Showing posts with label Joe Mantegna. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Mantegna. Show all posts

Friday, 7 December 2018

Alternate Best Actor 1987: Results

10. Gaspard Manesse in Au Revoir Les Enfants -Manesse gives a fine natural turn however his performance is largely limited as the perspective of a mostly naive young boy.

Best Scene: The ending.
9. Steve Martin in Roxanne - Martin gives a surprisingly respectful sendoff of the Cyrano character re-imagined as a fireman, though I perhaps wish he stayed even truer to the spirit of the original.

Best Scene: Smelling fire.
8. Joe Mantegna in House of Games - Mantegna is limited by the character however he gives effective portrayals of the many different sides of a con man, from the sucker, to the smooth operator, and even just the slime ball beneath it all.

Best Scene: "Thank you sir, may I have another"
7. Klaus Kinski in Cobra Verde - Kinski as usually makes an impact in his emotionally raw turn however his work is constricted by the film's distant perspective character.

Best Scene: How to spear
6. Martin Short in Innerspace - Short gives an absolutely hilarious portrayal of an especially unlikely hero, but he also naturally finds some dramatic substance in his character's journey towards confidence.

Best Scene: The dream in reality.
5. Christian Bale in Empire of the Son - Bale gives a dramatic and compelling portrayal of the gradual maturation of a young boy through the horrors of war. His work though often seems strangely at odds with Steven Spielberg who seems often too timid to make a story about the loss of innocence.

Best Scene: After the bombings. 
4. Terry O'Quinn in The Stepfather - O'Quinn is in a garbage film however he breaths a genuinely chilling life into a man who thrives on the love of family but does so through killing them.

Best Scene: Who am I?
3. Cary Elwes in The Princess Bride - Elwes gives a somewhat underrated turn, in a highly regarded film, as his work captures just the perfect tone between earnest charisma, and sly comedy.

Best Scene: "Drop your sword"
2. Richard E. Grant in Withnail and I - Richard E. Grant delivers a marvelous feature film debut in his varied comical, yet not without pathos, portrayal of an actor trying his best to play the play that is his life.

Best Scene: Hamlet in the rain.
1. Mickey Rourke in Angel Heart - Rourke tops this list with ease in his charismatic yet also brilliantly exhaustive portrayal of a vicious mental and moral decay of a man as he descends towards hell.

Best Scene: "I know who I am"
Updated Overall

Next Year: 1987 supporting

Sunday, 28 October 2018

Alternate Best Actor 1987: Joe Mantegna in House of Games

Joe Mantegna did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Mike in House of Games.

House of Games I found to be David Mamet's best film, that I've seen, despite being his first film benefiting from a more focused narrative than some of his later efforts.

Mamet mainstay, both on stage on screen, Joe Mantegna naturally is there for the first foray into the cinematic form. A film that follows a subject matter, that being the world of con artists, that seems more fitting to sort of Mamet's mametese style of dialogue. The film explores the world of con artists through the curiosity of a doctor Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) who initially comes upon the world in the belief she is helping one of her patients. Joe Mantegna appears as one of the first connections to the world seemingly as a gambler willing to help her patient wipe away a debt if she helps him play poker. Mantegna is of course a fine fit for such part fitting right into the underworld setting. Mantegna's performance though is interesting in it essentially him playing with the idea of just what type of criminal his Mike is throughout the film. At first we meet him seemingly as shady, but seemingly affable enough gambler. Mantegna captures a generalized sorta tough guy well enough that it becomes believable enough as he reveals a bit of seeming vulnerability in trying to get Margaret to help him win at poker. I will say this probably Mantegna's weakest scene as it is in general somewhat stilted, though this perhaps to show the artifice of the situation since the whole thing is revealed to be a con to try to scam Margaret.

She catches on though but rather than turning them into the police she becomes intrigued by the con men particularly Mantegna's Mike. Mantegna switches his performance accordingly to be a particularly amiable con man. Here Mantegna excels in bringing a real charm to his performance in expressing this outward warmth with an underlying attraction towards Margaret. He is particularly effective in creating the intrigue of the con by overlaying with this considerable charisma. Mantegna speaks with an energy and magnetism of a man trying not only to woo the woman but also to welcome her into the world. His whole manner delivers this eagerness to show off though in a way that captures her intrigue. Mantegna and Crouse share an earnestly sweet chemistry together even as they speak of essentially cheating other people. That mutual attraction is well realized though specifically created in the foundations of that sort of danger involving the con. Mantegna though seems to remain consistent as really her "man" even as they go along towards a more dangerous con that she invites her into. Mantegna plays these moments though with an earnest concern always towards her, almost a little too impassioned in her support to the point where one might question the loyalty based on just how selfless it appears.

The violent con ends up being yet just another con at Margaret's expense, a long con to get her money, and in this Mantegna segues towards his final turn as Mike, the real Mike. Mantegna here makes for a real proper jerk now just showing a completely callous criminal who is neither dangerous nor intriguing. Mantegna instead does well by just staying true to the nasty nature of the con and presents a man just without any scruples. Mantegna takes the approach that is pretty cold though effectively so in showing just how brutal the nature of the con is. This is as he shows not a hint of a hidden real affection showing quite bluntly instead that the Mike of all previously scenes was merely the con artist playing the part to rope her in. This made all the more evident in the final confrontation which is perhaps Mantegna's best scene. Mantegna doesn't beat around the bush brandishing the indifference of Mike right to her face with this venomous disregard in every line delivery. He leaves no moment for sentiment revealing just a small pathetic man behind all his false charm that really was just a mask. This is revealed all the more when she one ups him by resorting to violence for satisfaction. Mantegna is very good in revealing a genuine desperation while still keeping the man's vile nature intact as he captures a man clearly fearing for his life though with a pride that prevents him begging for it. It's a terrific moment as Mantegna reveals the little rat that was Mike all along. Now this though does create a structure for the character that keeps a distant type, rather than real man for much of the film. Nonetheless this is a good performance by Joe Mantegna even within that certain restriction.

Monday, 22 October 2018

Alternate Best Actor 1987

And the Nominees Were Not:

Cary Elwes in The Princess Bride

Joe Mantegna in House of Games

Richard E. Grant in Withnail and I

Steve Martin in Roxanne

Gaspard Manesse in Au Revoir Les Enfants

Predict those five, these five or both.

Mickey Rourke in Angel Heart

Terry O'Quinn in The Stepfather

Klaus Kinski in Cobra Verde

Martin Short in Innerspace

Christian Bale in Empire of the Sun

Tuesday, 29 May 2018

Alternate Best Actor 1991: Results

5. Christopher Eccleston in Let Him Have It - Eccleston gives a good portrayal of his mentally stunted "criminal" however the film fails to utilize the potential of his performance due to the material given to him.

Best Scene: Seeing his family the last time.
4. Wesley Snipes in New Jack City - Snipes gives a charismatic yet vicious portrayal of his drug dealer with even a touch of a pathos though his film fails to realize its value to the film.

Best Scene: Killing his partner.
3. Joe Mantegna in Homicide - Mantegna manages to make his material work by giving a properly confident portrayal of a professional detective while also effectively undercutting it in his subtle realization of a man without roots.

Best Scene: Confrontation.
2. Alan Rickman in Truly, Madly, Deeply - Rickman gives an absolutely charming yet also moving portrayal of a ghost who represents both the comfort of the past, but also what is lost in time.

Best Scene: Witnessing her moving on.
1. River Phoenix in Dogfight - Good Prediction Emi Grant. Phoenix manages to make some rather tricky material work through his charismatic and complex portrayal of a marine torn between the expectations of his peers, and his more genuine good nature.

Best Scene: Eddie's apology.
Updated Overall

Next Year: 1991 Supporting

Tuesday, 15 May 2018

Alternate Best Actor 1991: Joe Mantegna in Homicide

Joe Mantegna did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Bobby Gold in Homicide.

Homicide follows a Jewish detective while he tries to solve the murder of an elderly Jewish woman, and while he tracks down a brutal drug dealer.

Homicide, yeah homicide, that's the name of an act and film. It's two things, right, maybe a metaphor or two. What the hell do I know. It's like a movie where everybody talks. Talks with this way of speaking. You know what I'm saying? Well do you? There are spaces to make sure you hear what I'm saying though. Make sure you here it right clear like I'm talking to someone else, but instead I'm monologuing. Monologuing like I'm a stage actor, but hey I'm suppose to be here talkin up a film. A film performance that is. A film where everyone talks a little strange. The plot seems a little convoluted. You know the type of film? Ever see Redbelt? A bit like that, although at least here, in this film, you can see at least some connections to the complications. If you know what I'm saying. All the supporting characters though they still all seem strange in their weird way of speaking through monologue, that isn't at all cinematic. David Mamet. Ever hear of the guy? Well it seems he could use another set of eyes to adapt his words on film, even just to direct em if you know what I'm saying. You see his words. His words, yeah, they're just a too thick, too thick for their own cake, like bad bunt cake. Ever have a bad bunt cake? Hopefully not, I wouldn't inflict you with that disease of the guttural intestines. This film, even as is, isn't terrible, not great, potential there you know. Doesn't come together. Also how are you suppose to believe Ricky Jay could physically impose Joe Mantegna, not the easiest pill to swallow, maybe he was using some slight of fist.

Okay, I'll stop writing like that and focus on once again the element of Mamet's film that manages to overcome the burdens from his way of directing his own work. Once again it is in the lead character who is the only character who seems to come to life. This again comes partially from the storytelling which doesn't effectively intertwine its elements partially because it doesn't quite develop them enough. The one element it does develop though is the central character who is given life by Mamet's frequent collaborator Joe Mantegna. Mantegna does need to contest with bit of Mamet's stylized dialogue, often overly stylized, however Mantegna is able to ease this a bit. One he is one of the better actors in terms of delivery of it anyway that makes it at all sound natural. He is helped further though by thankfully the character of Bobby Gold only needing a bit of it. He thankfully gets to be a bit more grounded and frankly more cinematic. Mantegna in turn is able to give a far more cinematic turn here that is the center of the film even beyond the lead. In that he is the true cohesion of the film as Gold deals with the two wildly contrasting plots, and has to connect them essentially by creating the personal journey of Gold in how it connects with the mystery and the manhunt.

Mantegna from his first scene is effective in establishing really this duality of the character. In that on one end as he discusses police procedure, and his procedure as detective in a most personal way, as in just specifically speaking of his own methods Mantegna brings this confidence and control of a true professional. He has the right calm and intensity of his eyes of a man who is well reasoned and well seasoned in his position. This is against the moment where he loses this comfort from either a hostile colleague or even a captive prisoner physically attacking him in order to try to steal his gun. Mantegna reveals this considerable unease even beyond the attack itself. There is this discomfort that reveals a greater anxiety in his reactions. A palatable desperation of a man who is not just uncomfortable in the situation, but also in terms of his sense of place within his profession. Mantegna naturally affords the character this duality by creating this sense of calm when only there can be a detachment. Even when he fawned over by his hero-worshiping partner (William H. Macy) Mantegna shows an appreciation only through his delivery that emphasis a courtesy, while physically reflecting this unease even in processing this type of support. Mantegna reveals a detective who has fashioned his place through his work as a detective, but as a man still is lost.

Mantegna uses this setup well then to explore the two avenues that reveal themselves as he tries to track criminal as a typical detective, and tries to solve the murder of the Jewish woman that forces him to examine his own, lost, heritage. We initially see this as he succeeds in the interactions towards the tracking with that same detached confidence, but with the murder investigation Mantegna portrays so well this pained forced connection. A way as he reacts with such unease to any sight that forces him to think about his own place as a Jew and what it means to him. Mantegna is able to bring the appropriate humanity to this struggle, which is a bit too academically worded by the supporting characters within this plot line. Mantegna successfully captures far more nuance in his portrayal of how this investigation in a inflicts him with his true sense of a lost identity. This is something he finds so well early on in his reactions that Mantegna shows in his eyes clearly reach him on a deeper level as he sees Jewish custom around this murder. He initially seems to try to hide this, by the same way he himself is dismissed by others, by self-hating antisemitism which Mantegna delivers so well as this specific yet hollow outrage as though he is simply aping others that seems ill-fitting to Gold.

Mantegna develops gradually this loss of distance as the reactions begin to also bring a greater depth into his direct delivery in the moments of trying to uncover the truth. This leads him deeper into his own culture/religion and Mantegna delivers this emotional connection through showing almost a relief when he stumbles upon a Zionist organization in his city. Briefly Mantegna reveals still hesitation but finally some comfort as he speaks more openly with the group, and even aids them in the arson of an anti-Semitic group's headquarters. Homicide being a Mamet film though quickly reveals this to be ruse by the organization to try to use Gold's connections in the police force to their benefit. Although this rushed Mantegna manages to at least bring a genuine emotion to this in his realization of the heartbreak of the moment of again being lost in his own identity. This quickly rams Gold into his other plot line following the crook which is connected only through Mantegna's performance. Mantegna does deliver though in realizing the emotionally spent state of Gold in every harried moment and exasperated work spoken as a man who really is fed up with life. He only speaks dripping with a caustic hate and cynicism that he essentially tries to bring down the criminal (Ving Rhames) to his level of thought. This is more or less where the film leaves us, and the film itself doesn't quite come together towards something wholly remarkable. Mantegna though does overcome the material, and in some ways makes it digestible by giving a moving portrait of a detective trying to come terms with his own self through his investigations. It doesn't make the film itself wholly successful, however Mantegna at least offers a stable emotional center through his successful performance.

Thursday, 10 May 2018

Alternate Best Actor 1991

And the Nominees Were Not:

Alan Rickman in Truly Madly Deeply

River Phoenix in Dogfight

Wesley Snipes in New Jack City

Joe Mantegna in Homicide

Christopher Eccleston in Let Him Have It