Monday, 2 December 2024

Alternate Best Actor 1986: Erland Josephson in The Sacrifice

Erland Josephson did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Alexander in The Sacrifice. 

The Sacrifice defies simple description however follows a former actor and writer in his seemingly isolated house surrounded by his family. 

The Sacrifice in some ways is Tarkovsky's version of a Ingmar Bergman film, as we have a self-reflective character facing a crisis of faith. One obvious feature of connection is within the use of Erland Josephson, a common Bergman actor, utilized here as our main character that we follow through his unusual journey. The film begins seemingly simply enough as we find Alexander playing with his young son affectionately known as "Little man" and pondering some tale. Josephson's performance is as a seemingly largely content man in this state of being as he ponders as he does and as he interacts with his son. There is a bit of joy, but also just a relaxed quality. The man seems concerned with greater matters in what he speaks of; however Josephson's delivery even of these words isn't of immense concern rather very much this observational quality. Eventually this is interrupted by the arrival of their neighbor and mailman Otto, who gives Alexander a birthday card from friends and their conversation continues though with Otto mostly taking the lead. Again Josephson's performance is a man going through the motions of this interaction, not really in a negative way of a man weighed down by the conversation but rather just a man who exists within certain confines of living, a living that doesn't seem to break beyond a certain point. For example when asking about Alexander's relationship with God, which he replies is non-existent, isn't spoken as either a pained truth or a purposeful dismissal, just as a fact of the man's existence no more no less. The only example where we see kind of a break from that observational quality is with the little man, when he lassos the mailman's bike that causes Otto to fall in good nature. Josephson's reaction is very much the loving father which portrays a stronger connection in that moment, which is a bit different from the rest of the interaction where we see the man just observing as he does. This continues as he gathers with his wife, his step-daughter, his maid, his doctor and Otto in their house where conversations continue on various subjects, including Otto's fascination seeming with the otherworldly, and even the background of Alexander as an actor who became a critic. When speaking even of his own past, Josephson's delivery is somewhat passive, there is a history there but a history of seeming the man having a natural calm within his existence despite this purposeful choice of the past to separate himself from a craft he once cared about. Josephson's performance maintains that of the observer, even though this is the man's life that speaks of, it is in his house that Otto seems to have a minor breakdown, yet Alexander remains as he is without concern. 

The strength of Josephson's performance in the early scenes is that Alexander doesn't become lost within the frame, or the other characters, despite being observational for so long. Josephson, just as he did in his earlier collaboration with Tarkovsky, manages to pull you into his work even as he supports the overall vision wholly naturally. Here Josephson carefully expresses the needed sense of history within his observing expressions, there is much the man has thought about and even his physical manner exists as someone who purposefully detaches, to the point almost seeming like a ghost in his own house. The film makes its first brilliant twist when jets are heard from above and much of the household are horrified to hear an announcement of potentially World War III starting. Something that Alexander even doesn't initially react to as strongly as others, even coming into the broadcast late, leaving the doctor to drug his hysterical wife and others as they panic over their seeming impending doom. Josephson at first still being the observer for some time till he is left with his own thoughts. During this time Josephson's performance so quietly yet potently shows the sense of building understanding and despair in the man seemingly haunted by this horror explicitly. Leading to Alexander's first act as he prays to God offering a prayer to end the horror of their situation though with an offer that he will sacrifice all that he loves if God makes the horror end. Josephson is extraordinary in this scene as he breaks that observational distance and becomes completely alive in the scene. Josephson in his deteriorating expression reveals so much pain, sorrow and existential dread, combined with in his voice this wavering hope as he speaks his prayer. There is so much power to every word, and his decaying state of emotional distance is lost and we see someone completely in contact with the idea of this horror. Josephson finds within all of this quiet yet incredibly powerful conviction as he offers his sacrifice of everything he loves, as a promise of sacrifice as a fundamental truth. It is an extraordinary scene made so by Josephson's performance that embodies this all with such tangible emotional might that is devastating to behold. 

The next twist in the situation comes from Otto who suggests Alexander seek out their neighbor Maria, who he claims is a witch and that she is in some way the key to escape. Leaving Maria's with a pistol and an unknowable intention. Something that comes out within Josephson's performance that grafts onto this bizarre situation an honesty by projecting this quiet fearfulness and more so this lost quality as he seems to be seeking something from Maria, but he really doesn't know. We have yet another tremendous monologue from Josephson as he describes a "gift" he brought to his mother's garden, where he articulates with such a quiet sense of nostalgia that mixes in this sense of the past though with the uncertainty of the future. As he continues speaking of the garden though he notes how by "fixing" his mother's garden by ordering it, it removed any of the beauty from the garden. Josephson's way of losing that nostalgia and bringing out instead such painful regret filled with such a sense of what he sees as a mistake and almost a grievous act against his mother. He exudes such quiet heartbreak that is so powerful because in his delivery and his expression he builds towards such a building state of being a man utterly lost within his current dismay. Something that progresses to taking out the pistol, a moment without conviction rather Josephson plays the moment as though he has no awareness of what he is doing with it, or what he is doing here, just the potent sense of a man completely lost at this time. Something that is only broken as Maria embraces him and comforts him to the point of becoming sexual with him, a scene that only gets stranger as it proceeds because it appears as though Otto's mythical depiction of her holds more than a little credence. Something that Josephson grounds by presenting just a man completely lost in this moment, lost in this time, and lost in himself as he goes along with Maria though in a near catatonic state. Eventually Alexander awakens and the world seems to have not ended and peace to whatever extent it is has come back. Which some might take as a false alarm, but a man who had said his prayer in the way Alexander has, leaves him to go through with his sacrifice to atone. The final act of the film, Josephson doesn't really have lines and is seen largely at a distance. Yet Josephson is always captivating as we follow Alexander as he evades his family in order to set-up burning down his house with everything in it. His sneaking around is played with almost a childlike manner of not fully mischievousness yet there is a glint of it, as Josephson seems to portray some arrested state as he progresses around in his plan with a curious conviction. It isn't the emotional man speaking of his love, now it is filling some bargain with a logic only he could fully understand in the moment. When his family finally "catches" him, his reaction is of a man completely lost, though now in a new way as he reacts unintelligibly emotionally, if not even randomly, yet in Josephson's performance you do believe in this break, of the strange yet tangible journey we've seen him progress through. Josephson delivers an idiosyncratic yet tremendous performance. One that is about a few key moments verbalization combined with remarkable silences, to successfully explores a mental state that seems wholly unique, yet never feels less than universal in an emotional sense. 

30 comments:

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the cast.

Thoughts on the Direction and Cinematography.

Shaggy Rogers said...

RIP Marshall Brickman

Shaggy Rogers said...

Hey guys
Hey guys
Update on my Top 10 prediction of Louis' lead actor in 1986:
1. Hoskins
2. Goldblum
3. Phoenix
4. Ford
5. Auteuil (Jean de Florette)
6. Auteuil (Manon des Sources)
7. Josephson
8. Woods
9. Oldman
10. Depardieu

Shaggy Rogers said...

My Top 5 prediction of Louis' Director in 1986:
1. Lynch
2. Tarkovsky
3. Cronenberg
4. Berri
5. Stone

Jonathan Williams said...

Louis: Thoughts on the NYFCC winners.

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Louis: Your Tarkovsky ranking (perhaps excluding The Sacrifice, if you don't know where to rank it).

Luke Higham said...

Louis: From what I'm hearing, the entire Nosferatu ensemble is exceptional.

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Fleetwood - 3.5(I believe dubbed for much of it, however her English breakdown scene is extremely powerful in so directly showing such vicious fear and hysteria in the moment. She doesn't hold back and depicts that level of dread powerfully. The rest of the time her theoretically silent work is fine in just presenting the ideal enough wife.)

Wolter - 3.5(His performance is a curious yet impactful juxtaposition as he seems initially this calm observer of the moment, even after the first turn we see him take action where he delivers each word with calm precision as someone who is comforting, though not in a warm way, rather taking necessary action. This in contrast to his final scene where that certain precise coldness becomes just a touch more vicious and suddenly he seems a brutal critic that keeps his doctor quietly fascinating.)

Edwall - 4(His performance is particularly enigmatic as in his first scene he just seems like a jolly postman in the sense of your side character from even a romantic comedy. Presenting just a pleasant personality no more no, less. His monologue then while visiting has this strange intensity and darkness he slowly reveals throughout, completely changing one's perspective on him to almost this own harbinger of doom even before the turn. After the turn though his manner takes one more step to be a direct messenger of some mission to Alexander, which is enigmatic but also you sense some strange conviction even as he suggests some completely insane method to "save the world".)

Gísladóttir - 4(Speaking of enigmatic, no performance is more enigmatic than hers, however as we initially meet her she just seems to be a somewhat shy retiring neighbor. When Alexander goes to her house, her performance continues to be fascinating within the mystery that slowly unveils itself towards this warmth and empathy despite what is claimed about her. However her final moments are still so simple and she plays with the precise method curiously yet never does she feel just vague.)

Louis Morgan said...

Tarkovsky's direction has some of his common traits such as the long wandering takes which again despite being naturalistic particularly in the blocking of the actors, yet is so precise in the way the scene unveils itself. It is a hypocrisy that never feels as such and is just an aspect of the genius here. The choice in location to create this stark area where the house stands out as this singular bastion in the landscape, but within also is then isolating within. Something that becomes all the more intense when Tarkosky's hand becomes more precise in his choice of creating the doom, which the choices in sound and lighting are just incredible in placing you into such a palpable sense of the mental state of the character. Where you too seem just as lost. And remarkable is the moments he gives to Josephson to perform directly to camera that keeps all of this very personal and not too abstract at any point. That is providing the grounding even in the biggest leap, which is captivating in the scene with Maria where Tarkovsky makes a big swing, yet one that is so incredibly captivating in his way of slowly unraveling the unexpected. Then the final sequence is brilliantly realized in every choice of observation of the event, that he also lights to seemingly change everything from the state we had been in, though not suddenly that of comfort, but just of a different kind of isolation. Tarkovsky once again crafts a singular experience, that while there are common techniques, the ends are never common or repetitive.

Nykvist's work combined with Tarkovsky is obviously impressive, and you have the naturally incredible framing and composition, which of course often in the moving long shots yet that quality is never lost whether in movement or not. What you are further granted though is kind of a different angle by this combo on familiar land from Bergman, though presented with a different kind of scope that gives more sense of the land and the scale of it, particularly the way the house is shot around. Greatness of course is both interior and exterior, and I suppose that is the most Bergmanish in the composition of these shots, though with a tilted perspective of the point of view being almost 1st person by Tarkovsky's method which isn't Bergman, and is particularly captivating through that. Tarkovsky with Nykvist creating a very different version of "God's view" as even the interiors have this quality particularly as one peers down on Alexander's prayer. The lighting though is the genius here, with the contrasting of the clarity of the environment against the gloom near the end of the world.

Louis Morgan said...

Jonathan Williams:

Kane very much feels like their one off-beat choice they've been doing for the past few years like Rogowski last year. She's actually pretty good, and actually supporting, so I wouldn't hate for her to crash the race though I doubt it.

Otherwise, seemed to fit the bill of critical favorites of The Brutalist, Nickel Boys and Anora all getting wins,. Good start for Brody in terms of "legitimatizing" a second win. I think Jean-Baptiste probably will still struggle to make a five, but always good to get on the map.

I do find Culkin's win annoying (not commenting on the quality of his performance) because he's definitely lead, and critics also selling the studio narrative is more than a little tiresome.

Tahmeed:

1. Andrei Rublev
2. Stalker
3. Mirror
4. Nostalghia

Luke:

Well you don't need to sell me on being excited for an Eggers film, but all the praise certainly maintains my excitement.














RIP Marshall Brickman

Louis Morgan said...

Also ratings for recent viewings:

Sallywood:

Kirkland - 3.5
Steelman - 2.5
Connolly - 2.5
Tilly - 3
Roberts - 2.5
Carradine - 3.5
Alonzo - 2.5
von Dohlen - 3
Lerner - 3

Between The Temples:

Schwartman - 4
Kane - 4.5
De Leon - 3
Aaron - 3
Smigel - 3
Weinstein - 3
Shear - 1.5

Lucas Saavedra said...

Louis: your thoughts on the casts of both films?

Matt Mustin said...

I have officially made Ryan Gosling my 2023 Supporting Actor win. I have no real desire to watch Barbie again, but his work has really really stuck with me, and I took for granted what he did.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Unless Bryan can find them for me, can I have your thoughts on Maika Monroe and Alicia Witt in Longlegs, Willa Fitzgerald and Kyle Gallner in Strange Darling, Emily Watson in Small Things Like These, Florence Pugh in We Live In Time, Chloe East & Sophie Thatcher in Heretic and Moore, Qualley & Quaid in The Substance.

Marcus said...

Louis: What are some films that for you, that did product placement 'right.'

RatedRStar said...

Nice to hear that Lerner and Von Dohlen did fine in their final roles.

Emi Grant said...

Marcus: "It's not Al anymore... it's DUNK."

Matt Mustin said...

Marcus: Just cause I just watched it yesterday and ADORED it, The Holdovers. "Champagne of beers."

Louis Morgan said...

Lucas:

Kirkland - (Personally I'd have liked to see a satirical version of her reflecting on her Oscar nomination campaign and we go back in time to see her methods to secure it. Otherwise, Kirkland is fun at poking at her own career and her playing around with the notion of her very specific level of fame. There are some iffy moments mixed in with better ones, I suppose speaks to maybe the inconsistent tone of the film that sorta wants to have a heart while also being more often ridiculous, so she struggles to merge the elements. Still when she is just having fun, her performance is indeed fun in tip-toeing around ego with self-deprecation with cynicism. She's not terrible with the more serious moments, but they don't entirely work either.)

Steelman - (Not really leading man material, and maybe that's the point, however I wouldn't say he's quite there as nebbish unexpected leading man material either. He certainly brings a definite energy to the part but he always feels much more of a caricature than a person.)

Connolly - (Fairly generic crude guy performance, not terrible but doesn't stand out either.)

Tilly - (Found her an enjoyable enough surprise here as the mom in bringing a mom energy which is definitely different which I found amusing enough.)

Roberts - (A time where it fits to be over the top, however found him largely not that funny.)

Carradine - (His line delivery on Veganism is probably the best joke in the film, in a large part because of his delivery of the joke. An underwritten character however Carradine brings so much history in every word he does get of presenting the man just kind of spent with the industry and accepting a specific lesser existing as someone not hating but not loving it either. Creating the most believable off-beat energy of anyone to the point I wish he had been given much more to do.)

Alonzo - (Like Roberts)

Louis Morgan said...

von Dohlen - (Nice play off of Tilly in just being so earnestly supportive the whole time in a purposefully overly straightforward way, but it works and is an amusing bit.)

Lerner - (Feel there was more fun to be had in invoking maybe a friendlier Lipnick, however still nice to see Lerner who brings the expected old big brass energy for a few scenes.)

Schwartzman - (Seems like he's having his own DiCaprio run as a guy dealing with being a widower once again, and perhaps this only reaffirms my feelings towards his performance in Asteroid City, as I actually believed the sense of malaise this time. Schwartzman embodies here the internalization of his grief with the sense of a period of time as the man just sinks within himself and he creates that waning pain as though things were already troublesome even before then. That quality being the common feature until he meets with Kane's character, where what he does well is just bring the sense of quiet joy to his interactions with her and the right chemistry based behind the sense of mutual warmth. Schwartzman brings this quiet dormant passion when discussing his specific expertise and following that idea as the man seems empowered by life. The other elements feel more contrived, and while I don't think Schwartzman is bad in these scenes, they aren't as effective.)

Kane - (Nice just to see her get a meaty role though I would say much of the role could've been just a ridiculous idea of a person rather than an actual person. Kane in a way is able to thrive with the eccentricity, because she is such an eccentric performer to begin with in some ways just because of her presence being so natural so it makes it far more convincing that we would believe that this woman would want to perform a bat mitzvah. Kane innately has that flamboyance that makes it much more believable strangely enough, while also just being fun in her way. Having said that though this is an appropriately tempered performance by Kane, she brings just the right degree of kookiness without overdoing it, which I think would've been pretty easy with the role that could've fallen into just eccentricities. She balances it though in every moment of reaction or commentary on what has led her to this curious choice late in life. Kane brings the right nuance in these moments to the lonely woman seeking something in her later life, and finding those bits of joy as she progresses towards the ceremony.)

De Leon - (A fairly lame role as the non-supportive mom, though she still has a presence which at least keeps her somewhat engaging even as it isn't a particularly interesting part.)

Aaron - (Not a great role either but portrays the moments of direct motherly love are decent enough.)

Smigel - (Slightly amusing in just portraying the Rabbi's fixation on donations as just unabashedly as possible.)

Weinstein - (The most ridiculous of all the roles in how constructed it feels, however Weinstein does find a way to at least try to sell all her moments to not be absurd.)

Shear - (Classic atrocious caricature amplified by performance where he just plays into the over the topness in a way where you don't believe it for a second and just feels like a hectoring opponent.)

Louis Morgan said...

Marcus:

Not sure how many of these are truly product placement, in that the filmmakers were getting paid, but some use of real products that are great.

Blue Velvet: PABST BLUE RIBBON!
Mississippi Grind: Two Woodfords
Wayne's World: Bowing to several corporate sponsors.
Back to the Future: The DeLorean and Pepsi
James Bond: Aston Martin
Cornetto Trilogy
Ghostbusters: Twinkies
Miracle on 34th Street: Macy's
A Christmas Story: Red Ryder BB Gun

Tahmeed Chowdhury said...

Marcus: Maybe the conflicting use of Burger King in The Terminal and Beef (have to cosign Louis's statement on BK Original Chicken Sandwiches being a true to life depiction of rock-bottom).

Jonathan Williams said...

Louis: Thoughts on the NBR winners.

Mitchell Murray said...

This sort of slipped past my radar the past week....if it hasn't been discussed yet, what's everyones thoughts on the trailer for "Queer"?

Louis Morgan said...

Juror #2 is a pure legal potboiler that I enjoyed, even if some of the jury performers suggest Eastwood's to a fault efficiency where "go again but a little less" might not have hurt things. Having said that, the central hook is pretty great, and results in an entertaining exploration of that essential moral question. While it theoretically could've maybe gone further in a few respects, I actually appreciated that it didn't throw in any ridiculous wrinkles and kept to the main idea which kept me engaged throughout.

Hoult - 4
Collette - 4
Simmons - 3
Messina - 3.5
Basso - 3
Deutch - 3.5
Yarbrough - 3
Bibb - 2
Sutherland - 3.5
Moore - 3
Rest of jury: 1.5 - 2.5

Anonymous said...

Louis, on the topic of egregious category fraud, what would you say are the most egregious cases in Oscar history of a leading performance winning an Oscar in the supporting category?

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

I definitely gave thoughts on Monroe and Witt previously.

Fitzgerald - (Her performance delivers on playing and in around the twist of her character. As the opening she brings the dogged determination of what you think will be a horror heroine, though then the moment of her smoking has this curious lack of traditional fear that is the first sign of more. Then with her "romantic" scenes she brings this playfulness that reveals itself as not her just being playful to have fun, but rather to have fun being a psychopath as it changes everything she does as a game. Revealing herself with this quiet confidence about herself when playing with her prey, though effectively differentiating the moments where she kills though that get in her way with this emptiness of nothing. And while the last act is the weakest, she still plays every moment well even as it becomes more standard, particularly her final scene that she manages to make much of in a most unusual final focused shot.)

Gallner - (The one cheat in the film is the "hey kitty kitty scene", not on Gallner but that obviously isn't really true to his character, even his character on cocaine feels false. Having said that Gallner's effective the rest of the time in playing the reactions just straightforward and honestly in getting intrigued then confused, then just fearful, then ferocious, and brings the right straight man reflection that also plays as potentially certainty of someone more dangerous however doesn't reveal itself as such.)

Louis Morgan said...

Jonathan:

In terms of predictions it is interesting that the Brutalist came up so short both here and the Independent Spirit Awards, supposedly there was screener issue but we shall see. Either way not exactly the most pivotal precursors regardless. Regardless nice getting on the map for Craig and Kidman. And Culkin getting two is a good start for him (though again tiresome fraud). Very interesting that Fanning landed here given the early word was for Barbaro, will be interesting to see if she goes anywhere.

Quality wise, I will say in most years I might be more critical of a Wicked win. But this year is so "eh" for me, I can say "eh fine" even if I'd definitely take Anora over it, and Chu winning director to go with it is definite overkill. Still given it would sit decently high in that top ten, whatever...which I do I hope I kind find a bit more passion in the remaining serious contenders.

Louis Morgan said...

Anonymous:

Timothy Hutton
Tatum O'Neal
Jack Albertson
Alicia Vikander
Brad Pitt
Peter Ustinov - Topkapi
Daniel Kaluuya

J96 said...

Louis, thoughts on this year’s selection for the National Board of Reveiew?