Tuesday 17 September 2024

Alternate Best Actor 1977: John Gielgud in Providence

John Gielgud did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning NYFCC, for portraying Clive Langham in Providence. 

John Gielgud's role here is one of the strangest leading performances you might encounter in terms of the construction of it. As for the first hour and 20 minutes, of a 110 minute long film, you rarely see Gielgud, but you almost constantly hear him. Although not your standard narration of a man describing his life, rather it is something more difficult to pinpoint, although more common for Alain Renais with a certain degree of a stream of consciousness, though this isn't exactly that, though partially that, as it also appears the ideas of a writer constructing ideas, while either sleeping or not sleeping through a long night. Although this may seem a tethered Gielgud in description, it is perhaps Gielgud's most untethered as a screen performer. While Gielgud otherwise has memorable cinematic roles, the vast majority of them are within a certain regal requirement in terms of the overall range within which he is allowed to play, the role of Clive Langham allows a far greater expression than was usually granted within Gielgud's characters. All of that despite our introduction of him being only his voice as he speaks to this story he appears to be relating about his son as a cold lawyer, his daughter-in-law as an unsatisfied wife, his bastard son as the strange potential love of his daughter-in-law and his wife as his son's much older mistress.

Gielgud's voice is one of those that cuts through any moment, even when not seen, by just the regal grandness of it. The way he speaks here though is a bit different from that, occasionally as he Clive seems to overtly directly the action there is that power to it, but Gielgud underlines it with maybe just a bit of distress to make things go his "way" in his vision/dream/subconscious, I'll just say story going forward for the sake of brevity. Gielgud's performance isn't not at all narration in the typical sense, closer to commentary, if not even argument with maybe Renais himself as he goes about watching this tale unfold, even if he seems to hold the power in such a story. Gielgud's exact delivery advises meaning within the words spoken in reaction to or in trying to create the story. Occasionally this is simple, even comical by Gielgud as he consistently acts in disgust to the repeated appearance of an older gentlemen, which Gielgud immediately grants you the exasperation for a man he views as a bit of joke, though is far too familiar with and just wants out of his mind as swiftly as possible. There's more complexity with those that are his family, particularly his son, where Gielgud brings a callous viciousness about every little change in his plan, such as giving him an older mistress, and his constant criticism Gielgud denotes a certain vile plotting against the nature of him each time.

Gielgud owns the quality within Clive's voice conducting it with this bawdy insistence for his perspective of his "children" where Gielgud plays with it in this combination of a more earnest joyful playfulness and something more sinister in a combined measure. Gielgud's commentary creates this fascinating combination between a certain entertainment in his conducting combined with something a bit more off-putting in the bitterness within the cattiness. His manner with potential illicit love affairs, Gielgud brings this insistent need for the idea to be true in every word he speaks, with a fixation not built so much on lust rather a necessity for his mental well being. Gielgud only through his voice crafts a tapestry of the man's world through every word, while doing so in such a way where his voice alone is captivating. The story is occasionally interrupted with a horrible vision of an old man being dissected, hence the nature of the story not exactly being just that, which Clive seems to treat as a challenge to whoever is constructing his visions, where Gielgud's reaction every time is pitch perfect in the combination between disgust and discontent that such easy imagery of perhaps his own corpse isn't enough to disturb him, while also still suggesting that it isn't as though Clive is undisturbed. 

The man is more literally disturbed by his physical pains as he awakens in this night, and we do suddenly see Gielgud more than a few times writhing in his discomforts. The descriptions of his pain are brilliant deliveries by Gielgud each and every time, as he fashions the pain within his words, even though we also see his expression this time to match it. There is a vividness within the description, and even as Clive attempts to maintain his cleverness, Gielgud's performance creates a very real and visceral anguish. There's an essential moment however during the long night that seems to speak so much more about the truth of Clive than the story that is being related as we pause for a moment for us to see Clive talking about a seemingly innocuous story about his son, at an earlier younger time, stating that they had a dinner where the son spoke of maturing through learning moral language as a logical proposition. A seemingly odd yet incredible moment as Gielgud makes it such a powerful scene because it is the expression of Clive finally reveals so much emotional vulnerability suddenly and you see perhaps the raw nerves in the man that he hides through his dismissive tale. You see that in the moment of the real father who has dismissed his son and hates himself for it behind the veneer of callousness. Revealing the real beating heart and shame of the man. Something that becomes clear in perhaps the most telling vision where we see Clive approach his wife having committed suicide, where we see a relatively brief but essential moment of Clive finding here. Gielgud's presence is so very different in the moment in this sort of resigned sadness, as a man not devastated in the same way as this almost expectation of the results of his failures. 

The film unexpectedly shifts for the final twenty minutes into "reality" and away from the story. Where his son, bastard son and daughter-in-law all come to visit him for his 78th birthday, something earlier bemoaned in that brilliant way only Gielgud can in his pithy way. But now in the real world of Clive, all three seem so much happier, more content and altogether complete people. They aren't living in drama, they just are generally comfortable, with the only discomfort coming from Clive. Gielgud's outstanding throughout the sequence and doesn't waste his now consistent appearance, as it is in his performance that he must unlock the truth of the man. As much of what happens is just generalities of a birthday party, such as gifts from his children, which Clive accepts graciously enough between pleasantries. The truth is in the break, not by the guests, but by Clive, where Gielgud reveals the intensity of the insecurity through the subtle moments of reactions and questions. While Gielgud presents Clive being on his best behavior he allows you to read between the lines such as his overcompensating when saying his bastard son is restrained with this phony force, of such a blunt man, of someone convincing himself that his sin was less than it was. When inquiring about just how healthy his son's marriage actually seems to be, Clive asks again, with Gielgud being charming his way, but with this seething desire for some sort of flaw in the marriage to somehow satiate his need to downplay his own failures as a father and as a husband. Gielgud's performance is a fascinating example of one where it thrives even within a film that most certainly is a "director's film". Gielgud's greatness is within every moment, heard or seen he does have in creating the emotional key towards the purposefully enigmatic narrative. He helps you find the way to connect to this strange tale, by uncovering the broken heart of the man, through every expected snipe, but also a more honest moment of genuine regret. While Gielgud certainly excelled as the regal force in so many films, Providence offers the opportunity for Gielgud to uncover more within his cinematic presence, not wasting a second or even a word in creating an entertaining, captivating, dynamic but also emotional portrait of a man compensating for the failure of his life. 

19 comments:

Luke Higham said...

Delighted with another 5 for Gielgud.

Matt Mustin said...

Haven't seen this yet, but I'm hoping you'll love him in Prospero's Books because the construction of that performance is not dissimilar to how you describe this one, in the sense of thriving in a "Director's Film", and particularly the constant use of his voice.

Luke Higham said...

Updated remaining films to watch list

Jesus Of Nazareth
The Duellists
The Goodbye Girl
Sorcerer
Annie Hall
Cross Of Iron (Re-watched it recently and Schell's my Supporting Actor runner-up)
Wizards
Pete's Dragon
The Lacemaker (could be a great Huppert performance)
Sleeping Dogs (early breakthrough role for Sam Neill)
House
Jabberwocky
The Hunters
Peppermint Soda
The Report
Between The Lines
The Man Who Loved Women
Islands In The Stream

Tim said...

"Renee Zellweger - Cold Mountain (CHECK)"?

What does that check part mean? I don't get it

Luke Higham said...

Tim: I'm sure his pick is Shohreh Aghdashloo in House Of Sand And Fog.

Louis Morgan said...

Tim:

It was the year that I couldn't think of the nominees off the top of my head, but I forgot to check before posting the list.

Anonymous said...

Louis, rating and thoughts on David Warner.

Anonymous said...

Louis: Thoughts on the trailer for Brothers?

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your 10 favorite Shakespearean monologues, and your favorite cinematic rendition of each one?

Matt Mustin said...

Tahmeed: That is an excellent question.

Tony Kim said...

Louis: Thoughts on the Mickey 17 trailer?

Matt Mustin said...

Luke: Agreed about Schell. I think an argument could be made for him being co-lead too.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

I found the Mickey 17 trailer to be VERY promising, definitely seems more Okja than Parasite awards prospect-wise, but that hardly matters because Okja's a very good film too. Pattinson's definitely going for it, and I can't wait to see his full performance(s).

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous & Luke:

Krieps - (Brings an atypical energy for a western lead, and her performance is effective in essentially bringing something different within a well worn genre obviously. Her performance even when her character is the victim Krieps finds a willfulness within her own performance that makes her character more dynamic mainly through that energy that she brings. She has something off-beat just about her which grants something captivating even when she might be in a relatively rudimentary scene on the whole.)

Mortensen - (Mortensen rarely isn't solid as the lead, and that is the case once again. He just does an average exasperated man extremely well and always effectively as he builds towards his character finally taking action. All of that is well performed by Mortensen and has a subdued yet genuine chemistry with Krieps that is less some intense love and more just a subdued warm connection that entirely works. It isn't the hardest pushing performance from him, but reliable work from him.)

Dunst - (So with both her in this and Leigh in Annihilation makes me wonder if Garland is just really terrible when directing someone to be exhausted by life and just mixes it up with giving a dull performance. As for Dunst's performance I'll admit I almost found it comical at times with just how little energy she brought to it, and that same "I'm Bored" face she was consistently making. The problem is I didn't sense the weight of someone who has seen it all in her expression and I just found it a not at all dynamic performance failing to be engaging. I didn't get the history of this woman who has seen too much, rather just a performer seeming bored much of the time. Dunst can be great, so I can chalk it up to both Garland's poor direction and miscalculation...however after this and Power of the Dog maybe Dunst going for subdued internalization isn't the best approach for her.)

Moura - (Speaking of miscalculation, Moura is the same who just keeps it big and strangely without impact. Again the general idea like Dunst makes sense, he's gone insane from what he's seen, she's just become desensitized. Two different ways to express the idea, unfortunately with both performances the weight needed for the approach is missing. Moura just seems like an actor overacting with how big he goes with every line, and you don't get a proper sense of the real seething desperation below the bravado. Making it just seem like he's acting weird in such a situation rather than being genuinely part of it all.)

Spaeny - (Her performance is slightly better in that she's at least expressing emotion that makes sense for a given scene, however at the same time she does really make any steps for you to really see her come alive. Everything seems a little too light, her drive for the picture for example seems so rudimentary as though she's just some random teenager looking for fun rather than in a warzone looking for the real moments. Maybe that is what Garland was going for, but again just a bad idea if that was the case, OR there needed to be a clearer translation from that type to someone finding the reality of the situation. That doesn't appear though in either her performance or the script however.)

Louis Morgan said...

Henderson - (The one member of the main crew where you do genuinely sense the weight of the situation. Henderson even when joking is able to underline the words with that sense of history and wisdom to the truths of what all this could mean. Henderson shows what is lacking in the other performances because you do feel in every one of his deliveries and reactions so much more within his character that is even presented within the narrative. There is a life to his reporter that is missing in the others and brings a much needed reality to the film that seems far too detached otherwise.)

Plemons - (Gets to dust off his Todd creepiness, and does so effectively without just doing Todd either, does have his own method here. Bringing the vicious nationalism with an ease as though it is just his perceived duty to kill as he pleases with this unnerving certainty about everything he's doing.)

Poehler - (Fine reprise and brings something within the moments of Joy's frustrations, even if that element within the story is probably one that isn't fully developed, she is good in bringing the expected, well, joy along with some variations within that overall approach.)

Hawke - (Genuinely great voice work because she so much embodies everything about the character in just her hurried delivery that switches on a dime, and creates tension within it. While doing it in a way that manages to be fun, while also genuinely intense, and her performance manages to not make Anxiety villainous as overtly because she has that desperation in her voice the whole time. She never limits her performance to a singular quality in her voice, despite having that specific intensity the whole time, and just wonderfully is able to play around with Anxiety's exact role throughout the film. Anxiety is an essential part to what makes the sequel work and Hawke is pivotal to that.)

Tallman - (Brings a genuine straightforward emotion and realistic teenage manner to her performance. It's always convincing as a real teenager within her delivery rather than becoming an overt idea of one that could've been the case. Instead her delivery, even when being played around with different emotions, offers some weight of authenticity to it even in the sillier moments.)

Free - (The film suffers from not really dealing with anything in the character, whether that be her apparent troubled background, her theoretical struggle with her faith or anything else. Free's performance is almost entirely about just being within the moment of scenes, particularly in playing within the ideas of reacting to the horrors around her or discovering the very personal horrors she is facing within herself. The only real character is that she is generally caring where she does bring a nice warmth to her role before being put in that ringer. To her credit she carries so many of the scenes by just being absolutely convincing in presenting the intensity of her emotional desperation and horror at seeing what happens to her.)

Ineson - (I mean he's great at exposition due to his great voice, and everything he says has an immediate gravity. Unfortunately he really has no character other than being an exposition device.)

Patel - (In the grand scheme of his recent performances not as impressive as his best work, but Patel brings a real charisma and intensity here that is of a proper leading man in every sense of the word. He is even able to gloss beyond the simplicity of some of the moments because he brings such a captivating conviction through every second of his performance and carries you through so many moments through his presence. Patel these days has proven he has *it*, and this is just another notch in that progression.)

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Well Close is certainly unrecognizable, though that's the only thing that struck me from the trailer which joke wise wasn't hitting, however maybe it will come together with the actual film given I have liked work from the creative team there.

Tony:

I enjoyed everything about it, including Pattinson's unexpected accent, and seems more like silly Bong closer to Okja than Parasite, which given I thoroughly enjoy Okja, that's fine by me.

Anonymous said...

Luke Higham

Louis: Since Jonathan brought the topic up, I don't think you'll have time to watch the greatest TV doc of all time, The World At War (1973) but can I have your thoughts on the opening scene from episode 1. Olivier's narration is spellbinding.

youtube.com/watch?v=0b4g4ZZNC1E&pp=ygUYVGhlIHdvcmxkIGF0IHdhciBvcmFkb3Vy

00:10-01:50

My comment's going into spam.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: https://youtu.be/7Z-l2ouX_uo?si=bM_IX-qeelvR_TLU

Just kidding, you can take your time with that list, and you don't have to limit yourself to 10 if it's difficult.

Robert MacFarlane said...

Louis: What rating did you originally give Robertson for Obsession? It’s a rare time where I would give a flat 1.