Friday, 24 October 2025

Alternate Best Actor 2004: Irrfan Khan in Maqbool

Irrfan Khan did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Miyan Maqbool in Maqbool. 

Maqbool is an adaptation of Macbeth set in the modern day Mumbai underworld. 

This is an adaptation of Macbeth, however the more obvious Macbeth parallels take awhile to realize themselves, as the first half of the film is far more about this gangster film where we get to see the nature of the organization where Khan’s Maqbool is one of the high level enforcers for boss Jahangir Khan (Pankaj Kapur). And not entirely unlike director Vishal Bhardwaj’s later film of Hamlet Haider, the Shakespearean protagonist is fairly passive for the first half of the film. As largely we see Maqbool in his role as enforcer and a genuinely loyal one, offering a stoic calm at times but also a brutal force at others. The character finding life is aided greatly by the presence of Khan, who is striking on screen innately, so when in the early scenes Maqbool is just following orders he is quite compelling in his silence. I would however say the film maybe extends this silence a bit longer than it needs to given it takes half of the film to truly get into the Macbeth plot. Something that comes about in this version is even more evidently by the Lady Macbeth of this version Nimmi (Tabu) being a primary motivator for Maqbool even beyond her usual role as such. As in this version she is the mistress of the boss/king this time enticing Maqbool as a reason to seek power beyond simply the power of being boss. 

An element that works effectively thanks to Tabu being so captivating in the role, but also Khan brings this intense focus in these moments in portraying the man being brought into this intrigue. Khan plays Maqbool well by showing him not exactly going with the flow, but in a way giving himself to the ambition of Nimmi in this instance and in a way embracing the idea. Conveying within his work the quiet notions of lust towards her and the power that propels him to take action that leads to him eventually murdering his boss. A sequence that signals a change in Khan’s performance as he goes from his quiet stoic quality with just that nagging lust, to fully embracing himself essentially as the boss onscreen. An idea that Khan portrays with a proper ease as he delivers that innate strength of personality and even more so an ease with his own menace as he now is the man others should fear. Khan brings initially the confidence of the power of the man who now has Nimmi and the control of the underworld, delivering this ease within himself of someone who has everything he thinks he wants, and is as easily able to threaten those he thinks might try to take his power, including even his old friend. 

As much as it took time to get to the Macbeth portion in this adaptation, once we are there the film is in a hurried rush to get through every beat of the plot of Macbeth, including other threats and the madness brought upon both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth via the supernatural hauntings they receive. As quick as all this is, Khan remains captivating in his portrayal of the loss of that initial confidence as the crimes literally come back to haunt him, such as his old friend opening his eyes as a corpse. Khan plays the madness well as the quick piercing fear of seeing his crimes reflected in this haunting, and the man so easy in his threats to others becomes weighed down by his actions. Khan creates swiftly the gripping pathos of Maqbool’s mental state that first turns from a mania which he convincingly portrays then shifts towards more of a malaise in seeing the bad ends, particularly as they drive Nimmi mad as well to the point of suicide. The climax of Macbeth often leads to a more grandiose villain, embracing his evil in a last ditch attempt to hold his power just as all his enemies are mounting their attack. This version doesn’t build towards the grandiose, rather it is kind of a meek end for this Macbeth, where we get a brief scene of Maqbool’s reaction to kind of the potential better life he might’ve had if he hadn’t given into lust and ambition. Khan is moving in the scene of playing that moment of reaction as part of the overall meek way this version of the character essentially allows himself to fade away in his downfall rather than a grand explosion. Khan consistently gives a good performance in terms of accentuating the emotional position of his character in this version of the story. However, this version kind of delivers a bit less than seems possible given the nature of the role, where maybe there was a bit more build up in certain moments for Khan to play with. Regardless he is a compelling Macbeth as Maqbool, even if I think a greater performance was possible with a different adaptation. 

35 comments:

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Ratings and thoughts on the cast.

Hoffman's definitely not retaining Supporting with Pacino being moved over.

Luke Higham said...

Looking forward to Pacino vs. O'Toole for Supporting.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: I was really hoping to get a write-up on the Dodgeball guys, I hope you'll review them with Bardem and Henley.

Louis Morgan said...

Regarding Frankenstein, I imagine many might find it easier to embrace the especially tender and tragic tale of the “monster” here, than the grandiose and certainly over the top antics of Victor Frankenstein and his enormous ego. But as much as the former will be easier to consistently defend and I found certainly more moving, the latter I actually found quite entertaining in essentially pulling off the somewhat deranged heightened tone of Gothic madness that Branagh so struggled with in his crack at the material. And as much as in the end there are two competing approaches, they ended up coming together for me in a very strange, if not properly Frankensteinian, type of dichotomy between the deranged mythic tale of the man playing god, and the far more quietly humane tale of victim of that blasphemy.

Convery - 3
Goth - 4
Kammerer - 3
Mikkelsen - 3.5
Waltz - 4
Dance - 3
Bradley - 4

Luke Higham said...

Louis: I'm delighted you really liked it. Thoughts on the cast.

Luke Higham said...

Category Placement for Elordi.

Harris Marlowe said...

Luke: I'm going to really miss having Hoffman as the winner.

Louis: Your thoughts on the Driver/Soderbergh Star Wars news.

Matt Mustin said...

He's very good but Tabu steals the show wholesale.

Luke Higham said...

Louis: Could you watch Man On Fire and Shrek 2 next week.

Louis Morgan said...

Regarding House of Dynamite:

Can I see the movie the Venice critics saw? Seriously, just go watch Fail Safe instead, a far better film in almost every respect if you want a fully serious rendition of such a story, as that film actually had the guts to make some actual decisions, where this film ended I found unbelievable. The whole switching perspectives thing here I found just stretched things out, as I didn’t feel I found anything new each time, just a lot rehashing with a brief new “pull something out of a hat” failed attempt to try to humanize the character (pregnant wife, kid, wife). Every bit of business here I found at best mildly okay procedural, or wholly underwhelming human drama, which was either contrived (HATED the I’m jealous of your evac bit), or just truly stilted. And honestly I have to mention just one really dumb line “A nuclear bomb might hit Chicago, and you’re in DC so head west” AKA CLOSER TO CHICAGO. The film has an obviously dramatic pull and somehow every choice just seems designed to limit that and make it all strangely dull. It doesn't help that the film has expectedly bad cinematography from Barry “it’s supposed to look bad” Ackroyd and a horrendously overbearing score from Volker Bertelmann.

Elba, Ferguson, Basso, Harris, Letts, Ramos, Lee, Clarke - 3
Ingram, Hauer-King, Goldsberry - 2.5
Basso - 2

Louis Morgan said...

Luke:

Tabu - 5(She's fantastic every moment she is onscreen and is one of the very best Lady Macbeth's but she's also a very different Lady Macbeth than any other. She is alluring in the initial steps however she plays it with such delicious ease between kind of playing up the dumb trophy wife than showing the very smart manipulative woman within it all. Creating then this sense of command initially in making the moves for quite awhile. Then being wholly effective in playing the steps of her own madness, first trying to turn away from it from the rest and pleading with him to continue on, before falling into her own depressed state. And as much as these scenes are very much in too much of a hurry I found she created a natural through line within them, and was absolutely captivating with every second she had.)

Kapur - 3.5(Brings a compelling enough cold domination though I wish they did just a little more with him. But still brings that effectively in his way in technically the role that is far briefer.)

Mishra - 3.5(Enjoyed the off-beat energy he brought in contrast to Khan in their initial scenes together, then found him quite moving honestly in his brief scene of showing his genuine fear and disbelief when reacting to his friend’s choices.)

Puri/Shah - 4/3.5(Both are good but Puri makes the absolute most of every bit of his incisive and cynical commentary. I love the bits of joy he brings of someone more bemused than at anything the games of those he seems to preside over despite technically being the henchmen. I honestly wish this had expanded all the more a la Hassell in Joel Coen’s version.)

Elordi honestly is similar to Chase Infiniti where he enters very late, but is technically lead at a certain point however miniscule compared to his co-star. He’s on the border. I don't think it is fraud to put him in supporting though he certainly has leading scenes…that is to say I’ll have to think about it.

Convery - (Decent enough child performance but not more than that.)

Goth - (Theoretically a far more boring role than what she’s made her name with recently. However I think casting her was wise because her extremely off-beat presence makes what should be a far duller character more interesting. Because quite frankly Goth plays it weird, so it makes her character a far more off-beat, even in her portrayal of her character’s empathies it is with a bit of strangeness that makes it far more interesting than if she was just purely warm.)

Kammerer - (Not the most interesting role but he’s fine.)

Mikkelsen - (As the confession listener I liked his reactions throughout particularly in terms of making the later moments work by portraying the convincing steps of the Captain’s reactions to both stories.)

Waltz - (Though he made the most out of every single line he gets here, adding a lot of comedic levity in the right way that just feels a natural wit within his character. He brings the right delightful energy that contrasts well against the overall rather intense tone. And when his character does have something else I found that Waltz delivered effectively on the switch, by alluding to enough early with just some subtle hints in his reactions, before his bigger moment that felt earned.)

Dance - (Pretty much standard Dance.)

Bradley - (Glad Del Toro has utilized his talents better than many. As once again giving him a far more tender role, which I felt he ran with in bringing the kind of worn ramshackled warmth. Creating the sense of someone who is wearing the years very much within himself, with warmth, but also regret. Creating someone you see wanting to share both the joys of life and his pain.)

Louis Morgan said...

Harris:

I mean sounds vaguely interesting but also has some very obvious problems based on what already happened in the films.

Harris Marlowe said...

Your thoughts on the cast of A House of Dynamite?

Louis Morgan said...

Harris:

Not much to say, Basso over emphasizes every line. The 2.5's I found just slightly out of the situation performance wise. The 3's I think sell the situation more but don't manage to breath any real life to the characters. Ferguson and Letts probably come closest but even they I didn't think truly rose above the film's limitations.

Matt Mustin said...

The role of Frankenstein's monster is kind of borderline lead/supporting in almost every version, the only one I can pretty comfortably put in lead is Karloff.

Perfectionist said...

Luke: So, Pacino is getting a 5 for sure, now that he is in the supporting category???

Robert MacFarlane said...

Matt: Hell, I'd say that's only in Bride. Even the first one he's kind of borderline.

Michael McCarthy said...

I got to see Frankenstein yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it, Elordi is definitely co-lead, honestly in a similar way to Haing S. Ngor in The Killing Fields.

Luke Higham said...

Perfectionist: I firmly believe so. His chances have definitely increased as a Supporting performance.

Matthew Montada said...

Michael: your ratings for the cast? I’m seeing the movie at a film festival on Friday (Halloween) and I am very excited :)

Ytrewq Wertyq said...

Louis: How do you think Vincent D'Onofrio would've fared in these roles?

Inspector Dave Toschi
Richard Kuklinski
Kaspar Gutman

Tim said...

to anyone here who might be a fan of the YouTube Channel Cinefix:

I'm not the only one who thinks the list they released today of the Top 10 Scariest Movie Moments might just be their masterpiece, right?

Harris Marlowe said...

Louis: Could you clarify if you consider Infiniti lead or supporting? The phrase you used, "supporting that becomes lead", could be read either way.

And are there any notable changes you'd now make to your Oscar predictions.

8000S said...

Thoughts on this scene from South Park?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqhG0ml_NAU

Louis Morgan said...

Regarding The Secret Agent:

Ahh the method of Filho, he’s like Almodóvar if the random asides in his films actually came together at a certain point. As once again Filho knows exactly the story he is telling, he just goes about it in his own way where all these seemingly random bits actually do have a point and end up coming together in a rather brilliant and powerful fashion in his tale of one man trying to survive the Brazilian dictatorship. In many ways an off-beat oddball companion piece to I’m Still Here, with more of a neon noirish approach to such an existence. And as such I quite enjoyed its random bits of madness related to the debauchery of those abusing their power, the bits of nostalgia to the period particularly one kid’s fascination with Jaws, and a moving testament of one man attempting to live while also surviving becoming a singular target of the oppressive regime.

Franciso - 4
Maria - 4
Diogenese - 3.5
Guedes - 3.5
Candido - 3
Carvalho - 3
Villela - 3.5
Leone - 3
Kier - 3.5
Lufesi - 3

Calvin Law said...

So happy you dug the film (and interesting comparison with Almodovar). Agreed that Francisco and Maria were the highlights of the supporting cast, though I'm a little surprised at only a 3 for Candido. Can't wait for Moura's review.

What are your thoughts on its award prospects Louis? Personally I think it has some hurdles (very idiosyncratic and potentially divisive, and Moura has obviously been highly acclaimed but it is a *very* subtle performance), and not even International Film is a guarantee, but I could for example see Mendonça Filho get some support from the director's branch.

Antony said...

Louis, your top 10 Park Chan Wook film perfomances?

Louis Morgan said...

Michael:

I can see the comparison, however I'd disagree slightly because where Ngor is supporting for the majority of the first half, Elordi is almost 100% absent from the first half and then becomes supporting for a few scenes, then when his leading section comes it isn't half the film, and perspective even reverts back to Victor being lead.

Ytrewq:

Toschi seems like a good fit to downplay his excesses and to really play into the material.

He looks more like Kuklinski than Shannon, but from what I've seen D'Onofrio doesn't quite have the "lead of a film" quality.

Rather not see the Kingpin as Kaspar Gutman, which I disagree with many that his work there is any way definitive to the character.

Harris:

I think Infiniti is supporting because it is so late in the film when she fully takes on the leading perspective.

Well definitely removing House of Dynamite from everything, adding Hawke to lead actor, adding Frankenstein to picture and NGNG putting Elordi in supporting to start.

8000's:

A surprisingly sweet scene that works as such.

Calvin:

Hard to easily say. As that's a lot of non-English contenders, and so many from Neon, seems like a little too much to ask. But then again, due to the strange disconnect that happened this year from Venice with House of Dynamite and Bugonia both seeming like less viable players as time goes on, there is room for some less traditional contenders to make it in. So tentatively I'm seeing it as a minor player, bottom half of picture and a passion push for Moura in lead. But honestly I could also see it goose egg.

Antony:

Would make sense to wait for No Other Choice.

J96 said...

Just saw Frankenstein last night and quite enjoyed it!

J96 said...

I see obvious nominations for cinematography, VFX, sound, set design, costume, hair and make up, and if Nightmare Alley could crack the race, possibly Picture.

Anonymous said...

2025 is looking quite strong for the Oscars, with very few weak films, compared to some of the weaker previous years.

8000S said...

Louis: You know, while I liked the killing Kenny running gag, it did felt overused throughout the first five seasons.

Louis Morgan said...

J96:

I think picture is very likely since it is potentially going to be Netflix's main horse (unless Train Dreams starts gaining some real momentum).

8000's:

Certainly was at a certain point, though when they found certain variations it worked.

Harris Marlowe said...

Louis: Have you ever seen The Larry Sanders Show?

Louis Morgan said...

I have not.