Best Scene: Seeing his father.
Best Scene: Pondering the pain of the relationship.
Best Scene: Reacting to the attack.
Best Scene: Saying goodbye to his "dad"
Best Scene: Final enlightenment.
Next Year: 2001 Supporting
Showing posts with label 2001 Alternate Best Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2001 Alternate Best Actor. Show all posts
Sunday, 22 September 2019
Alternate Best Actor 2001: Results
Best Scene: Seeing his father.
Best Scene: Pondering the pain of the relationship.
Best Scene: Reacting to the attack.
Best Scene: Saying goodbye to his "dad"
Best Scene: Final enlightenment.
Next Year: 2001 Supporting
Saturday, 21 September 2019
Alternate Best Actor 2001: Jake Gyllenhaal in Donnie Darko
Jake Gyllenhaal did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character of Donnie Darko.
Donnie Darko although works as it does in its trippy time bending pseudo coming of age story, however it does seem like it is on a razors edge in terms of almost falling apart, though it never does. This barely scraping by though perhaps predicated writer/director Richard Kelly's apparent lack of success afterward.
It must be said that Jake Gyllenhaal, despite having clearly a very successful career, has had a bit of strange one in terms of cultivating sort of an expected persona as an actor. This with different fits of attempted sort of "star" terms of different types, but always the return towards some darkly inclined character work. The most notable recent example of this being his greatest performance in Nightcrawler, and fittingly this also was found near the beginning here as part of his breakout. This film though not overly successful initially, has found its following leading to this becoming one of his noted roles, of course it helps playing a character with an alliterative name. A deserving state though as the performance falls into line well with Gyllenhaal's unique abilities as a performer. Gyllenhaal in many ways being an essential ingredient in realizing the film's success by balancing it all through his portrayal of Donnie that sort of bends itself through the various sort of tones that the film plays with in creating the strange journey of the young boy through time, life and death. This as he must be a whole lot of things to be Donnie who is a whole many things, really even just within the idea of what exactly is going on in the film.
Now on the most surface examination you have the story of just a troubled teenager potentially, who nearly dies from a jet engine crashing into his house, however that is only part of his troubles. He's a young man who seems off balance to most and Gyllenhaal is excellent in realizing this point in a few ways. This on the most surface area in creating that sort of confusion of self when he speaks to adults. This with a shying physical manner as he retires from situations that press his mental state, and that lack of confidence within situations. Gyllenhaal is effective in creating the sense of the "odd boy" that so many see Donnie as, though as this believable portrayal of just a boy with a mental illness. Take his scenes with his psychiatrist (Katherine Ross), Gyllenhaal as they speak of his "visions" Gyllenhaal creates the real sense of the anxiety within them as he speaks to her with the fear of a real teenager struggling with his mental state. This though in itself isn't something that Gyllenhaal makes as one note, and is terrific in finding ways to create the variation even in this state. I especially love one moment where his father broaches the subject in support of his son, and Gyllenhaal expresses this perfect hesitation though with appreciation in the moment for the love of father.
Technically speaking this off-beat state though makes Donnie a bit different in other settings other than with his concerned parents and other adults who are technically sympathetic to the young man. This in school where Donnie does have some friends, and slowly a girlfriend in new girl Gretchen (Jena Malone). He is also seen as the weird kid and Gyllenhaal finds an effective balance in his work in creating really each of these perspectives. This in the classroom he physically places himself retiring, however in his delivery he brings the intensity fitting his pressing existence that comes within discussions with his teachers over metaphysics, and literary themes. Gyllenhaal captures the right off-beat energy particularly in his scenes with Malone. This as he manages to be charming in a most particular way that is true to the character. This as even as he still has a bit of that shyness there is such an earnestness within his moments of just broaching any conversation with her. This with a real sweetness just beneath it that is so well realized within Gyllenhaal's performance. He manages to touch upon it to make the eccentricity honest to Donnie, while making it endearing within the very specific realm of this relationship. This where Donnie is absolutely honest as himself at every point in Gyllenhaal's performance.
Of course then there is the other state of Donnie with his "imaginary" friend the Rabbit Frank, who speaks to him of the demise of the world in reality and time bending sequences. These themselves being entirely different state of existence seemingly and where Gyllenhaal still excels once again. This in a way grounding them initially in creating the sense of fear in some interactions with Frank when he speaks of the upcoming demise of Donnie's world. Gyllenhaal balances with this fascination at times, amplified by state of hypnosis, of this state of thought that is indeed beyond the normal state of reality. Gyllenhaal delivers a needed weight to this moments by really granting this strict intensity within these moments as Donnie, quite understandably, is fixated within his visions. This state of being in turn also attaches itself to Donnie's actions of destruction of different forms, including publicly berating self-help guru/soon to be outed sex criminal Jim Cunningham (Patrick Swayze). This moment though is a great one of this spirited yet oh so specific incisiveness within Gyllenhaal performance that creates the sense of sort of a force even beyond Donnie himself in his denouncement of Cunningham's philosophy. Of course the strength within all of this though is Gyllenhaal careful balance of each side of Donnie, that never feels inconsistent, but rather makes sense and amplifies the givens situation. This in turn makes the strange journey cohesive through his performance that creates the essential element through the humanity in his turn as Donnie. This as he makes a convincing portrayal of mental illness, a captivating portrayal of a man's journey into metaphysical madness, but also just a moving portrayal of a young man finding a bit of joy and enlightenment in his journey on Earth we think we know.
It must be said that Jake Gyllenhaal, despite having clearly a very successful career, has had a bit of strange one in terms of cultivating sort of an expected persona as an actor. This with different fits of attempted sort of "star" terms of different types, but always the return towards some darkly inclined character work. The most notable recent example of this being his greatest performance in Nightcrawler, and fittingly this also was found near the beginning here as part of his breakout. This film though not overly successful initially, has found its following leading to this becoming one of his noted roles, of course it helps playing a character with an alliterative name. A deserving state though as the performance falls into line well with Gyllenhaal's unique abilities as a performer. Gyllenhaal in many ways being an essential ingredient in realizing the film's success by balancing it all through his portrayal of Donnie that sort of bends itself through the various sort of tones that the film plays with in creating the strange journey of the young boy through time, life and death. This as he must be a whole lot of things to be Donnie who is a whole many things, really even just within the idea of what exactly is going on in the film.
Now on the most surface examination you have the story of just a troubled teenager potentially, who nearly dies from a jet engine crashing into his house, however that is only part of his troubles. He's a young man who seems off balance to most and Gyllenhaal is excellent in realizing this point in a few ways. This on the most surface area in creating that sort of confusion of self when he speaks to adults. This with a shying physical manner as he retires from situations that press his mental state, and that lack of confidence within situations. Gyllenhaal is effective in creating the sense of the "odd boy" that so many see Donnie as, though as this believable portrayal of just a boy with a mental illness. Take his scenes with his psychiatrist (Katherine Ross), Gyllenhaal as they speak of his "visions" Gyllenhaal creates the real sense of the anxiety within them as he speaks to her with the fear of a real teenager struggling with his mental state. This though in itself isn't something that Gyllenhaal makes as one note, and is terrific in finding ways to create the variation even in this state. I especially love one moment where his father broaches the subject in support of his son, and Gyllenhaal expresses this perfect hesitation though with appreciation in the moment for the love of father.
Technically speaking this off-beat state though makes Donnie a bit different in other settings other than with his concerned parents and other adults who are technically sympathetic to the young man. This in school where Donnie does have some friends, and slowly a girlfriend in new girl Gretchen (Jena Malone). He is also seen as the weird kid and Gyllenhaal finds an effective balance in his work in creating really each of these perspectives. This in the classroom he physically places himself retiring, however in his delivery he brings the intensity fitting his pressing existence that comes within discussions with his teachers over metaphysics, and literary themes. Gyllenhaal captures the right off-beat energy particularly in his scenes with Malone. This as he manages to be charming in a most particular way that is true to the character. This as even as he still has a bit of that shyness there is such an earnestness within his moments of just broaching any conversation with her. This with a real sweetness just beneath it that is so well realized within Gyllenhaal's performance. He manages to touch upon it to make the eccentricity honest to Donnie, while making it endearing within the very specific realm of this relationship. This where Donnie is absolutely honest as himself at every point in Gyllenhaal's performance.
Of course then there is the other state of Donnie with his "imaginary" friend the Rabbit Frank, who speaks to him of the demise of the world in reality and time bending sequences. These themselves being entirely different state of existence seemingly and where Gyllenhaal still excels once again. This in a way grounding them initially in creating the sense of fear in some interactions with Frank when he speaks of the upcoming demise of Donnie's world. Gyllenhaal balances with this fascination at times, amplified by state of hypnosis, of this state of thought that is indeed beyond the normal state of reality. Gyllenhaal delivers a needed weight to this moments by really granting this strict intensity within these moments as Donnie, quite understandably, is fixated within his visions. This state of being in turn also attaches itself to Donnie's actions of destruction of different forms, including publicly berating self-help guru/soon to be outed sex criminal Jim Cunningham (Patrick Swayze). This moment though is a great one of this spirited yet oh so specific incisiveness within Gyllenhaal performance that creates the sense of sort of a force even beyond Donnie himself in his denouncement of Cunningham's philosophy. Of course the strength within all of this though is Gyllenhaal careful balance of each side of Donnie, that never feels inconsistent, but rather makes sense and amplifies the givens situation. This in turn makes the strange journey cohesive through his performance that creates the essential element through the humanity in his turn as Donnie. This as he makes a convincing portrayal of mental illness, a captivating portrayal of a man's journey into metaphysical madness, but also just a moving portrayal of a young man finding a bit of joy and enlightenment in his journey on Earth we think we know.
Saturday, 14 September 2019
Alternate Best Actor 2001: Jim Carrey in The Majestic
Jim Carrey did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Peter Appleton in The Majestic.
The
Majestic is Frank Darabont's attempt to recapture the films of Frank Capra, which is an
admirable ambition, if perhaps a bit foolhardy, not unlike the optimistic endeavors of a Capra protagonist, through the story of a Hollywood screenwriter who is mistaken, through a case of amnesia, for a young man lost in the war in a small town.
There's a challenge in attempting to recapture the world of Frank Capra, which was a very specific tone to begin with. The man that was known as Jim Carrey in the 90's probably wouldn't be one's first choice to the play the lead for an attempt to recapture "Capracorn", being best known for his irreverent comedic performances. This took place in his brief period where he seemed to attempt to balance his comic projects with some more dramatic material. While these typically involved comedy in one way or another, whether it be more subtle in the case of The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, or more overt in the case of playing a real comedian in Man on the Moon. This is an exception from the period in this is a purely dramatic turn from Carrey without even the most minor crutch when it comes to bringing a bit of humor into the proceedings for almost the entirety of the film. This simply just is Carrey as a straight leading man, and in that there is something one suddenly notices from the opening frames. That despite Carrey's usual elastic face, when tempered to a strict reality, he actually has perhaps more than just a passing resemblance to one of Capra's most noted leading men, Mr. Jimmy Stewart. Of course a man Carrey imitated in his standup acts, but this performance isn't to imitate Stewart, but rather evoke what that man delivered in his Capra performances.
That's no small challenge, and to successful deliver on this would be no small feat, as Stewart in his height with Capra delivered one of the greatest performances ever given. Now I'll admit right away that Carrey isn't able to produce a work equal to Stewart in Capra's greatest film It's a Wonderful Life, however his work does seem to understand some essential elements that were necessary to the greatness of Stewart's work in his Capra collaborations. This is from the outset of the film where we first see the screenwriter Peter listen as studio executives hack away at an idea of his. Carrey just listens on in thought elsewhere, and even in this action establishes that this will not be a typical Carrey turn. There is no attention seeking, no broad manner, but rather just an attempt to be a normal man. This I guess isn't too much in itself, I mean to tone it down, but his work goes beyond that as he establishes Peter as basically an unassuming screenwriter who is just trying to live out the Hollywood dream, to which he currently is at a lower rung of. Carrey's work though emphasizes this earnestness in this presentation of the man, and succeeds in just being so honestly straight forward. This again sounds a little strange as praise, but it is working towards creating a leading man turn of a bygone era.
Peter's world though is thrown into upheaval when he is accused of being a communist and faces a possible federal subpoena to "name names". Before that happens though he gets into a car accident, losing his memory, but being found by a loving small town. Carrey's performance that becomes even more Stewartesque as the man that so many begin to hold their hopes to, when a local man Harry Trimble (Martin Landau) incorrectly believes that Peter is in fact his son Luke, who was lost in the war. Peter's amnesia allowing him to at the very least not reject the claim, though also tentatively accepting it in a certain sense. This leaves Carrey an interesting challenge in very much relying on a charm, he had not really become known for, while also even reducing that to portray the man attempting to figure things out. Carrey's work is remarkable in the sense of creating a convincing state of confusion but also discovery in the moments of being told who he "is". This isn't too bad given that almost everyone loves Luke, even the lovely daughter of the town doctor, Adele (Laurie Holden). This in itself leading to a proper aw shucks romance, for Carrey to evoke the modest romantic manner that made Stewart's so special. This Carrey can do low key affection rather wonderfully, and he strikes up a nice chemistry with Holden, in that quiet yet potent fashion.
Carrey's performance works as he manages to deliver on the promise of being as earnest as the film is in terms of creating a portrait of basically optimism of the human spirit and of a small town whose existence is made simply by the existence of the return of this "Luke". There is no winking, or playing to a modern sensibility. Carrey carries himself with that spirit as well, and offers the essential non-judgement to the material's strictly genuine tone. Carrey more and more begins to appear as a Stewart sort and this transformation for him as a performer is impressive in itself. Carrey becomes this likable man who becomes part of the town, by romancing Adele, making friends with the local, and recreating the local theater back to its former glory with his "father". In all of this Carrey manages to evoke that old spirit fairly impressively, even as the narrative I'll say isn't as cohesive or compelling as the best of Capra, try as it might to be as such. Nonetheless Carrey's work remains consistent in trying to bring this somewhat flawed version of a Capra story to screen. This including when Peter, after having recovered his memories, must tend to the dying Harry knowing he's not his father. Carrey though is outstanding in offer some final comfort to the old man by "pretending" however Carrey is heartbreaking by only giving each reaction and word this strict honesty to support Peter's real love within a lie.
I will say where the film sort of falls apart, though not to the extent that I think it becomes a bad film even if it definitely comes short of its inspiration, is its ending. This is as Peter is hauled before congress while also dealing with not being Luke, but having to meet the sort of expectations left behind by the brave figure. Carrey's performance to his own credit remains consistent even as the film cannot quite juggle its various elements to the grand Capra finale that it is looking for. Again an admirable attempt even so that I won't be cynical about as some of the criticism towards this film was. Part of that is Carrey's whose performance gives that truth to the material by staying with it. This in portraying the phase of the Capra hero as he gives up, where I'd say is probably the biggest mistake in the whole film. This is as it is a little timid of the darkness, something Capra was not actually timid of nor was Stewart's performance, one can simply watch the scene where George Bailey lashes out at his family in It's A Wonderful Life, for evidence of that. The film rather treats this dilemma as Peter just going, "why not just make it easy", rather than being offered a real temptation, which sadly leaves Carrey's performance without sort of the real low needed to real bring out the power of the high. The film does have the attempted height in the form of the HUAC testimony where Peter pleads his case by evoking the proper spirit of America through remembering Luke essentially. This doesn't hit as hard as Smith's final words in Mr Smith Goes to Washington, or the ending of It's Wonderful Life. Carrey to his credit delivers on the requisite passion in the moment even the writing doesn't quite support him enough here. I'll also grant credit in the bit of humor here, Carrey doesn't fall upon any old tricks but rather evokes Gary Cooper in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, in his bit of mocking the bullying committee members. It's a well performed scene, but I have to admit it just doesn't reach the heights of the scenes it would wish to be compared to, although that does not mean it is a failure. Carrey's performance here though deserves admiration as he successfully evokes a classic leading man, the greatest one in fact in Jimmy Stewart, even though he doesn't reach the greatness of those turns. That's a high standard for anyone to match, especially when working with lesser material to be honest, and while Carrey doesn't quite reach it, he comes close enough to deserve comparison, which is a remarkable achievement in itself.
There's a challenge in attempting to recapture the world of Frank Capra, which was a very specific tone to begin with. The man that was known as Jim Carrey in the 90's probably wouldn't be one's first choice to the play the lead for an attempt to recapture "Capracorn", being best known for his irreverent comedic performances. This took place in his brief period where he seemed to attempt to balance his comic projects with some more dramatic material. While these typically involved comedy in one way or another, whether it be more subtle in the case of The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, or more overt in the case of playing a real comedian in Man on the Moon. This is an exception from the period in this is a purely dramatic turn from Carrey without even the most minor crutch when it comes to bringing a bit of humor into the proceedings for almost the entirety of the film. This simply just is Carrey as a straight leading man, and in that there is something one suddenly notices from the opening frames. That despite Carrey's usual elastic face, when tempered to a strict reality, he actually has perhaps more than just a passing resemblance to one of Capra's most noted leading men, Mr. Jimmy Stewart. Of course a man Carrey imitated in his standup acts, but this performance isn't to imitate Stewart, but rather evoke what that man delivered in his Capra performances.
That's no small challenge, and to successful deliver on this would be no small feat, as Stewart in his height with Capra delivered one of the greatest performances ever given. Now I'll admit right away that Carrey isn't able to produce a work equal to Stewart in Capra's greatest film It's a Wonderful Life, however his work does seem to understand some essential elements that were necessary to the greatness of Stewart's work in his Capra collaborations. This is from the outset of the film where we first see the screenwriter Peter listen as studio executives hack away at an idea of his. Carrey just listens on in thought elsewhere, and even in this action establishes that this will not be a typical Carrey turn. There is no attention seeking, no broad manner, but rather just an attempt to be a normal man. This I guess isn't too much in itself, I mean to tone it down, but his work goes beyond that as he establishes Peter as basically an unassuming screenwriter who is just trying to live out the Hollywood dream, to which he currently is at a lower rung of. Carrey's work though emphasizes this earnestness in this presentation of the man, and succeeds in just being so honestly straight forward. This again sounds a little strange as praise, but it is working towards creating a leading man turn of a bygone era.
Peter's world though is thrown into upheaval when he is accused of being a communist and faces a possible federal subpoena to "name names". Before that happens though he gets into a car accident, losing his memory, but being found by a loving small town. Carrey's performance that becomes even more Stewartesque as the man that so many begin to hold their hopes to, when a local man Harry Trimble (Martin Landau) incorrectly believes that Peter is in fact his son Luke, who was lost in the war. Peter's amnesia allowing him to at the very least not reject the claim, though also tentatively accepting it in a certain sense. This leaves Carrey an interesting challenge in very much relying on a charm, he had not really become known for, while also even reducing that to portray the man attempting to figure things out. Carrey's work is remarkable in the sense of creating a convincing state of confusion but also discovery in the moments of being told who he "is". This isn't too bad given that almost everyone loves Luke, even the lovely daughter of the town doctor, Adele (Laurie Holden). This in itself leading to a proper aw shucks romance, for Carrey to evoke the modest romantic manner that made Stewart's so special. This Carrey can do low key affection rather wonderfully, and he strikes up a nice chemistry with Holden, in that quiet yet potent fashion.
Carrey's performance works as he manages to deliver on the promise of being as earnest as the film is in terms of creating a portrait of basically optimism of the human spirit and of a small town whose existence is made simply by the existence of the return of this "Luke". There is no winking, or playing to a modern sensibility. Carrey carries himself with that spirit as well, and offers the essential non-judgement to the material's strictly genuine tone. Carrey more and more begins to appear as a Stewart sort and this transformation for him as a performer is impressive in itself. Carrey becomes this likable man who becomes part of the town, by romancing Adele, making friends with the local, and recreating the local theater back to its former glory with his "father". In all of this Carrey manages to evoke that old spirit fairly impressively, even as the narrative I'll say isn't as cohesive or compelling as the best of Capra, try as it might to be as such. Nonetheless Carrey's work remains consistent in trying to bring this somewhat flawed version of a Capra story to screen. This including when Peter, after having recovered his memories, must tend to the dying Harry knowing he's not his father. Carrey though is outstanding in offer some final comfort to the old man by "pretending" however Carrey is heartbreaking by only giving each reaction and word this strict honesty to support Peter's real love within a lie.
I will say where the film sort of falls apart, though not to the extent that I think it becomes a bad film even if it definitely comes short of its inspiration, is its ending. This is as Peter is hauled before congress while also dealing with not being Luke, but having to meet the sort of expectations left behind by the brave figure. Carrey's performance to his own credit remains consistent even as the film cannot quite juggle its various elements to the grand Capra finale that it is looking for. Again an admirable attempt even so that I won't be cynical about as some of the criticism towards this film was. Part of that is Carrey's whose performance gives that truth to the material by staying with it. This in portraying the phase of the Capra hero as he gives up, where I'd say is probably the biggest mistake in the whole film. This is as it is a little timid of the darkness, something Capra was not actually timid of nor was Stewart's performance, one can simply watch the scene where George Bailey lashes out at his family in It's A Wonderful Life, for evidence of that. The film rather treats this dilemma as Peter just going, "why not just make it easy", rather than being offered a real temptation, which sadly leaves Carrey's performance without sort of the real low needed to real bring out the power of the high. The film does have the attempted height in the form of the HUAC testimony where Peter pleads his case by evoking the proper spirit of America through remembering Luke essentially. This doesn't hit as hard as Smith's final words in Mr Smith Goes to Washington, or the ending of It's Wonderful Life. Carrey to his credit delivers on the requisite passion in the moment even the writing doesn't quite support him enough here. I'll also grant credit in the bit of humor here, Carrey doesn't fall upon any old tricks but rather evokes Gary Cooper in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, in his bit of mocking the bullying committee members. It's a well performed scene, but I have to admit it just doesn't reach the heights of the scenes it would wish to be compared to, although that does not mean it is a failure. Carrey's performance here though deserves admiration as he successfully evokes a classic leading man, the greatest one in fact in Jimmy Stewart, even though he doesn't reach the greatness of those turns. That's a high standard for anyone to match, especially when working with lesser material to be honest, and while Carrey doesn't quite reach it, he comes close enough to deserve comparison, which is a remarkable achievement in itself.
Saturday, 7 September 2019
Alternate Best Actor 2001: Liu Ye in Lan Yu
Liu Ye did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character in Lan Yu.
Lan Yu is an interesting though I wouldn't say wholly successful film following the homosexual relationship between a closeted older man Han Dong (Hu Jun) and a young student, the titular Lan Yu.
Liu Ye plays the younger man and is technically the secondary role within the film. This is as the perspective of the film is mostly told within Han's view of his relationship with Lan Yu, but how each stage of interaction with him leaves this impact. Liu Ye's performance then is many ways essential as he has very limited screentime, even though I would say it is still a leading role, to realize Lan Yu's character. This being a particular challenge since as written the role could've easily become one note in one way or another. This being that Lan Yu almost seems a specter at times in his appearances and it likely would've been a mistake to make the role too ethereal in nature. Thankfully Liu Ye makes no such mistakes approaching the role with a strict honesty. This forgoing any false mannerisms or posturing to make Lan Yu into the "young lover" to stand out, but instead strives to do so by just offering a very human portrait of this young man. This is evident from one of his earliest moments where we see the men's initial tryst. This is a key scene for the film, and expressed through Liu's performance that creates the sense of discovering in the moment. He doesn't make is just this physical act, but rather this powerful moment within his eyes of conveying this being an essential moment in his life.
Liu Ye's performance is then one about consistency but a consistency of a note that is rather remarkable. This being granting the importance of the relationship within the character of Lan Yu, who does not see it as a meaningless fling, affair or otherwise. This is rather a life changing experience. That is evident in their first tryst but also from then on. Liu grants the needed dynamic with Hu Jun's more guarded performance by portraying Lan Yu as someone who doesn't hide his emotions and wears them most evidently. Liu's work then is powerful through how blunt it is, however this must be said is notable in the restraint he shows within this once again. There is one of his greatest moments of his work is simply in reaction to hearing Han's more muted or at lest compromised emotions regarding their relationship. Liu captures the despair so effectively by portraying as this searing distress. This as his work emphasizes above all that for Lan Yu this relationship is for him the love of his life and an ever life changing experience. Liu Ye, even when he has certain periods of being absent from the narrative, always leaves the lasting impression on the film.
This all the while Han cannot forget about him neither does the viewer due to what Liu Ye accomplishes when we do see Lan Yu. His portrayal manages to create a particularly needed authenticity within the realization of Lan Yu's struggle. This is even with these technical "jumps" in places based on when Han meets him again. Liu Ye is terrific in portraying this certain maturation within Lan Yu. Liu's work again excels though by making this impressive impact in such a calm yet potent way. When Lan Yu essentially stakes his emotional claim around the idea of the relationship, Liu's delivery is reserved yet piercing. This as within every word there is this concise emotional intensity, that doesn't come out in anger, but rather a vulnerability. A vulnerability that reveals Lan Yu really is only seeking this happiness with the one he loves without exception. Liu excels in portraying Lan Yu's lack of compromise through his portrayal as just this raw emotion of someone trying to find his happiness. Liu's work manages to earn the place of Lan Yu as this nearly haunting presence in the film, not by making Lan Yu this dreamlike idea of perfection, but rather this honest portrayal of a purity of an soul that will not bargain with his truth. Lie Ye gives a fantastic turn here as even though he's not the main focus, he in a way makes himself as such with such ease. This in creating his own separate, and technically far more poignant portrait, not of a man refusing to be himself, but rather a man who can only be who he is.
Liu Ye plays the younger man and is technically the secondary role within the film. This is as the perspective of the film is mostly told within Han's view of his relationship with Lan Yu, but how each stage of interaction with him leaves this impact. Liu Ye's performance then is many ways essential as he has very limited screentime, even though I would say it is still a leading role, to realize Lan Yu's character. This being a particular challenge since as written the role could've easily become one note in one way or another. This being that Lan Yu almost seems a specter at times in his appearances and it likely would've been a mistake to make the role too ethereal in nature. Thankfully Liu Ye makes no such mistakes approaching the role with a strict honesty. This forgoing any false mannerisms or posturing to make Lan Yu into the "young lover" to stand out, but instead strives to do so by just offering a very human portrait of this young man. This is evident from one of his earliest moments where we see the men's initial tryst. This is a key scene for the film, and expressed through Liu's performance that creates the sense of discovering in the moment. He doesn't make is just this physical act, but rather this powerful moment within his eyes of conveying this being an essential moment in his life.
Liu Ye's performance is then one about consistency but a consistency of a note that is rather remarkable. This being granting the importance of the relationship within the character of Lan Yu, who does not see it as a meaningless fling, affair or otherwise. This is rather a life changing experience. That is evident in their first tryst but also from then on. Liu grants the needed dynamic with Hu Jun's more guarded performance by portraying Lan Yu as someone who doesn't hide his emotions and wears them most evidently. Liu's work then is powerful through how blunt it is, however this must be said is notable in the restraint he shows within this once again. There is one of his greatest moments of his work is simply in reaction to hearing Han's more muted or at lest compromised emotions regarding their relationship. Liu captures the despair so effectively by portraying as this searing distress. This as his work emphasizes above all that for Lan Yu this relationship is for him the love of his life and an ever life changing experience. Liu Ye, even when he has certain periods of being absent from the narrative, always leaves the lasting impression on the film.
This all the while Han cannot forget about him neither does the viewer due to what Liu Ye accomplishes when we do see Lan Yu. His portrayal manages to create a particularly needed authenticity within the realization of Lan Yu's struggle. This is even with these technical "jumps" in places based on when Han meets him again. Liu Ye is terrific in portraying this certain maturation within Lan Yu. Liu's work again excels though by making this impressive impact in such a calm yet potent way. When Lan Yu essentially stakes his emotional claim around the idea of the relationship, Liu's delivery is reserved yet piercing. This as within every word there is this concise emotional intensity, that doesn't come out in anger, but rather a vulnerability. A vulnerability that reveals Lan Yu really is only seeking this happiness with the one he loves without exception. Liu excels in portraying Lan Yu's lack of compromise through his portrayal as just this raw emotion of someone trying to find his happiness. Liu's work manages to earn the place of Lan Yu as this nearly haunting presence in the film, not by making Lan Yu this dreamlike idea of perfection, but rather this honest portrayal of a purity of an soul that will not bargain with his truth. Lie Ye gives a fantastic turn here as even though he's not the main focus, he in a way makes himself as such with such ease. This in creating his own separate, and technically far more poignant portrait, not of a man refusing to be himself, but rather a man who can only be who he is.
Saturday, 31 August 2019
Alternate Best Actor 2001: Anton Yelchin in Hearts in Atlantis
Anton Yelchin did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Robert "Bobby" Garfield in Hearts in Atlantis.
Hearts in Atlantis is one of those films that feels as though there just a little too little to it. In that it very much feels like a short story, although not a bad way, but perhaps to brief of one. It is indeed derivative of Frank Darabont's Stephen King adaptations, but even then not in a bad way, particularly not in terms of having great cinematography, even if it definitely falls short of those films. This film, a coming of age story about a boy striking up a friendship with a mysterious boarder, does feel incomplete, also needlessly depressing in its bookends that take place in the present, however it definitely has value within its flawed whole.
Sadly continuing on with another actor whose career was tragically short, we have Anton Yelchin who like Ledger was showing his most promise at the end of that of his far too brief time in acting. Let's forget all that though and look at the true beginning of his career, here taking upon the role of the young boy living with his single mother (Hope Davis), and eventually the boarder Ted Brautigan (Anthony Hopkins). Yelchin's performance here begins simply enough really as just a boy enjoying his youth with his friends Sully and Carol. Yelchin importantly brings just a naturalism within just being a boy. There's just an inherent attitude of just a normal kid living his life. This is something easier said then done, and Yelchin doesn't have any signs of obvious sort of child actor or needless precociousness. He makes Bobby however just a naturally likable kid, by being so natural. Yelchin just shows the right sort of joys of the innocent as he hangs around with his friends, though is not one note. Finding the sort of right slight undercurrent of sadness, and quiet frustration in just the most subtle ways in his interactions with his mom. He doesn't show a boy who hates his mom, but does rather effectively alludes to the more difficult history with his father no longer around.
The crux of the film however comes with the introduction of Ted who befriends Bobby. Where the film most succeeds in the relationship between the two realized through the chemistry between Yelchin and Hopkins, who are an unlikely pair, however work wonderfully together. Ted offers initially Bobby a job of sorts to read him the newspaper and look out for "low men", but this grows into a paternal relationship between the boy and the old man. Yelchin with Hopkins finds such a real warmth in their interactions. An essential part of this is Yelchin's portrayal of Bobby's genuine interest in Ted's various bit of information and stories he shared. Yelchin brings just the right youthful curiosity within these moments. There is past that though just the sense of comfort in their interactions with one another, as Ted finds ways to help Bobby, while Bobby continues to help Ted. This while in own ways while becoming more invested in him, and his states of seeming to be away mentally. Yelchin is terrific here by making this relationship, which has some undercurrents of the supernatural, wholly honest in terms of the emotion. He never plays it up, but rather slowly earns Bobby's growing respect and love for Ted in these interactions between each other.
Yelchin's work succeeds on the authenticity throughout which grants a needed reality on the story that is often on the edge of excessive sentimentality and even a bit of corniness in hitting both the coming of age and Stephen King trademarks. Yelchin though earns the majority of these by never falling into becoming a cliche within his own work. For example, we have the scene of his first kiss through his friend Carol. This is a basic enough moment, but what makes it something more is Yelchin's work. We get his moment of hesitation, the fear for a moment in his eyes, but also the bit of over eagerness with the scene. Yelchin brings just this honesty to the scene successfully making it rather moving in its simplicity. The same goes for a scene where Bobby randomly learns a bit more about his father on a trip with Ted. Yelchin's quiet, but powerful excitement at every bit of description offered to him. Again such a moment works through the depth within Yelchin's portrayal that grants a realism needed for the role. The same goes for the expected, for Stephen King, scene of a bully going to an extreme when one of them hurts Carol by hitting her with a bat. What elevates the moment is the acting, with Yelchin excelling in creating such a devastating portrayal of real anguish, along with palatable concern. He's terrific by making it messy just as it would be for any child in such a traumatic scene. This scene actually though is almost the climax as the film rushes towards its conclusion with Bobby's mom turning Ted into the "Bad Man". Nonetheless Yelchin is fantastic in his scene with Davis, portraying just this sad disappointment in his mom, and just sadness towards the loss of Ted. Yelchin brings such a powerful force by making it such a natural one. This being just a normal kid showing his despair towards losing a friend and discontent towards a flawed mother. Yelchin's work does that throughout this film in offering only this earned portrayal of the mostly straight forward coming of age story for Bobby. Although it doesn't make the film complete, it offers something while worth while through his earnest and authentic turn.
Sadly continuing on with another actor whose career was tragically short, we have Anton Yelchin who like Ledger was showing his most promise at the end of that of his far too brief time in acting. Let's forget all that though and look at the true beginning of his career, here taking upon the role of the young boy living with his single mother (Hope Davis), and eventually the boarder Ted Brautigan (Anthony Hopkins). Yelchin's performance here begins simply enough really as just a boy enjoying his youth with his friends Sully and Carol. Yelchin importantly brings just a naturalism within just being a boy. There's just an inherent attitude of just a normal kid living his life. This is something easier said then done, and Yelchin doesn't have any signs of obvious sort of child actor or needless precociousness. He makes Bobby however just a naturally likable kid, by being so natural. Yelchin just shows the right sort of joys of the innocent as he hangs around with his friends, though is not one note. Finding the sort of right slight undercurrent of sadness, and quiet frustration in just the most subtle ways in his interactions with his mom. He doesn't show a boy who hates his mom, but does rather effectively alludes to the more difficult history with his father no longer around.
The crux of the film however comes with the introduction of Ted who befriends Bobby. Where the film most succeeds in the relationship between the two realized through the chemistry between Yelchin and Hopkins, who are an unlikely pair, however work wonderfully together. Ted offers initially Bobby a job of sorts to read him the newspaper and look out for "low men", but this grows into a paternal relationship between the boy and the old man. Yelchin with Hopkins finds such a real warmth in their interactions. An essential part of this is Yelchin's portrayal of Bobby's genuine interest in Ted's various bit of information and stories he shared. Yelchin brings just the right youthful curiosity within these moments. There is past that though just the sense of comfort in their interactions with one another, as Ted finds ways to help Bobby, while Bobby continues to help Ted. This while in own ways while becoming more invested in him, and his states of seeming to be away mentally. Yelchin is terrific here by making this relationship, which has some undercurrents of the supernatural, wholly honest in terms of the emotion. He never plays it up, but rather slowly earns Bobby's growing respect and love for Ted in these interactions between each other.
Yelchin's work succeeds on the authenticity throughout which grants a needed reality on the story that is often on the edge of excessive sentimentality and even a bit of corniness in hitting both the coming of age and Stephen King trademarks. Yelchin though earns the majority of these by never falling into becoming a cliche within his own work. For example, we have the scene of his first kiss through his friend Carol. This is a basic enough moment, but what makes it something more is Yelchin's work. We get his moment of hesitation, the fear for a moment in his eyes, but also the bit of over eagerness with the scene. Yelchin brings just this honesty to the scene successfully making it rather moving in its simplicity. The same goes for a scene where Bobby randomly learns a bit more about his father on a trip with Ted. Yelchin's quiet, but powerful excitement at every bit of description offered to him. Again such a moment works through the depth within Yelchin's portrayal that grants a realism needed for the role. The same goes for the expected, for Stephen King, scene of a bully going to an extreme when one of them hurts Carol by hitting her with a bat. What elevates the moment is the acting, with Yelchin excelling in creating such a devastating portrayal of real anguish, along with palatable concern. He's terrific by making it messy just as it would be for any child in such a traumatic scene. This scene actually though is almost the climax as the film rushes towards its conclusion with Bobby's mom turning Ted into the "Bad Man". Nonetheless Yelchin is fantastic in his scene with Davis, portraying just this sad disappointment in his mom, and just sadness towards the loss of Ted. Yelchin brings such a powerful force by making it such a natural one. This being just a normal kid showing his despair towards losing a friend and discontent towards a flawed mother. Yelchin's work does that throughout this film in offering only this earned portrayal of the mostly straight forward coming of age story for Bobby. Although it doesn't make the film complete, it offers something while worth while through his earnest and authentic turn.
Saturday, 24 August 2019
Alternate Best Actor 2001: Heath Ledger in A Knight's Tale
Heath Ledger did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying William Thatcher in A Knight's Tale.
A Knight's Tale is a lightweight, though rather enjoyable film, about a commoner who attempts to make his way in the nobles only sport of jousting.
The gone far too soon Heath Ledger sadly was really only slightly past the end of the beginning of showing his considerable talent evident in his Oscar nominated turn and his eventual Oscar winning turn that came after his unfortunate passing. Those two performances showed an incredible range and ability to transform himself for a role. His performance as "sir" William here isn't quite as much of a challenge, but it does give Ledger the chance for something else. That something else being just a proper leading man turn. Ledger's performance actually reminded me a bit of his fellow Australian Chris Hemsworth as Thor, though once Hemsworth found his place in that role. Ledger though finds the right tone for this type of role from the outset. This in capturing this overarching charisma that falls upon two things really. The first being an ease in his presence and manner in the film found in the humor he delivers in the role. Ledger knows the tone, which just is a fun romp more than anything, and in that way brings this humor. It is with this complete ease where Ledger never clowns or postures. He just exists with it, bringing it so naturally as just part of William's outgoing and easygoing personality. A personality that not only wins over all his friends, but also wins we the viewers right over to the character as such an endearing lead.
The other thing though that is needed is still balancing the tone. Although the film is lightweight it isn't a farce, even with its purposefully anachronistic use of music, therefore one can't go too far on only humor. Ledger importantly also does deliver the needed earnestness within the role as well. He brings this really with the same ease, which grants the needed weight but doesn't weigh down the film. Take his initial speech where he persuades his comrades to help him on his seemingly impossible journey to become a knight as commoner. Ledger makes the speech convincing by only granting each word a real heart. The same goes for the central romance, which I think honestly could've been a bit beefed up on a writing end towards the character of William's love the lady Jocelyn (Shannyn Sossamon), but nonetheless it does still work. A big reason for this is Ledger's portrayal of William infatuation with Jocelyn. This again delivering such sincerity in every moment of interaction, right from the first time he lays eyes on her. Ledger helps it along being a basic romance, by never making fun of the idea in his work, instead he supports it with just the utmost conviction in these moments.
The film to be fair never gets too serious beyond Rufus Sewell's boring performance as the black knight villain, who should've taken lessons from Christopher Guest and Chris Sarandon on how to deliver a villain turn in a film like this, and William's relationship with his peasant father. The latter though is just another example of Ledger to shine in a low key way. This in the pivotal reunion scene, where William has found success and delivers the news to his now blinded father. Ledger again is wholly within the moment as just this most divine and honest spirit to the moment. This just accentuating in every moment the real appreciation of a son for his father and the bittersweet nature of the reunion. Beyond that though this is just performance to make William someone you absolutely wish to root for. Ledger does this in a seemingly effortless fashion. He does show when William gets hurt, it hurts, in turn making his victories all the more powerful because he shows us such a modest yet such an endearing hero to follow. When the audience for jousting matches cheer for William, it is easy to do so right along, because Ledger has made someone worth cheering for. Although I wouldn't quite put this performance up there with say Cary Elwes in the previously alluded to The Princess Bride, it does earn favorable comparisons to that work nonetheless. That in itself is a considerable success in my mind, and this performance a testament to Ledger's ability as a proper movie star.
The gone far too soon Heath Ledger sadly was really only slightly past the end of the beginning of showing his considerable talent evident in his Oscar nominated turn and his eventual Oscar winning turn that came after his unfortunate passing. Those two performances showed an incredible range and ability to transform himself for a role. His performance as "sir" William here isn't quite as much of a challenge, but it does give Ledger the chance for something else. That something else being just a proper leading man turn. Ledger's performance actually reminded me a bit of his fellow Australian Chris Hemsworth as Thor, though once Hemsworth found his place in that role. Ledger though finds the right tone for this type of role from the outset. This in capturing this overarching charisma that falls upon two things really. The first being an ease in his presence and manner in the film found in the humor he delivers in the role. Ledger knows the tone, which just is a fun romp more than anything, and in that way brings this humor. It is with this complete ease where Ledger never clowns or postures. He just exists with it, bringing it so naturally as just part of William's outgoing and easygoing personality. A personality that not only wins over all his friends, but also wins we the viewers right over to the character as such an endearing lead.
The other thing though that is needed is still balancing the tone. Although the film is lightweight it isn't a farce, even with its purposefully anachronistic use of music, therefore one can't go too far on only humor. Ledger importantly also does deliver the needed earnestness within the role as well. He brings this really with the same ease, which grants the needed weight but doesn't weigh down the film. Take his initial speech where he persuades his comrades to help him on his seemingly impossible journey to become a knight as commoner. Ledger makes the speech convincing by only granting each word a real heart. The same goes for the central romance, which I think honestly could've been a bit beefed up on a writing end towards the character of William's love the lady Jocelyn (Shannyn Sossamon), but nonetheless it does still work. A big reason for this is Ledger's portrayal of William infatuation with Jocelyn. This again delivering such sincerity in every moment of interaction, right from the first time he lays eyes on her. Ledger helps it along being a basic romance, by never making fun of the idea in his work, instead he supports it with just the utmost conviction in these moments.
The film to be fair never gets too serious beyond Rufus Sewell's boring performance as the black knight villain, who should've taken lessons from Christopher Guest and Chris Sarandon on how to deliver a villain turn in a film like this, and William's relationship with his peasant father. The latter though is just another example of Ledger to shine in a low key way. This in the pivotal reunion scene, where William has found success and delivers the news to his now blinded father. Ledger again is wholly within the moment as just this most divine and honest spirit to the moment. This just accentuating in every moment the real appreciation of a son for his father and the bittersweet nature of the reunion. Beyond that though this is just performance to make William someone you absolutely wish to root for. Ledger does this in a seemingly effortless fashion. He does show when William gets hurt, it hurts, in turn making his victories all the more powerful because he shows us such a modest yet such an endearing hero to follow. When the audience for jousting matches cheer for William, it is easy to do so right along, because Ledger has made someone worth cheering for. Although I wouldn't quite put this performance up there with say Cary Elwes in the previously alluded to The Princess Bride, it does earn favorable comparisons to that work nonetheless. That in itself is a considerable success in my mind, and this performance a testament to Ledger's ability as a proper movie star.
Monday, 19 August 2019
Alternate Best Actor 2001
Heath Ledger in A Knight's Tale
Jake Gyllenhaal in Donnie Darko
Jim Carrey in The Majestic
Anton Yelchin in Hearts in Atlantis
Liu Ye in Lan Yu
Thursday, 25 April 2013
Alternate Best Actor 2001: Results
- Gene Hackman in The Royal Tenenbaums
- Tom Wilkinson in In The Bedroom
- Billy Bob Thornton in The Man Who Wasn't There
- Jake Gyllenhaal in Donnie Darko
- Ryan Gosling in The Believer
- Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge!
- Jack Nicholson in The Pledge
- Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind
- Ethan Hawke in Training Day
- Jiang Wen in Devils on the Doorstep
- Bob Hoskins in Last Orders
- Jim Carrey in The Majestic
- Choi Min-sik in Failan
- Anthony LaPaglia in Lantana
- Anton Yelchin in Hearts in Atlantis
- Liu Ye in Lan Yu
- Billy Bob Thornton in Monster's Ball
- Gene Hackman in Heist
- Ray Winstone in Sexy Beast
- Haley Joel Osment in A.I. Artificial Intelligence
- Denzel Washington in Training Day
- Paddy Considine in Last Resort
- Rodrigo Santoro in Behind the Sun
- Jim Broadbent in Iris
- Mark Rylance in Intimacy
- Robert Sean Leonard in Tape
- Heath Ledger in A Knight's Tale
- Kevin Kline in Life as A House
- Elijah Wood in The Fellowship of the Ring
- Aurelien Recoing in Time Out
- Gael García Bernal in Y Tu Mama Tambien
- Diego Luna in Y Tu Mama Tambien
- Billy Bob Thornton in Bandits
- Ethan Hawke in Tape
- Ricardo Darin in Son of the Bride
- Hu Jun in Lan Yu
- Lior Ashkenazi in Late Marriage
- Johnny Depp in Blow
- Branko Đurić in No Man's Land
- René Bitorajac in No Man's Land
- Artiom Strelnikov in Last Resort
- Benoit Magimel in The Piano Teacher
- Vince Vaughn in Made
- Jude Law in Enemy At the Gates
- Ben Stiller in Zoolander
- Tom Cruise in Vanilla Sky
- Per Christian Ellefsen in Elling
- Aamir Khan in Lagaan
- Jon Favreau in Made
- Kevin Spacey in The Shipping News
- Bruce Willis in Bandits
- Fernando Tielve in The Devil's Backbone
- John Cameron Mitchell in Hedwig and The Angry Inch
- Yosuke Kubozuka in Go
- John Goodman in Monster's Inc
- Brad Pitt in Ocean's Eleven
- George Clooney in Ocean's Eleven
- Brad Pitt in Spy Game
- Robert De Niro in The Score
- Ravi Ramos Lacerda in Behind the Sun
- Robert Redford in Spy Game
- Mike Myers in Shrek
- Edward Norton in The Score
- Brad Pitt in The Mexican
- John Travolta in Domestic Disturbance
- Hugh Jackman in Swordfish
- Sam Neill in Jurassic Park 3
- Paul Dano in L.I.E
- John Travolta in Swordfish
- Jackie Chan in Rush Hour 2
- Chris Tucker in Rush Hour 2
- Daniel Radcliffe in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
- Robert Redford in The Last Castle
- Mark Wahlberg in The Planet of the Apes
- Billy Crystal in Monster's Inc
- Johnny Depp in From Hell
- Alec Baldwin in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
- Ryan Phillippe in Antitrust
- Orlando Jones in Evolution
- David Duchovny in Evolution
- Will Smith in Ali
- Woody Allen in The Curse of the Jade Scorpion
- Brendan Frasier in The Mummy Returns
- David Spade in Joe Dirt
- Josh Harnett in Pearl Harbor
- Sean Penn in I Am Sam
- Ben Affleck in Pearl Harbor
Wednesday, 24 April 2013
Alternate Best Actor 2001: Jack Nicholson in The Pledge
Jack Nicholson did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Jerry Black in The Pledge.
The Pledge is a film with some effective scenes which feels like it is building to something, but unfortunately its rushed ending leaves the film as a bit of a misfire.
As I've said before Jack Nicholson whose later career is somewhat problematic. Thankfully Nicholson never has become like De Niro or Pacino who frequently just don't care in their performances, he tends to give it a try, but sometimes that is a problem as he just seems to be given Carte blanch by many directors. In James L. Brooks's films and in the Departed as well Nicholson seemed to be allowed to do whatever he wanted filling his performances with an excessive amount of his Nicholson trademarks. It seems it might take a director to really say no to Nicholson when he starts over doing it, and it is quite amusing that Sean Penn the chronic over actor is one director to stop Nicholson from overacting.
Nicholson as the recently retired police detective Jerry Black forgets all of his mannerisms and buckles down to honestly find a character here. The detective on the very night of his retirement party goes on an investigation of the murder of a young girl, and Jerry ends up being the one to tell her parents about her death. Nicholson in these early scenes doesn't have to stand out in front here instead he really dials down his style. Nicholson shows himself certainly, but mostly he plays it close to the bone portraying the realistic reactions in the man as he sees the horrible crime. Nicholson doesn't rush the emotions here instead using subtly to really let them resonate.
Nicholson plays Jerry as a mostly quiet man who observes much of the time, and he does this very well showing perhaps his time as a detective. Nicholson is effective as Jerry is very often around very emotional people speaking, and Jerry must be the listener who contains himself for the most part. Nicholson is quite strong in internalizes the emotions in Jerry portraying that what he sees as moving him most certainly, yet there is the distance one would expect from the career detective who would spend his career with dealing with such situations. He does well in establishing that Jerry has been at his game for sometime, although he slowly works toward showing that he is probably moving a little too far with this case.
After failing to break the case quickly the film still follows him as he seems like he is settling into his retirement but is in fact still working on the case of the killer that everyone else thinks has long since been solved. Nicholson is very good as he shows a bit of a tender side when he befriends a single mother. Nicholson makes Jerry a man of two minds here quite well as he both honestly does wish to befriend the mother and her child, but all the while does harbor another plan that is far less noble. Nicholson is excellent in the manner which he shows a genuine concern and even a happiness as he spends time with them, but still he suggests that laying on in the back of his mind at all times is his desire to catch the killer even if it means using the child as bait.
This leads to the point of the film which is rushed and unfortunately it does adversely effect Nicholson's portrayal of Jerry's character arc. Suddenly there is a rush to use the child directly as bait and catch the killer, and it all happens much to fast with not nearly enough build up. Jerry is quite despondent and obsessed even more than before which is not properly built up to due to the way the film moves so quickly to the conclusion, which apparently was done this way due to production problems. It isn't long till Jerry is nothing more than a babbling mess thanks to the mess he made of everything from his refusal to stop. Nicholson isn't bad at all in terms of portraying Jerry's current state but there is something lost since the film forces his character to change too fast.
It is a shame that the film was not properly finished as it leaves both the film and Nicholson's performance less than what they might of been. I don't want to write this performance off though as this is an excellent performance for about eighty percent of the film. Even when the film does falter Nicholson still stays solid even if he can't maneuver the changes in his character perfectly due to the shortcoming of the film. This still is a notable performance by the great Nicholson as we see him really tone himself down to give an interesting and compelling characterization that never just relies on his old tricks. I do think this could have gone down as one of his very best performance if the film had stayed consistent. Nicholson nevertheless gives a strong quiet portrayal with some moments of real power within it.
As I've said before Jack Nicholson whose later career is somewhat problematic. Thankfully Nicholson never has become like De Niro or Pacino who frequently just don't care in their performances, he tends to give it a try, but sometimes that is a problem as he just seems to be given Carte blanch by many directors. In James L. Brooks's films and in the Departed as well Nicholson seemed to be allowed to do whatever he wanted filling his performances with an excessive amount of his Nicholson trademarks. It seems it might take a director to really say no to Nicholson when he starts over doing it, and it is quite amusing that Sean Penn the chronic over actor is one director to stop Nicholson from overacting.
Nicholson as the recently retired police detective Jerry Black forgets all of his mannerisms and buckles down to honestly find a character here. The detective on the very night of his retirement party goes on an investigation of the murder of a young girl, and Jerry ends up being the one to tell her parents about her death. Nicholson in these early scenes doesn't have to stand out in front here instead he really dials down his style. Nicholson shows himself certainly, but mostly he plays it close to the bone portraying the realistic reactions in the man as he sees the horrible crime. Nicholson doesn't rush the emotions here instead using subtly to really let them resonate.
Nicholson plays Jerry as a mostly quiet man who observes much of the time, and he does this very well showing perhaps his time as a detective. Nicholson is effective as Jerry is very often around very emotional people speaking, and Jerry must be the listener who contains himself for the most part. Nicholson is quite strong in internalizes the emotions in Jerry portraying that what he sees as moving him most certainly, yet there is the distance one would expect from the career detective who would spend his career with dealing with such situations. He does well in establishing that Jerry has been at his game for sometime, although he slowly works toward showing that he is probably moving a little too far with this case.
After failing to break the case quickly the film still follows him as he seems like he is settling into his retirement but is in fact still working on the case of the killer that everyone else thinks has long since been solved. Nicholson is very good as he shows a bit of a tender side when he befriends a single mother. Nicholson makes Jerry a man of two minds here quite well as he both honestly does wish to befriend the mother and her child, but all the while does harbor another plan that is far less noble. Nicholson is excellent in the manner which he shows a genuine concern and even a happiness as he spends time with them, but still he suggests that laying on in the back of his mind at all times is his desire to catch the killer even if it means using the child as bait.
This leads to the point of the film which is rushed and unfortunately it does adversely effect Nicholson's portrayal of Jerry's character arc. Suddenly there is a rush to use the child directly as bait and catch the killer, and it all happens much to fast with not nearly enough build up. Jerry is quite despondent and obsessed even more than before which is not properly built up to due to the way the film moves so quickly to the conclusion, which apparently was done this way due to production problems. It isn't long till Jerry is nothing more than a babbling mess thanks to the mess he made of everything from his refusal to stop. Nicholson isn't bad at all in terms of portraying Jerry's current state but there is something lost since the film forces his character to change too fast.
It is a shame that the film was not properly finished as it leaves both the film and Nicholson's performance less than what they might of been. I don't want to write this performance off though as this is an excellent performance for about eighty percent of the film. Even when the film does falter Nicholson still stays solid even if he can't maneuver the changes in his character perfectly due to the shortcoming of the film. This still is a notable performance by the great Nicholson as we see him really tone himself down to give an interesting and compelling characterization that never just relies on his old tricks. I do think this could have gone down as one of his very best performance if the film had stayed consistent. Nicholson nevertheless gives a strong quiet portrayal with some moments of real power within it.
Alternate Best Actor 2001: Billy Bob Thornton in The Man Who Wasn't There
Billy Bob Thornton did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a Golden Globe and winning several critical awards, for portraying Ed Crane in The Man Who Wasn't There.
The Man Who Wasn't There is an effective though certainly very dry film noir about a barber who sees his life go to pieces with just one case of blackmail.
It seems rather strange that Thornton was unable to receive a nomination for his performance here considering he had a banner year. The problem very well might have been that he had both this and Monster's Ball as viable options. Although on a whole Thornton did receive the most individual attention for this film, it just probably was not enough for this to be taken as the obvious choice. In fact since he received a little more attention for this might have confused the academy even more as his Monster's Ball character is a bit friendlier one in terms of the type of character's they usually go for.
One of the most unique aspects to the Man Who Wasn't There as a film noir is its protagonist. Usually in film noir what gets the character in some sort of trouble is the fact that he gets passionate about something too passionate for his own good. Well the last word that would come to one's mind when describing Ed Crane is the word passionate. Thornton has quite the challenge as Ed Crane in that he needs to play him as the The Man who Wasn't There, yet he also needs to avoid seeming like he is just phoning it in. He has to make us interested in Ed Crane own personal little story even though Ed Crane does not seem exactly all that interested in it himself.
What Thornton does in the role works as he creates a unique characterization for that of Ed Crane. It is not that there are any tics or mannerisms one would usually associate with a distinct character, but nevertheless Thornton makes Ed Crane just a certain sort of man. One could actually say there is a manner there but it is of the unassuming retiring man who prefers to sit and stand quietly much more than talk. Thornton finds just the perfect tone for Ed. He isn't shy, he does not really dislike people, Thornton is able to find that type of man who just would rather be left to his own devices, for better or worse.
Thornton takes a dead pan approach which is interesting since this is not a comedic performance for the most part, although there are certainly a few darkly funny moments in his portrayal. He is much like a dead pan comedian though in that he successfully brings us into the story even though he keeps that same style pretty much throughout the film. He is able to be fascinating to watch just through his dead pan fashion of the part, and there is something just easy to watch this peculiar type of man fall into the film noir plot that is usually left to more pronounced individuals. Thornton is able to make us care even when it may seem like Ed barely does.
One thing that is particularly compelling in Thornton's work here is his narration. It further punctuates every scene with the style he creates so well with Ed Crane, and works along beautifully with his performance on screen. The two blend together seamlessly to make Ed the interesting unique protagonist for this noir. Thornton is terrific in bringing his character's style to the forefront in every scene, and never wavering from it. There are two quick moments where he gets a little more emotional, but only in a completely understandable context that makes sense for Ed. Those to brief moments aside Thornton is able to bring something out of every scene within his purposeful style.
It is a shame that Thornton was not recognized for this performance or his also strong more emotional performance in Monster's Ball. He is very good in both performances of character's with rather differing styles as Hank Grotowski his character in Monster's Ball who most certainly is a man who is there. I like both performances a great deal though I do prefer this performance a little more. I just love what Thornton is able to bring out of his character, and does so much with what seems so little in terms of the character's less traditional emotional arc. It is a great piece of acting by Thornton that does so well in the creation of his character, and shows that it is possible to make even a man who is suppose to be boring can be compelling.
It seems rather strange that Thornton was unable to receive a nomination for his performance here considering he had a banner year. The problem very well might have been that he had both this and Monster's Ball as viable options. Although on a whole Thornton did receive the most individual attention for this film, it just probably was not enough for this to be taken as the obvious choice. In fact since he received a little more attention for this might have confused the academy even more as his Monster's Ball character is a bit friendlier one in terms of the type of character's they usually go for.
One of the most unique aspects to the Man Who Wasn't There as a film noir is its protagonist. Usually in film noir what gets the character in some sort of trouble is the fact that he gets passionate about something too passionate for his own good. Well the last word that would come to one's mind when describing Ed Crane is the word passionate. Thornton has quite the challenge as Ed Crane in that he needs to play him as the The Man who Wasn't There, yet he also needs to avoid seeming like he is just phoning it in. He has to make us interested in Ed Crane own personal little story even though Ed Crane does not seem exactly all that interested in it himself.
What Thornton does in the role works as he creates a unique characterization for that of Ed Crane. It is not that there are any tics or mannerisms one would usually associate with a distinct character, but nevertheless Thornton makes Ed Crane just a certain sort of man. One could actually say there is a manner there but it is of the unassuming retiring man who prefers to sit and stand quietly much more than talk. Thornton finds just the perfect tone for Ed. He isn't shy, he does not really dislike people, Thornton is able to find that type of man who just would rather be left to his own devices, for better or worse.
Thornton takes a dead pan approach which is interesting since this is not a comedic performance for the most part, although there are certainly a few darkly funny moments in his portrayal. He is much like a dead pan comedian though in that he successfully brings us into the story even though he keeps that same style pretty much throughout the film. He is able to be fascinating to watch just through his dead pan fashion of the part, and there is something just easy to watch this peculiar type of man fall into the film noir plot that is usually left to more pronounced individuals. Thornton is able to make us care even when it may seem like Ed barely does.
One thing that is particularly compelling in Thornton's work here is his narration. It further punctuates every scene with the style he creates so well with Ed Crane, and works along beautifully with his performance on screen. The two blend together seamlessly to make Ed the interesting unique protagonist for this noir. Thornton is terrific in bringing his character's style to the forefront in every scene, and never wavering from it. There are two quick moments where he gets a little more emotional, but only in a completely understandable context that makes sense for Ed. Those to brief moments aside Thornton is able to bring something out of every scene within his purposeful style.
It is a shame that Thornton was not recognized for this performance or his also strong more emotional performance in Monster's Ball. He is very good in both performances of character's with rather differing styles as Hank Grotowski his character in Monster's Ball who most certainly is a man who is there. I like both performances a great deal though I do prefer this performance a little more. I just love what Thornton is able to bring out of his character, and does so much with what seems so little in terms of the character's less traditional emotional arc. It is a great piece of acting by Thornton that does so well in the creation of his character, and shows that it is possible to make even a man who is suppose to be boring can be compelling.
Monday, 22 April 2013
Alternate Best Actor 2001: Gene Hackman in The Royal Tenenbaums
Gene Hackman did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite winning a Golden Globe as well as a couple Critic Awards, for portraying Royal Tenenbaum in The Royal Tenenbaums.
The Royal Tenenbaums is about the dysfunctional but once notable family. Although I find it fairly easy to see why some may not go for Wes Anderson's particularly quirks as both a writer and director, I do enjoy his style this film included.
I suppose it is no secret that Gene Hackman is one of my very favorite actors. I've covered several of his performances from his amazing subtle work in The Conversation, to his chilling yet humane performance in Unforgiven, but I have not covered any of his performances in comedies. Although to be sure this is not a pure comedy by any means as it has more than its fair share of dramatic moments, but Hackman does get ample opportunity to show off his comedic chops here. In fact it is pretty easy to say that his performance and character is what really puts this film much more on the comedic side than it would be otherwise, as his character always seems to look at the lighter side of things.
In the opening montage of the film we see the childhood of the Tenenbaum children with Royal as their rather self indulgent father who seems quite insensitive to all of their needs going so far as to even shooting his own son with a BB gun because hey that's just Royal does. I could see how so many actors could easily have gone the wrong way with Royal into just an unlikable mess, but this is Gene Hackman so he nails the character from his first scene. Hackman is such a delightful presence to behold and he knows how to play the role with an energetic glee that can pretty much override the character's despicable nature to make it so we can laugh right along with him.
Hackman is a genius here because well he doesn't avoid being unlikable yet he never stops Royal from being compulsively likable. He doesn't just fall on one facet of the character exactly, and it is quite interesting the way Hackman is able to show exactly what Royal did with his children yet not make us feel the alienation like the children. A great moment is when he first witnesses his daughter's play at her birthday party and only criticizes it rather bluntly. This works because Hackman is just so unabashed about it, and he doesn't play it like Royal is being purposefully sadistic in his method, rather Hackman is able to portray the selfishness of mind that keeps Royal from even fully realizing what he is doing at times.
Like all my favorite actors Hackman is able to be simply fun to watch act, and this is definitely true in this case as Royal Tenenbaum throughout and every scene is only made better when he has something to do in them. There is a great number of scenes in the middle where Royal is launching his scheme to attempt to get back in his family by pretending that he is dying. Hackman is terrific as Royal acts as if he really cares about everyone well still not away from his usual self obsessed schemes as well. Hackman is so wonderful in his little moments as we see that same old Royal, and has some comedic gems he brings whenever he can. Sometimes it can be a slight reaction, like when Royal is astonished by a game room he has not been into for sometime, and Hackman makes it comedic gold.
The role of Royal does have quite a change through the film as he seems not particularly redeemable in his behavior early on yet he changes quite a bit by the end the film. This of course can be done rather poorly even by someone like Jack Nicholson who failed to be fully believable in his try to bring the curmudgeon around in Its As Good As It Gets. Hackman also has quite the task but doesn't make any of the mistakes that Nicholson did in his performance. Where Nicholson was far too sudden in his approach and not at all natural, Hackman knows how to properly maneuver through the change appropriately. One of the important aspects of his portrayal is the way he eases into the change in Royal, he never rushes it, and just as importantly he never loses that joy in Royal's behavior found before his change.
During the period of faking that he is dying Hackman although always suggests the game Royal is playing there is a certain caring in him particularly when Royal tries to connect with his grandchildren. Hackman never forces it showing there still is that imp at least partially in his manner even when he tries to be entirely earnest with his children. He works toward it in a brilliant fashion though and the moment where Royal is found out about his lies we see the change finally in Royal. The moment where Royal finally says what the family really does mean to him by saying his days with them have been the best days of his life is made so poignant as Hackman does not just leave it to the narration to say it, he shows the mixed bitter sweet moment in Hackman's expression when Royal realizes how important his family really is to him.
After Royal finds himself on the outs again with his family Hackman is so good in showing that Royal can't go back to his old ways completely, although importantly he still has some nice funny moments still never losing that primary characteristic of Royal which is that he loves life. Royal manages to be brought back in by a real family crisis and Hackman is very moving as he portrays the changed Royal attempt to make things right. What works so beautifully about Hackman's performance is that Royal is entirely genuine in his attempts to bond with his family, yet what works is that he shows a struggle in Royal. Hackman doesn't have the struggle to be a good man, but rather struggle with just his lack of experience. What is so effective is that Hackman conveys the honest effort Royal puts in as he tries to connect with his children despite his numerous shortcoming, making it much more powerful when he finally does.
This is another excellent performance by Hackman in every respect. He is a comedic force through the film always making a situation quite hilarious even no matter what the situation might be. He doesn't avoid being the unlikable father to self absorbed to care about his family, no instead he absolutely relishes in that fact and gets such great moments by this approach. He is consistently funny and it is a delight to see Hackman succeed so effortlessly with humor as he managed to do in his earlier far more dramatic performances. Of course there is drama here to and Hackman knows exactly how to handle that as well. He connects right with the comedy side of the role. They are one and the same, Hackman excels in the role seamlessly combining all that is Royal winning when it comes to creating laughter with his performance, and moving when he needs to express the more soulful moments. All I can say is that I love this performance.
I suppose it is no secret that Gene Hackman is one of my very favorite actors. I've covered several of his performances from his amazing subtle work in The Conversation, to his chilling yet humane performance in Unforgiven, but I have not covered any of his performances in comedies. Although to be sure this is not a pure comedy by any means as it has more than its fair share of dramatic moments, but Hackman does get ample opportunity to show off his comedic chops here. In fact it is pretty easy to say that his performance and character is what really puts this film much more on the comedic side than it would be otherwise, as his character always seems to look at the lighter side of things.
In the opening montage of the film we see the childhood of the Tenenbaum children with Royal as their rather self indulgent father who seems quite insensitive to all of their needs going so far as to even shooting his own son with a BB gun because hey that's just Royal does. I could see how so many actors could easily have gone the wrong way with Royal into just an unlikable mess, but this is Gene Hackman so he nails the character from his first scene. Hackman is such a delightful presence to behold and he knows how to play the role with an energetic glee that can pretty much override the character's despicable nature to make it so we can laugh right along with him.
Hackman is a genius here because well he doesn't avoid being unlikable yet he never stops Royal from being compulsively likable. He doesn't just fall on one facet of the character exactly, and it is quite interesting the way Hackman is able to show exactly what Royal did with his children yet not make us feel the alienation like the children. A great moment is when he first witnesses his daughter's play at her birthday party and only criticizes it rather bluntly. This works because Hackman is just so unabashed about it, and he doesn't play it like Royal is being purposefully sadistic in his method, rather Hackman is able to portray the selfishness of mind that keeps Royal from even fully realizing what he is doing at times.
Like all my favorite actors Hackman is able to be simply fun to watch act, and this is definitely true in this case as Royal Tenenbaum throughout and every scene is only made better when he has something to do in them. There is a great number of scenes in the middle where Royal is launching his scheme to attempt to get back in his family by pretending that he is dying. Hackman is terrific as Royal acts as if he really cares about everyone well still not away from his usual self obsessed schemes as well. Hackman is so wonderful in his little moments as we see that same old Royal, and has some comedic gems he brings whenever he can. Sometimes it can be a slight reaction, like when Royal is astonished by a game room he has not been into for sometime, and Hackman makes it comedic gold.
The role of Royal does have quite a change through the film as he seems not particularly redeemable in his behavior early on yet he changes quite a bit by the end the film. This of course can be done rather poorly even by someone like Jack Nicholson who failed to be fully believable in his try to bring the curmudgeon around in Its As Good As It Gets. Hackman also has quite the task but doesn't make any of the mistakes that Nicholson did in his performance. Where Nicholson was far too sudden in his approach and not at all natural, Hackman knows how to properly maneuver through the change appropriately. One of the important aspects of his portrayal is the way he eases into the change in Royal, he never rushes it, and just as importantly he never loses that joy in Royal's behavior found before his change.
During the period of faking that he is dying Hackman although always suggests the game Royal is playing there is a certain caring in him particularly when Royal tries to connect with his grandchildren. Hackman never forces it showing there still is that imp at least partially in his manner even when he tries to be entirely earnest with his children. He works toward it in a brilliant fashion though and the moment where Royal is found out about his lies we see the change finally in Royal. The moment where Royal finally says what the family really does mean to him by saying his days with them have been the best days of his life is made so poignant as Hackman does not just leave it to the narration to say it, he shows the mixed bitter sweet moment in Hackman's expression when Royal realizes how important his family really is to him.
After Royal finds himself on the outs again with his family Hackman is so good in showing that Royal can't go back to his old ways completely, although importantly he still has some nice funny moments still never losing that primary characteristic of Royal which is that he loves life. Royal manages to be brought back in by a real family crisis and Hackman is very moving as he portrays the changed Royal attempt to make things right. What works so beautifully about Hackman's performance is that Royal is entirely genuine in his attempts to bond with his family, yet what works is that he shows a struggle in Royal. Hackman doesn't have the struggle to be a good man, but rather struggle with just his lack of experience. What is so effective is that Hackman conveys the honest effort Royal puts in as he tries to connect with his children despite his numerous shortcoming, making it much more powerful when he finally does.
This is another excellent performance by Hackman in every respect. He is a comedic force through the film always making a situation quite hilarious even no matter what the situation might be. He doesn't avoid being the unlikable father to self absorbed to care about his family, no instead he absolutely relishes in that fact and gets such great moments by this approach. He is consistently funny and it is a delight to see Hackman succeed so effortlessly with humor as he managed to do in his earlier far more dramatic performances. Of course there is drama here to and Hackman knows exactly how to handle that as well. He connects right with the comedy side of the role. They are one and the same, Hackman excels in the role seamlessly combining all that is Royal winning when it comes to creating laughter with his performance, and moving when he needs to express the more soulful moments. All I can say is that I love this performance.
Sunday, 21 April 2013
Alternate Best Actor 2001: Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge!
Ewan McGregor did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for a Golden Globe, for portraying Christian in Moulin Rouge!.
Moulin Rouge is quite properly considered to be a love or hate it film. Well I fall much closer to latter as the films opening thirty minutes with its incessant quick cutting gave me a headache. There are a few set pieces that I like or at least don't mind, but I can't like any film that I almost had to turn off after thirty minutes.
Speaking of the headache I had it was not helped by many of the performances found in this film. John Leguizamo's performance probably had both Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and Jose Ferrer rolling in their graves, and Richard Roxburgh well uhh what can one say about that performance other than his delivery of "I JUST DON'T LIKE PEOPLE TOUCHING MY THINGS" would be great for a security alarm system to protect your possessions. These performances are insanely over the top without being entertaining which is always a problem and it seems for an actor to be able to give a good over the top performance they need to be capable of a subtle one as well.
Those performances as well as many others did not alleviate my headache, and I was ready to give up, but then Ewan McGregor finally got his first solo number, and I have to admit my headache went away. Where too many of the other performances basically act like they know their in an over the top affair and are rather obnoxious because of this Ewan McGregor throws himself into his role with such profound conviction. He doesn't wink or do anything even close to that in his portrayal of Christian, Christian is suppose to be a love obsessed writer filled with passion, and McGregor plays him just that way particularly the part about being filled with passion.
McGregor is uncompromising in his depiction of the hopelessness of this romantic. Honestly if Christian had been portrayed with the wackiness that too many of the other performers rely on his whole constant mentioning of love would seem as stupid as it is. McGregor though because of just how much he gets into the part makes it that even if Christian's unwavering beliefs may be a little too much, at least they are genuine thanks to the fact that is all McGregor ever gives it. McGregor just plays his part with such earnestness that he even manages to keep his head up throughout the whole film, even late in the film when his character makes his rather strange actions in which he becomes rather hateful albeit briefly.
This is of course a musical and McGregor voice is something to behold on its own and only continues to show the amount of effort he puts into the part. McGregor with each and every song sings about love pushes the idea to the utmost that supports the level of belief Christian should hold. Each of his songs where highlights for me throughout the film because again how much he goes for broke with them. The intensity of his singing the expressions they all work so well, and really make the idea of the story of love and he is able just to go with the simplistic. McGregor never seems to care if the love is simplistic and shallow he belts it out to the back row anyways.
The film did manage to cause me literal pain but McGregor acted as my aspirin for the film, his performance was something I could hold onto to get through it. His investment in it is so great that he even managed to make me invested in it a little. There is not a halfhearted moment in his portrayal even in that late act poorly written out of character turn at the end of the film. This is just a sweet entirely charming performance that knows how to make the material move even when the material isn't even all that great. It is a true shame that the film which was nominated for eight awards but not one was left for the leading man who puts his all into lighting up every moment in which he is onscreen.
Speaking of the headache I had it was not helped by many of the performances found in this film. John Leguizamo's performance probably had both Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and Jose Ferrer rolling in their graves, and Richard Roxburgh well uhh what can one say about that performance other than his delivery of "I JUST DON'T LIKE PEOPLE TOUCHING MY THINGS" would be great for a security alarm system to protect your possessions. These performances are insanely over the top without being entertaining which is always a problem and it seems for an actor to be able to give a good over the top performance they need to be capable of a subtle one as well.
Those performances as well as many others did not alleviate my headache, and I was ready to give up, but then Ewan McGregor finally got his first solo number, and I have to admit my headache went away. Where too many of the other performances basically act like they know their in an over the top affair and are rather obnoxious because of this Ewan McGregor throws himself into his role with such profound conviction. He doesn't wink or do anything even close to that in his portrayal of Christian, Christian is suppose to be a love obsessed writer filled with passion, and McGregor plays him just that way particularly the part about being filled with passion.
McGregor is uncompromising in his depiction of the hopelessness of this romantic. Honestly if Christian had been portrayed with the wackiness that too many of the other performers rely on his whole constant mentioning of love would seem as stupid as it is. McGregor though because of just how much he gets into the part makes it that even if Christian's unwavering beliefs may be a little too much, at least they are genuine thanks to the fact that is all McGregor ever gives it. McGregor just plays his part with such earnestness that he even manages to keep his head up throughout the whole film, even late in the film when his character makes his rather strange actions in which he becomes rather hateful albeit briefly.
This is of course a musical and McGregor voice is something to behold on its own and only continues to show the amount of effort he puts into the part. McGregor with each and every song sings about love pushes the idea to the utmost that supports the level of belief Christian should hold. Each of his songs where highlights for me throughout the film because again how much he goes for broke with them. The intensity of his singing the expressions they all work so well, and really make the idea of the story of love and he is able just to go with the simplistic. McGregor never seems to care if the love is simplistic and shallow he belts it out to the back row anyways.
The film did manage to cause me literal pain but McGregor acted as my aspirin for the film, his performance was something I could hold onto to get through it. His investment in it is so great that he even managed to make me invested in it a little. There is not a halfhearted moment in his portrayal even in that late act poorly written out of character turn at the end of the film. This is just a sweet entirely charming performance that knows how to make the material move even when the material isn't even all that great. It is a true shame that the film which was nominated for eight awards but not one was left for the leading man who puts his all into lighting up every moment in which he is onscreen.
Saturday, 20 April 2013
Alternate Best Actor 2001: Ryan Gosling in The Believer
Ryan Gosling did not receive an Oscar nomination, despite being nominated for an Independent Spirit Award, for portraying Daniel "Danny" Balintin The Believer.
The Believer is a somewhat interesting although the writing and particularly the direction is never that spectacular, and to be sure they are both overshadowed by the lead performance in the film.
Ryan Gosling is the film as the skin head neo Nazi who also happens to be Jewish although this is not something he would tell his thick headed prejudiced friends nor his rich affluent fellow fascists who wish for Fascism to be taken seriously as an ideology by the public. Gosling stands in the middle of many things and has to work around this and brings out each aspect of his character within his performance. Danny is basically a series of contradictions and Golsing needs to portray each one of these naturally without it seeming forced, and each of the contradictions has to actually form who Danny is exactly.
The first of these contradictions is the presentation of Danny within the realm of the fascists and the Nazi sympathizers. On one hand Danny is a charismatic sort who seems to think many things through which speaks about. Gosling portraying Danny as charismatic and articulate in his ability to discuss his beliefs no matter how extreme they may be. On the other hand though Danny can seem just a thuggish brute who resorts to violence first with no more than angry thought. Gosling again is just a believable as the brute with a great intensity in his performance portraying the seething anger in the man that pushes him to commit these attacks.
The contradictions only continue as the conviction of this man also comes into play. Again on one side Gosling is absolutely forceful in his depiction of the level of conviction that Danny does have in his individual theories. They may be utter bunk but Gosling does show Danny as a man who fiercely believes in them, as well as has the ability to tell them in a way that would make at least some not to be instantly repulsed by his ideas. On the other side of Danny though there is a weakness in him and a lack of conviction in his beliefs as he reflects about his past in the Jewish tradition or when he is confronted by the very real ends which would come about if his ideas came to fruition.
Nothing technically makes sense about this self hating man yet Gosling allows this man to his exist through his portrayal which matches whatever side of the man comes out. He is able to achieve the inconsistencies of the man without Danny seeming impossible or even improbable. He is able to find Danny on every level and within the contradiction that is Danny creates a fascinating character. He can be perfectly reprehensible yet so easy to listen to in his reprehensibility due to Gosling presence which makes it possible to believe that he would be both accepted and at the same time rejected by both the high brow fascists and the down and dirty ones.
Gosling is able to be the leader and just a punk who doesn't how to deal with his own problems other than with violence. Importantly though Gosling portrays largely that the violence that manifests itself comes from his own self hatred. Gosling is able to get find the complexities the self hatred that comes about in many forms whether it is the basic anger that is fueled from being the very thing he hates, or a strange sadness from some sort of respect he still holds for his childhood despite his apparent rejection of it. Importantly Gosling shows that this is never something simple and is fairly moving in portraying it as something that truly leaves nothing but a confused mess in the end.
The film never reaches the heights it could given Gosling's work, and honestly it lessens the lasting impression Gosling's performance can leave. The story just never becomes that powerful therefore Gosling can never can quite go the extra distance with Danny as a character. I do not want to sound negative at all though as I do not have a single complaint in regards to Ryan Gosling's portrayal. Gosling gives a terrific performance that really succeeds brilliantly despite the challenges presented. He is able to compile Danny into one believable man despite the contradictions of him, and in fact uses the contradictions to enable him to be a singularly unique character who never is quite one way when it comes to any matter.
Ryan Gosling is the film as the skin head neo Nazi who also happens to be Jewish although this is not something he would tell his thick headed prejudiced friends nor his rich affluent fellow fascists who wish for Fascism to be taken seriously as an ideology by the public. Gosling stands in the middle of many things and has to work around this and brings out each aspect of his character within his performance. Danny is basically a series of contradictions and Golsing needs to portray each one of these naturally without it seeming forced, and each of the contradictions has to actually form who Danny is exactly.
The first of these contradictions is the presentation of Danny within the realm of the fascists and the Nazi sympathizers. On one hand Danny is a charismatic sort who seems to think many things through which speaks about. Gosling portraying Danny as charismatic and articulate in his ability to discuss his beliefs no matter how extreme they may be. On the other hand though Danny can seem just a thuggish brute who resorts to violence first with no more than angry thought. Gosling again is just a believable as the brute with a great intensity in his performance portraying the seething anger in the man that pushes him to commit these attacks.
The contradictions only continue as the conviction of this man also comes into play. Again on one side Gosling is absolutely forceful in his depiction of the level of conviction that Danny does have in his individual theories. They may be utter bunk but Gosling does show Danny as a man who fiercely believes in them, as well as has the ability to tell them in a way that would make at least some not to be instantly repulsed by his ideas. On the other side of Danny though there is a weakness in him and a lack of conviction in his beliefs as he reflects about his past in the Jewish tradition or when he is confronted by the very real ends which would come about if his ideas came to fruition.
Nothing technically makes sense about this self hating man yet Gosling allows this man to his exist through his portrayal which matches whatever side of the man comes out. He is able to achieve the inconsistencies of the man without Danny seeming impossible or even improbable. He is able to find Danny on every level and within the contradiction that is Danny creates a fascinating character. He can be perfectly reprehensible yet so easy to listen to in his reprehensibility due to Gosling presence which makes it possible to believe that he would be both accepted and at the same time rejected by both the high brow fascists and the down and dirty ones.
Gosling is able to be the leader and just a punk who doesn't how to deal with his own problems other than with violence. Importantly though Gosling portrays largely that the violence that manifests itself comes from his own self hatred. Gosling is able to get find the complexities the self hatred that comes about in many forms whether it is the basic anger that is fueled from being the very thing he hates, or a strange sadness from some sort of respect he still holds for his childhood despite his apparent rejection of it. Importantly Gosling shows that this is never something simple and is fairly moving in portraying it as something that truly leaves nothing but a confused mess in the end.
The film never reaches the heights it could given Gosling's work, and honestly it lessens the lasting impression Gosling's performance can leave. The story just never becomes that powerful therefore Gosling can never can quite go the extra distance with Danny as a character. I do not want to sound negative at all though as I do not have a single complaint in regards to Ryan Gosling's portrayal. Gosling gives a terrific performance that really succeeds brilliantly despite the challenges presented. He is able to compile Danny into one believable man despite the contradictions of him, and in fact uses the contradictions to enable him to be a singularly unique character who never is quite one way when it comes to any matter.
Friday, 19 April 2013
Alternate Best Actor 2001
Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge!
Billy Bob Thornton in The Man Who Wasn't There
Gene Hackman in The Royal Tenenbaums
Jack Nicholson in The Pledge
Ryan Gosling in The Believer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)