Saturday, 27 June 2020

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2014: Shia LaBeouf in Fury

Shia LaBeouf did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Technician fifth grade Boyd "Bible" Swan, tank gunner in Fury.

Fury, about a tank crew invading Europe during World War II, is one of David Ayer's few films I'd qualify as not terrible, though even this film suggests his many weaknesses as a filmmaker. This is overall as it is far less than the potential shown in certain elements through some underwhelming and outright bad performances, and some random silliness thrown in throughout.

Fury isn't a great war film, though David Ayer appears to think he's making one, the problem is his own faults as a writer and his ability with performances suggest otherwise. This is as Michael Pena and Jon Bernthal, as stereotype 1 and 2, are terrible as the hard-edged members of the tank crew, Logan Lerman is a bit underwhelming trying to do his best Jeremy Davies impersonation, and Brad Pitt, who I think I appreciated a little more on re-watch for his silent work, still is an actor who needs a great director to utilize his potential fully. Then there's Shia LaBeouf, who I've previously mentioned my change in perspective on for his work in Honey Boy so I won't go over this again, though that change began after seeing his work here. LaBeouf differs from most of the rest of the cast in that he seems to believe he's making a great war film.The thing is I think LaBeouf's role was as primed for a simplistic stereotype as on paper he's the "religious one" cliche that goes at least as far back as Boris Karloff in The Lost Patrol. LaBeouf's performance though refuses to be within such confines as he seeks to make a reality within the character of Bible. We have the opening scene where the men are reeling from a lost crew member and what LaBeouf will be doing in this role becomes evident. This as each of the men are reacting in different ways, Bible speaks towards the good graces of their existence as given by God. LaBeouf delivers these words with a fervor and conviction, but not a simplistic zealotry. There will be more towards this idea, but before that I think it essential to mention a different element just as the men go off to return to base. This as LaBeouf doesn't stay on the same note as some of his co-stars do. Although he carries within his eyes and manner, an inherent intensity that suggests the history of conflict the man has suffered, that isn't all there is to his performance.

LaBeouf excels here in finding the right balance in his work, even within crafting a more innately introverted spirit against the rest of the crew. We see this in the traveling scene though LaBeouf's work naturally segues to a bit of camaraderie as they laugh together and at Bible at more affably argues with Pitt's Wardaddy about his religious convictions. In these moments LaBeouf grants effectively the sense of the good with the bad of their experience. He shows that Bible has been through a lot, but also been through a lot with the men. He conveys in these more jovial moments the time spent with them granting a friendship even though Bible is probably the most insular of the men overall. The group is shaken up a bit with the introduction of the wet behind the ears former clerk Norman (Lerman), in which the stereotypes treat with hostility, and it seems Bible was probably written that way to do so as well. LaBeouf doesn't play it that way though rather his eyes dart towards Norman seemingly analyzing him, and even asking him if he's been "saved", he doesn't do it with the overt note this sort of fundamentalist approach is taken. LaBeouf takes it seriously within his performance asking the question as wholly genuine in the moment as it is to Bible, but again still doesn't solely define the moment. He too grants the sense of Bible taking in who this young soldier is, and what he will be within their crew. The actual battle scenes I'd say probably feature the best acting of the entire cast, and the few where anyone is really inline with LaBeouf. This is as largely everyone is "in the moment" and convey the visceral intensity of it. LaBeouf in particular excelling within the scenes, raising the tension of them by bringing the sort of hectic insanity, yet still controlled, needed in the battles.

One of the best acted sequences for LaBeouf comes as the crew arrive in the German town where most of the crew engages in pillages and some debauchery of different types. The stereotypes engaging in blunter prostitution situation, and LaBeouf carries such a power in his whole manner as he sits reading his Bible instead with the searing sense of judgement within his refusal to take part. At the same time Wardaddy has Norman take part in some higher class debauchery with some some German women in an apartment, though it might be even lower class, as it feels a bit like a Dennis Reynolds approved approach where Norman's dalliance with one of them seems perhaps a little too built upon the implication. Anyways though the stereotypes and eventually enter the apartment for a tense meal, where I have to say the scene became unintentionally hilarious for me due to the chasm between the performances. This is as Lerman and Pitt are playing the scene more akin to an action based war film like The Dirty Dozen, Pena and Bernthal, are doing something, hard to describe exactly that just seem to be completely directionless honestly, and then there's LaBeouf who granting the gravity to the scene as though he's in a film like Come and See. LaBeouf barely says anything in the scene but is amazing, even if in his own better movie, through his extremely piercing eyes. Within them conveying really all the harrowing anguish the man has been through seemingly in judgment as someone who refuses to imagine himself outside of their current situation through the sort of make believe of the meal with the women that they aren't at war. LaBeouf in the moment suggesting Bible on the brink of a complete breakdown as his work conveys a man that the act of escaping their situation seems to only make it all the more painful. This is where I can go back to LaBeouf's portrayal of Bible's religious conviction. This in as we see it LaBeouf emphasizes always in moments of something extremely harrowing happening and near death. The way LaBeouf speaks in these moments he brings a blind hope, and fittingly faith, in each word. This though in revealing Bible's manner as his religion as the only thing he can hold onto in order to allow him to cope with the insanity and death around him. Now for much of the film we see this at the distance of the way it separates Bible, however again we see the attempt at optimism in his voice and the near mania in his eyes of a man desperately holding onto it. The one scene where he connects this with the other men is when they are about to engage in a last stand, for some reason...really doesn't make much sense...I mean have it they needed to delay the SS for a particular reasons or something....anyways...LaBeouf is outstanding in this scene. This where he directly speaks his convictions to them through quoting a bible verse about a man taking the vanguard. LaBeouf speaks the words with such profound belief that he makes it a truly inspiring moment. In his eyes he grants the emotional anxiety of his upcoming demise, but also such poignant sense of the comfort the words still bring to him. This is a great performance, and the one that made me say, no I was wrong, LaBeouf did have potential after all, and here it is realized. Although even as written the film is a lot of caricatures, LaBeouf voids that making a honest and powerful portrait of a man broken by war, who goes about his trials through his faith. Is his work sometimes in scenes that aren't great? Yes, but in a way it makes his work all the more impressive as he delivers greatness even within much mediocrity. 

Thursday, 25 June 2020

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2014: Taika Waititi in What We Do in the Shadows

Taika Waititi did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Viago Von Dorna Schmarten Scheden Heimburg (né von Blitzenberg) in What We Do in the Shadows.

What We Do in the Shadows is an entertaining mokumentary about a group of roommate vampires living in a house in New Zealand.

The film follows several different vampires within the house, this includes the four initial ones each one based on a different type of movie vampire. We have the rat like Nosferatuesque Petyr briefly, the Gary Oldman Draculaesque Vladislav (Jemaine Clement), the Tom Cruise's Lestatesque Deacon, and Waititi's Viago who's most akin to Bela Lugosi's classic Dracula. Later we get a Twlightesque vampire in the newly turned Nick and also some time devoted to Nick's friend Stu, a computer programmer. We get some vignettes with each in this film that is entirely comic in its intention. I mention that because this is a bit different from Waititi's other films, perhaps in part because it is co-directed by Jemaine Clement (a fact frequently forgotten by most), where there usually is some underlying attempt at something relatively dramatic within the comedy. Here it is just about the absurdity of the situation. This brings us to Waititi's own performance in the film, who is only Bela Lugosi in that his manner suggests some earlier type of class and expectation. The comedy of Waititi's performance is very much that he isn't at all that you'd expect from a vampire. This right within his only pseudo Hungarian accent, that seems halfhearted on purpose. He's consistent with it, but it is more goofy than anything. This being part of his overarching approach that is of this overly affected sort of manner of his Viago. This in speaking every word with a genteel quality fitting a foppish aristocrat type. The comedy of this comes in as Waititi plays it the same way whether he is gathering the boys up for a flatmate meeting, killing a victim or coming afoul some werewolves. Waititi's performance's comedy comes from the consistency in this manner throughout the film, though with few sort of Oliver Hardy takes towards the camera when commenting on the absurdity of certain situation. These moments enjoyable while still keeping with Viago sort of always half unsure manner as a vampire out of time. A lot of the comedy is really even just some of his random comments as Viago off to the side while the other vampires are doing things, this with Viago as the perpetual peace keeper. Now everyone except Petyr gets there own little story. Vlad dealing with his the beast (aka his ex-wife), Nick dealing with being a vampire, Deacon dealing with another "young" vampire around, and Viago longing after his now elderly former girlfriend which was his original reason for going to New Zealand. Now this might sound dramatic, it's not. It too is for comedy, whether it is his story of his servant sending his coffin to the wrong place, dealing with his now elderly servant over skype and even the resolution involving Viago commenting on the literal age difference between them rather than the physical. The whole situation is still comical and built on that same manner by Waititi. It is all enjoyable, though for me doesn't hit comedic greatness in being purely comic nor is there something else to amplify it unlike his work in Boy, which I think is actually both funnier and has far more meat to it. This in part I suppose goes into this being actually my least favorite of Waititi's films that I've seen, though I do quite enjoy it, but honestly the idea I think even achieved greater comedic heights in the TV series, which I highly recommend.

Wednesday, 24 June 2020

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2014: Sam Claflin in The Riot Club

Sam Claflin did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Alistair Ryle in The Riot Club.

The Riot Club I suppose can make one truly appreciate the work of Martin Scorsese particularly Goodfellas and Wolf of Wall Street. I mention those somewhat randomly in that both films are absolutely captivating despite technically depicting despicable characters. The Riot Club is like this as well about a rich college fraternity, however unlike those films the company of these men becomes intolerable almost immediately. The film technically presents them as wrong, however it doesn't present any reason to spend more than a second with them.

Sam Claflin portrays one of the young men who is part of the titular riot club. I'll admit this is one performance that I don't have too much to say about. We see Claflin in the early scenes seemingly somewhat shy and slightly disinterested by visiting his accommodations at college. This shifts a bit though when we see the men actually getting into their activities. This is as Claflin keeps the general idea but speaks with cold overtones when anything turns political. Claflin's performance largely just emphasizes this idea of Alistair as an angry and privileged patrician. Claflin displaying certainly enough venom in his performance as he goes on and on about his low view of the working class. He delivers the needed insidious quality within his work in showing Alistair to be perhaps even more despicable as the group goes about being obnoxious louts. Claflin to his credit I suppose gets off the best of the riot club boys as his performance at being horrible is effective as is intended. There is no needed attempt of sympathy for Alistair, he's horrible and Claflin makes him as such. This with the unabashed ease in his aggressive and vicious manner though all with an ease as though the whole thing is still boring him a bit. Claflin gets off the best because at least his work basically doesn't hide his horribleness with any frat boy manner, he plays it as just an evil man.This doesn't make the character real any more interesting mind you but at least Claflin delivers on the needs of the role. The role in which we just see the man glorying in his own debauchery and cruelty. This is to the point that as soon as he's against the wall for his behavior his attitude stays the same though blames everyone else for his faults. His ending being just seeing a new path to be horrible, though I'll grant Claflin for doing a properly despicable smug smile at his seemingly never failing fortunes. This isn't a great performance, but a decent enough one in a film that doesn't appear to have any particular reason for existing.

Tuesday, 23 June 2020

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2014: Matthias Schoenaerts in The Drop

Matthias Schoenaerts did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Eric Deeds in The Drop.

Matthias Schoenaerts still remains in sort of what is colloquially known as the Guy Pearce or Ben Foster zone, that is an extremely talented actor that can't quite seem to make that next step towards wide acclaim. Like those two he's on just the border of that breakout, finding much praise in places, but never seemingly in the exact place needed for it. Although he's still on the cusp, finding plenty of off the beaten path praise for The Mustang, just last year. Hopefully this won't go on indefinitely though as it is always a shame to see him plugged in throwaway roles that make some throwaway roles look good. This as he's an extremely talented performer with an incredible range. Now for most actors coming from a French speaking country there is typically a struggle to make the transition due to the accent, at least beyond playing certain types of roles like a Vincent Cassel for example who is typically cast a sleazy European type. Schoenaerts though has no issues, in that if one were to see any of the film he's been in that haven't been set in Belgium or France, you'd think he was from whatever that country was. That is the case here as New York lowlife in the Drop where there is no reason to second guess he is any less foreign than James Gandolfini in the film. Schoenaerts's accent work is simply impeccable and he just fits right into the New York setting. Although I don't think one should hand wave that accomplishment on its own, it would not be enough to make this a notable performance but there is more than that. This as Schoenaerts appears as a somewhat mysterious figure initially in the film after we've met Bob (Tom Hardy), whose taken a seemingly stray dog with Nadia (Noomi Rapace). That is going on while also we see Gandolfini's Marv attempting to retake his place into the criminal underworld by robbing his bar, now owned by Chechen gangsters, where both he and Bob tend bar.

Eric shows up randomly showing interest in the dog that Bob found in a garbage can abused. Schoenaerts here is brilliant in just crafting this part once again as it goes beyond just his brilliant use of his accent, his whole manner has this quietly wired quality to it. He conveys his Eric as seemingly something is not quite right about him as he paces around talking to Bob, something wired in his movement whether on some drugs or just his typical mental state. His manner towards Bob though with this purposeful hectoring an ease that Schoenaerts brings suggesting that Eric sees Bob as an easy person to exploit. This as he points it out as his dog and his owner with this casual menace that Schoenaerts pulls off so effectively. This as his whole manner is the menace and he doesn't throw anything extra in there. The man seeming just off as he appears is enough that Schoenaerts creates a threat through the idea that he is unpredictable. Schoenaerts appears next as Marv tries to recruit him to further his plans to steal from the Chechen gangsters by having him be his gunmen. Schoenaerts is terrific in this scene by showing Eric less in control of the scene and shows this strong strand of paranoia when around someone he can't bully. Schoenaerts delivering Eric's motivation for messing with Bob and questioning Marv is with the right sort of chaotic quality. This in Schoenaerts suggesting a man sort of questioning everything with this scattered sense of attempted pride. Schoenaerts makes Eric pathetic but also creates a threat about him as he grants the needed unpredictable quality to the man. Schoenaerts threatening Bob later we again see the danger of the man peacocking over Bob, and Schoenaerts emphasizing the confidence as it relates to standing over Bob. Schoenaerts again showing a man who has no respect for Bob, and the danger of him in the casual threat Schoenaerts underlines when blackmailing Bob for the dog. His mentions of abusing the dog is with an ease in Schoenaerts shows the power of the low life in that he's with a man he believes to be no threat so tries to control the situation. We see this again as he forces Nadia to go with him to rob Bob at Marv's bar. Again Schoenaerts doesn't make Eric this cunning villain rather thrives in emphasizing just the ease of the scum that he is in threatening what he sees as easy targets.

This naturally climaxes as Eric takes Nadia with him to Marv's bar on the Superbowl to rob Bob of all the money sent to the bar as local criminal drops. I love this scene as more than anything what it gives us is two of the very best actors working going directly at another as Eric and Bob face off. This as both carry an inherent intensity in their performances and I love the way they both carry it here, but in clever indirect wavelengths. In that you have Hardy who is steadfast in it, against Schoenaerts is all over the place in the best of ways. This as you get the fear of the robbery in his work, he moving around too much, he's entirely jumbled in his speech, he shows that Eric is nervous in the moment even as he is still attempting to menace Bob, this in marvelous contrast to Hardy with the dead stare. Schoenaerts's miserable confidence is terrific as his eyes glint with a despicable pleasure again as he speaks every word as this attempt to beat down the seemingly passive Bob into submission. As the robbery goes on Bob tells the story of how Marv had Bob murder a man to retain a debt. Schoenaerts is amazing in this scene as he says so much in the moment as he gradually loses that confidence as this fear grasps nto him. This as Schoenaerts slowly seem to grant an understanding of Bob's story, and his hurried delivery suggests a man finally realizing the severity of his situation. My favorite moment of this scene though is that Bob reveals the man he murdered to be the same man that Eric Deeds has been claiming to have killed for street cred. Schoenaerts reaction in this moment is perfection because he doesn't show Deeds to be more scared than ever, he rather shows the man go back to the false bravado as he claims to have been the one to killed the man. Schoenaerts makes it work by his delivering is as this autopilot the man has developed as though he's been claiming to be a killer so long he's believed himself though only as this recited bit of posturing. In the moment though it is a brilliant juxtaposition in that you have Hardy's stone cold honest speaking of the killing, against Schoenaerts that is all false confidence of a fake killer lying to himself as he is to everyone else. I wish we'd get more scenes like this in film in general nowadays, as it is just two great actors working with each other. Neither "Steal" the scene, but rather what makes it so remarkable is together they realize the power of the situation. The situation being the quiet real deal versus the loud phony. Schoenaerts is a great phony here, in giving such a detailed and convincing despicable performance that most of all is such a proper match for Tom Hardy's work.

Monday, 22 June 2020

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2014: Michael Parks in Tusk

Michael Parks did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Howard Howe in Tusk.

Tusk is a terrible film about a man turning another man into a walrus.

Michael Parks though is on call to attempt to make a much better film about this terrible joke idea for a film. Parks being an actor who was just kind of in...whatever...for much of his career as a working actor. Of course in this sense we can see the talents of such actor who given the quality of the film he was in seemed determined on such a random factor he might as well give it his best every time anyways. Well we have that here, in that we have a film about a man who will be turned into a human walrus which is as dumb as it sounds, but sadly not as funny as it could possibly be. This as the film has no sense of tone, however the one thing it does have is Michael Parks to try to impart some wisdom on the proceedings through the virtues of his performance. Parks appears as a strange man in an estate that is visited by a podcaster for the Not-See Party (yeah...that's the level of comedy for this film), Wallace (Justin Long) looking for a weird story. Parks appears initially as a man in a wheelchair with an oddly genteel demeanor. Parks already showing a devotion to the idea of quality film-making that would seemingly be quite foreign when compared to the direction/screenplay of the film. The point is though Parks is instantly on a different level entirely as he creates a curiosity within his own work instantly. Parks suggesting something is not quite right however doing it initially as though he is a man just perhaps a bit lost within his own mind.

Parks though is wonderful in that initially doesn't even overplay the off-beat note. He rather instead brings a bit of warmth in his interactions with Long. Parks finding a slight affability that would ease most into thinking Howard isn't as nefarious as his house would suggest. Parks's performance bringing initially as just a nearly kindly old man as he regales him with a tale of Ernest Hemingway. Parks brings a sincere recollection of the scene of both a comic moment with Hemingway, but also a somber recognition in his for the fallen associated at the time of their meeting, d-day. Honestly it is Parks who gives the dialogue here seemingly a greater quality than is actually evident in it through the sheer conviction and nuance he offers it. It would have been easy enough to play him as just ridiculously sinister, but Parks takes the role seriously, more seriously than the film deserves frankly, but I appreciate nonetheless. Parks later speaking on his experiences with a walrus, his eyes gazing as though he is looking into a far away past. His words efficient with the manner of a true raconteur telling his tale of being saved by a Walrus when he was lost at sea. Parks bringing a certain mania within the story through eyes that detail the man's madness before he slowly begins to reveal his real nature.

This begins with first drugging Wallace and cutting off one of his legs claiming it was to save his life. Howard initially plays it off as though he's just helping Wallace. Parks still playing the part as though a supportive old man, though now his eyes darting with that darkness that reveals the hidden menace of the man. Parks though soon revealing the actual direct menace, as Howard can in fact walk with ease, and Parks is terrifying within his own work. This now directly playing the insanity of the man with a sheer comfort and belief in every word. This even in giving walrus tips Parks offers an unnerving passion to the concept as though he is a fanatic to the idea of a man being a walrus at heart. Parks falling into the blithering insanity with great ease particularly in his screams to match Long's, making a proper villain for a much better horror film than the one he is in. Now the man turns Wallace into a Walrus and if one thinks the film had little creative inspiration before this point, well it's completely bankrupt after this point resorting to Johnny Depp doing his best Inspector Clouseau impression as an investigator to try to get something going. This including flashback between Depp and Parks, where Depp almost caught Howard in an earlier Walrus related exploit. Although I'm quite sure the scene is 2 years long in actual screentime because of how long it feels, I can still give credit for Parks throwing himself into a different variation in the role as a disguise of Howard as confused sort of hillbilly. Parks is terrific though in fashioning this other personality with his vacant eyes and slurred speech, as a seemingly different harmless old man. It's a shame the scene is written so terribly as Parks has something going on his end even if the work is in vain as the scene is too poorly written to be salvaged. Although if one thinks that scene is bad the film is filled with so many more, the worst of them being Parks being forced to go around with Long in the Walrus suit. There really is barely even an idea for these scenes, but I'll give Parks credit for not embarrassing himself in them. This as he still brings that strict devotion to his performance here as a guy wanting to get killed by a man walrus...I guess....it's really bad. Honestly I can't even recommend watching the scenes with Parks in this film because of how horribly directed, written and edited they are. They are well acted though, I'll even grant Long some credit there too. Parks is the true professional as he gives the very best performance one could imagine in a film of this quality. Does it make the film watchable? No. It does show that an actor can be capable of being good even in the almost entirely worthless material of an atrocious film.

Sunday, 21 June 2020

Alternate Best Supporting 2014: Irrfan Khan in Haider

Irrfan Khan did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Roohdaar in Haider.

This version of Hamlet takes many creative choices of the material, some of them quite inspired, but perhaps none more inspired than in the character of the ghost. The ghost typically being Hamlet's father's apparition that details his death at the hands of his brother to his son. This version removes the supernatural by instead giving this news to an additional character. This as a man essentially appearing to set off the second act of the film, this man Roohdaar played by the gone far too soon, Irrfan Khan. Khan's initial appearance that can only be described as cool, and quite striking. This as he appears indeed, though obviously a man, but as an apparition in the way he glides through crowd with a manner of seemingly divine purpose. This only amplified by his costuming, in his his thick sunglasses and white robe, that seems to suggest a man on alternate plain. Although this man is indeed real but Khan's performance is one built upon the idea of haunting the proceedings in his few minutes of screentime. There is something so remarkable of that presence of his, as is typically the case from the few films I've seen him in, that he uses to offer the sense of a man on a mission. The mission though technically just being to inform Haider (Hamlet)'s family of his story, which involved being the same prison camp as Haider's father. Khan's performance carries this inherent weight within it, what is so notable about it is how with so much ease that Khan is able to evoke this. He speaks with a clarity that actually makes all the more haunting. This in his eyes reflect his experience yet his manner with the words is with this calm of a man with real purpose in his story. His story, which involves revealing that Haider's uncle had Haider's father killed in an execution that almost killed Roohdaar as well, is presented by Khan with careful emotion. This as it is with a sense of directing Haider to the truth, but with a glint, just a glint, of warmth within it. This with a sense quite but very powerful conviction in his delivery of the message as Roohdaar as someone who less is self-pitying or even revenge seeking, rather wants to ensure the truth is known. Khan doesn't have a lot of screentime however he is absolutely captivating in that time. His work delivering the needed switch within the film by offering the essential impact of this very different kind of "ghost".

Saturday, 20 June 2020

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2014

And The Nominees Were Not:

Chris Pine in Stretch

Matthias Schoenaerts in The Drop

Irrfan Khan in Haider

Taika Waititi in What We Do in the Shadows

Ricardo Darin in Wild Tales 

Predict those five, these five or both:

Sam Claflin in The Riot Club

Shia LaBeouf in Fury

Michael Parks in Tusk (Do not Watch)

John Cusack in Maps to the Stars

Damian Alcazar in The Perfect Dictatorship