extreme vapidity. Dennis might seem high at #4, given the Dennis system alone, but Frank's shady dealings in the past perhaps are the most singularly destructively evil actions in terms of the amount of people impacted.

Tony Kim said...

Robert: I'd say Elaine was somewhere around Neutral in the first few seasons, but starting from S7 or so (if not earlier) she moved into the evil category.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Are there any other TV shows or seasons you've seen this year that you haven't discussed yet? Have you seen the final season of Curb Your Enthusiasm, for example?

Also, as I believe you've said you like Norm Macdonald, thoughts on the moth joke and the Courtney Thorne-Smith incident.

Bryan L. said...

“Look, I didn't go to Vietnam just to have pansies like you take my freedom away from me.”

“You went to Vietnam in *1993* to open up a sweatshop!”

“And a lot of good men died in that sweatshop!”

Bryan L. said...

Also, to add on to the Seinfeld thing, many of Kramers schemes are really him (and sometimes Newman) just trying to make a quick buck. Never really seemed like he intended to harm anyone. Just wanted to enjoy life.

Matt Mustin said...

Bryan: Well he does help try and kidnap a dog.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Thoughts on these Simpsons episodes?

Moaning Lisa
'Round Springfield
Raging Abe Simpson...
Grade School Confidential

Shaggy Rogers said...

Louis: Your Top 10 of the best director and actor appearances on The Simpsons?

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your thoughts on the opening to Skip and Loafer? (You can turn on the captions for English subtitles)

https://youtu.be/P93-Dvtf3kg?si=XRXm-W9s4TEn8SoE

Robert MacFarlane said...

Louis: What do you think of Emmerich in The Truman Show? Even without the deleted scenes that add to his work, I think he's the MVP just for the bridge scene. You can tell how guilty he feels.

Perfectionist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Perfectionist said...

Am I the only one, who thinks Harris should be a 5 for The Truman Show?? It might have been awhile, since I last watched The Truman Show, but I believe I loved everything about it including Harris' performance.

Louis Morgan said...

Tony:

I saw the final season of Curb, fine not great, some decent bits, but nothing special within the series.

The moth joke is nearly impeccable anti-humor, though I actually prefer Dirty Johnny's uncle story in the ilk, where you see Macdonald doing artfully the practice of saying things funny rather saying funny things, and playing on the whole notion of joke telling by telling a not particularly good joke as labored as possible, that in turn strangely makes it hilarious.

A classic moment that perhaps was simply doing the thing that no one does when someone is promoting a bad movie, saying "what everyone is thinking", however in the Macdonald was of being as impish as possible while doing it, with the beautiful capper of Conan challenging Norm and him coming back with the perfect "B*O*R*E*D".

Moaning Lisa is another example of the show trying to figure out what it is, as this seems more like trying to deal with in part real drama of a kid potentially being depressed randomly and exploring that. Something in itself, other than the at times weak animation, isn't terrible, if definitely less entertaining than the show would become, however also doesn't exactly cohere with Homer's fairly silly side story, and you see more so the James L. Brooks influence, as is common in the 1st season of much more a dramedy, and while I don't think it is anywhere near perfection and interesting attempt with a memorable character in Bleeding Gums Murphy.

'Round Springfield - I think can be used as the extreme contrast to see where the show went in the much more overtly comical episode, and very funny it is including Bleeding Gums's backstory from being yet another famous Jazz musician relative in the Cosby show, to his old mento playing an umbrella "that's not funny", to Bart's specific jagged edge story with Krusty's less than successful press conference. I think though the episode also shows what the Simpsons of the era did so well, as despite how comedy driven it is, it manages to have genuine emotion in Bleeding Gums's death and the fallout of it, even if it is resolved with Lion King convivence, yet even that works.

Raging Abe Simpson...is a unique but effective episode that is essentially a thriller, though with comic highlights, though nicely with Grandpa being at his "worst" early on then we get to see the badass he was in World War II, before that emerging again with the showdown with Burns that is most satisfying with even a bit of emotion with Bart seeing the truth of Grandpa, also effortlessly done in a bit over 20 minutes. But also some great gags in there such as the Assassin and burns pretending to be the Simpsons, or the Assassin's so very specific plan that involves just going head first in with a machine gun before being thwarted by an equally armed Nurse.

Grade School Confidential for a later season is probably theoretically slightly more dramatic, though some good gags in there such as the not particularly good at math Mathmagician, Skinner's hot dog vest and Ralph's version of what he saw in the janitor's closet. But most of it is on the hidden relationship and the rumors that develop from it, and is largely effective as such, though I suppose never has been a favorite of mine but is entirely good.

Louis Morgan said...

8000's:

I will say the Looney Tunes is fairly effective in realizing approximately similar voices albeit speaking Portuguese.

Less impressed on the whole by the Phantasm performances, though I think Andrea is fine, Batman and the Joker are touch too high pitched for my liking.

Tahmeed:

Well both the song and the animation have a energetic and bright quality to them. Nice to know the lyrics actually for once, which I suppose are therefore fitting to the general pleasant and fun quality of the animation behind them, which is less detailed then some I've seen but I liked the consistency between the sequences.

Robert:

I like him quite a bit, and while it has always frustrated me that his moment in the episode rundown scene was deleted, where he is great in reacting to the callousness of everyone else. I've always felt he was good, however watching the bridge scene this time around, yes he does layer it where you can sense the performance he's giving Truman, with the performance he's almost giving himself on top of the obvious shame Emmerich subtlety brings that Marlon is feeling just between every lie.

Marcus said...

Louis: If you're not going to give him a write-up, could you confirm if Carrey went up for The Truman Show.

Mitchell Murray said...

Everyone: For anyone whose seen "Jujitsu Kaisen", "Chainsaw Man" or both series...thoughts on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFFTXKcNCjg&ab_channel=MarcoLeviuy2.0channel_Edits

Louis Morgan said...

Marcus:

No feel exactly the same about his performance as the first time I didn't review him.

Louis Morgan said...

Shaggy:

1. Kelsey Grammer
2. Phil Hartman
3. Joe Mantegna
4. Albert Brooks
5. Alex Rocco
6. Spinal Tap
7. Marcia Wallace
8. David Hyde Pierce
9. Jackie Mason
10. Jon Lovitz

Hm: Leonard Nimoy, Harvey Fierstein, Daryl Coley, Danny Devito, Dustin Hoffman, Werner Klemperer, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sam Neill, James Woods, Winona Ryder, Meryl Streep, James Earl Jones, Dennis Franz, Dick Cavett, Mickey Rooney, Lawrence Tierney, Donald Sutherland, Kirk Douglas, Paul Winfield