Whether this be epic:
Fun:
Inspirational:
Or maybe just transcendence:
And that is only scratching the surface of the many gifts left by this master of an indispensable cinematic art form that stands on its own.
Monday, 6 July 2020
Rest in Peace Ennio Morricone
Whether this be epic:
Fun:
Inspirational:
Or maybe just transcendence:
And that is only scratching the surface of the many gifts left by this master of an indispensable cinematic art form that stands on its own.
Sunday, 5 July 2020
Alternate Best Actor 1966: Anatoly Solonitsyn in Andrei Rublev
Anatoly Solonitsyn did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying the titular character in Andrei Rublev.
Andrei Rublev is a masterful film that follows the titular Russian iconographer during the 15th century.
The nature of a film by Andrei Tarkovsky is unique to the filmmaker, in that despite expansions in technology or what have you, his work crafts an experience of its own. This as I think one could just examine the way he films a stream that is unlike any other filmmaker. Often it is the great director that realizes the viewer as a voyeur within the characters they're watching, that isn't the case with Tarkovsky, or at least not to me. This as he doesn't make you one who views what's going but rather oddly grants an empathetic state within the experience that is almost otherworldly in this achievement. In this sense though Tarkovsky's protagonists are almost the viewer in certain sense, as his focus upon the technical protagonist is different than most. Although this film technically it is about the painter of religious imagery Andrei Rublev, played by Anatoly Solonitsyn, the film is more so about the time and place of Russia. Rublev is in a way the guide, though only in a way, but most often as an observer. Solonitsyn's performance is one befitting of a man who lives in a monastery. This with careful consideration and manner. There is an intensity within his work of a man who is burdened almost by his thoughts as he must think about his artistry, his faith and his existence. A careful performance that fits well within a man whose behavior is similar, this even when compared to his brethren artists and his mentor, who are more outward in their passion and philosophy. Solonitsyn depicts a man of thought, and does so effectively. He creates the right presence to this state of the man.
We witness Rublev through a series of technically vignettes that are in some way associated with his period. These moments though typically don't always personally connect to Rublev other than he is in proximity of them. Solonitsyn's approach shouldn't be hand waved this as he is never invisible in the role even though Rublev is often in a way just part of the crowd. This in so many of the moments we see him witness various acts of quite the extremes that reflect his times from the performance of a fool, to the cruelty of a prince, to a pagan ritual or even a massacre around him. Solonitsyn's performance is tempered much of the time as a man of an internalized manner and whose ambition is associated with artistry. His performance though does reflect the right glints of the truth on the surface of those internalized feelings. Whether this bit a slight sense of lust at the naked women of the pagan women, or similar sense of horror or shame within his eyes at the violent cruelty he bares witness to. Solonitsyn realizes the very honest emotion of the man however with the sense that he essentially must keep it largely within himself if he is to function within his time and place. The most open initially is in his conversations with his mentor Theopanes the Greek, who more openly speaks on matters of faith and art. In Rublev's few replies and moments of reflection upon the words of his mentor, Solonitsyn conveys the idea of a man in the constant state of flux towards attempting to uncover his own truth. He grants the sense of a man who isn't quite aware of it himself even as in the same way we see the man's diligence and conviction within his approach to his artistic endeavors. The greatest change comes within the turmoil when Rublev takes a life to save another, a moment of brief intensity, followed by quiet yet potent sorrow within Solonitsyn's performance.The rest of his performance then is a solitary one though powerful. This in his eyes become affixed with this sense of a need for penance. He creates the sense of this with silence, despite even the prodding of others to break it, particularly as Rublev refuses to continue his artistry in this time. Although aided by some remarkable makeup, Solonitsyn impressively portrays the wear of this act and time in his physical motion, which is always minimal yet becomes more labored and weak as an older man. This is the man's state until another extraordinary, if almost accidental, act inspires him again. It isn't a big moment in Solonitsyn's performance yet still potent in granting the sense of the man finding inspiration. This in just again a glint in Solonitsyn's performance, yet still notable. That is his work in microcosm though. This isn't what one likely takes from the film, yet still an essential part as being the observer of the period, apart from it in ways, yet changed fundamentally by it all the same.
The nature of a film by Andrei Tarkovsky is unique to the filmmaker, in that despite expansions in technology or what have you, his work crafts an experience of its own. This as I think one could just examine the way he films a stream that is unlike any other filmmaker. Often it is the great director that realizes the viewer as a voyeur within the characters they're watching, that isn't the case with Tarkovsky, or at least not to me. This as he doesn't make you one who views what's going but rather oddly grants an empathetic state within the experience that is almost otherworldly in this achievement. In this sense though Tarkovsky's protagonists are almost the viewer in certain sense, as his focus upon the technical protagonist is different than most. Although this film technically it is about the painter of religious imagery Andrei Rublev, played by Anatoly Solonitsyn, the film is more so about the time and place of Russia. Rublev is in a way the guide, though only in a way, but most often as an observer. Solonitsyn's performance is one befitting of a man who lives in a monastery. This with careful consideration and manner. There is an intensity within his work of a man who is burdened almost by his thoughts as he must think about his artistry, his faith and his existence. A careful performance that fits well within a man whose behavior is similar, this even when compared to his brethren artists and his mentor, who are more outward in their passion and philosophy. Solonitsyn depicts a man of thought, and does so effectively. He creates the right presence to this state of the man.
We witness Rublev through a series of technically vignettes that are in some way associated with his period. These moments though typically don't always personally connect to Rublev other than he is in proximity of them. Solonitsyn's approach shouldn't be hand waved this as he is never invisible in the role even though Rublev is often in a way just part of the crowd. This in so many of the moments we see him witness various acts of quite the extremes that reflect his times from the performance of a fool, to the cruelty of a prince, to a pagan ritual or even a massacre around him. Solonitsyn's performance is tempered much of the time as a man of an internalized manner and whose ambition is associated with artistry. His performance though does reflect the right glints of the truth on the surface of those internalized feelings. Whether this bit a slight sense of lust at the naked women of the pagan women, or similar sense of horror or shame within his eyes at the violent cruelty he bares witness to. Solonitsyn realizes the very honest emotion of the man however with the sense that he essentially must keep it largely within himself if he is to function within his time and place. The most open initially is in his conversations with his mentor Theopanes the Greek, who more openly speaks on matters of faith and art. In Rublev's few replies and moments of reflection upon the words of his mentor, Solonitsyn conveys the idea of a man in the constant state of flux towards attempting to uncover his own truth. He grants the sense of a man who isn't quite aware of it himself even as in the same way we see the man's diligence and conviction within his approach to his artistic endeavors. The greatest change comes within the turmoil when Rublev takes a life to save another, a moment of brief intensity, followed by quiet yet potent sorrow within Solonitsyn's performance.The rest of his performance then is a solitary one though powerful. This in his eyes become affixed with this sense of a need for penance. He creates the sense of this with silence, despite even the prodding of others to break it, particularly as Rublev refuses to continue his artistry in this time. Although aided by some remarkable makeup, Solonitsyn impressively portrays the wear of this act and time in his physical motion, which is always minimal yet becomes more labored and weak as an older man. This is the man's state until another extraordinary, if almost accidental, act inspires him again. It isn't a big moment in Solonitsyn's performance yet still potent in granting the sense of the man finding inspiration. This in just again a glint in Solonitsyn's performance, yet still notable. That is his work in microcosm though. This isn't what one likely takes from the film, yet still an essential part as being the observer of the period, apart from it in ways, yet changed fundamentally by it all the same.
Thursday, 2 July 2020
Alternate Best Actor 1966
David Warner in Morgan - A Suitable Case For Treatment
Per Oscarsson in Hunger
Eddie Axberg in Here is your Life
Donald Pleasence in Cul-de-sac
Anatoly Solonitsyn in Andrei Rublev
And a review of:
Wednesday, 1 July 2020
Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2014: Results
Best Scene: Reaction to the fire.
Best Scene: Club at its worst.
Best Scene: Ending.
7. Irrfan Khan in Haider - Khan brings the right haunting quality and delivers the right impact in his brief screentime.
Best Scene: What happened.
6. Ricardo Darin in Wild Tales - Darin depicts an appropriate mental descent from dealing with the insanity of bureaucracy.
Best Scene: Losing it.
5. Taika Waititi in What We Do in the Shadows - Waititi gives an amusing performance by always being just so genteel as his vampire.
Best Scene: Wearing the pendant.
Best Scene: Doesn't need a wheelchair.
3. Damián Alcázar in The Perfect Dictatorship - He manages to be both hilarious and menacing as a politician who in no way hides the shame of his corruption.
Best Scene: Threatening "suicide".
2. Matthias Schoenaerts in The Drop - Schoenaerts gives a terrific portrayal of a wannabe threat in more ways than one.
Best Scene: "I killed Richie Wheeling"
Best Scene: "Send me"
Next: 1966 lead.
Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2014: John Cusack in Maps to the Stars
John Cusack did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Stafford Weiss in Maps to the Stars.
Maps to the Stars is a bad David Cronenberg movie that wishes to be an abrasive satire about Hollywood. One is better off just re-watching Mulholland Drive instead, what a great film.
Anyways watching this bad (mostly, I do like Robert Pattinson and Mia Wasikowska in it) David Cronenberg film it got me wondering why do some of his films work so well, and some don't work at all. This definitely falls into the latter category, but I had to examine why. I think arrived to the why pretty easily though. Great to good Cronenberg is when he's making films about real people in strange situations, his bad films are just about strange people. Obviously a man turning into a Fly isn't realistic, but Cronenberg cares about Seth Brundle in that film, and part of the greatness of that film lies within that approach. The only argument against my thesis here may be Dead Ringers, however I'd argue as strange as the Mantle twins are, the emotions they're going through, the way their going through them is depicted with an honest humanity. When he lets his characters be strange entirely his films tend to fall off the rails. Anyways Maps is perpetuated largely with extreme Hollywood types, in which Cronenberg seems to hold very little sympathy, and in turn the film almost seems to become a zoological exercise "look how weird and shallow they are". Speaking of we have John Cusack as Stafford Weiss a Hollywood self-help guru.
I suppose this isn't quite the ideal review to first start with John Cusack, better known as a young leading man of the 80's and 90's, who, much like the academy, I've yet to encounter in all this time of my endeavor here, until now. I say it's not quite ideal as this isn't within his more typical wheelhouse in the strange world of Cronenberg's creatures. Cusack I'm not sure is ideal for this role either off the outset in that he doesn't really have the "look" or presence of the life style guru type. Cusack's vibe is typically more casual even down to earth, so theoretically Cusack should be working against that. We see him early on as he's treating Julianne Moore's neurotic Havana Segrand, and honestly, in a weird way, Cusack's probably the role where going a little broader probably could've been warranted, however he doesn't take this approach. Cusack sort of plays it as this soft speaker of reassurances to his client. These spoken with a thin sincerity in enough for the client yet Cusack grants no real passion within himself as he speaks the words to her. He does his job though in the most limited possible way. There's more to Weiss as he's also the father to a young child star Benjie (Evan Bird). We have a scene where he speaks to his son as sort of an interrogation put forth as a father son heart to heart. Cusack brings the same sort of emphasis on the lack of sincerity though there is a sense of a minor concern within his eyes, not really so much for his son rather his position. Complications ensue more when his daughter Agatha (Mia Wasikowska), who formerly started a fire that endangered the family, comes back to town from a mental institution. Cusack's scene with Wasikowska, has I think potential, but it doesn't quite work. Again, strangely enough, I think Cusack downplays it too much, this in the scene is kind of Stafford being the guru and "loving father"while threatening his daughter to make her go away. Cusack I suppose at least gets this across, but his rather just cold way of playing it makes it a tepid scene. Although again this may be a problem with Cronenberg in general who struggles with comedy, and in turn his actors often do too, unless you're William Hurt...oddly enough. Cusack's scenes honestly just don't work in general, he's just part of that clock that's broken. Cusack eventually breaks that zen state, although even then his zen state wasn't that refined so the break doesn't have that much impact, when he starts yelling about the state of disrepair of his family. Frankly his best scene is at the very end of the film just for the decently realistic reaction to seeing someone on fire (in a scene that otherwise has to be one of the most atrocious scenes from a filmmaker capable of greatness that I've seen due to CGI fire that needs to be seen to be believed). Cusack isn't the worst part of this film, but he doesn't overcome its weaknesses in the least. He's not ideally cast, he doesn't overcome that, and this is just a largely unsuccessful performance from him.
Anyways watching this bad (mostly, I do like Robert Pattinson and Mia Wasikowska in it) David Cronenberg film it got me wondering why do some of his films work so well, and some don't work at all. This definitely falls into the latter category, but I had to examine why. I think arrived to the why pretty easily though. Great to good Cronenberg is when he's making films about real people in strange situations, his bad films are just about strange people. Obviously a man turning into a Fly isn't realistic, but Cronenberg cares about Seth Brundle in that film, and part of the greatness of that film lies within that approach. The only argument against my thesis here may be Dead Ringers, however I'd argue as strange as the Mantle twins are, the emotions they're going through, the way their going through them is depicted with an honest humanity. When he lets his characters be strange entirely his films tend to fall off the rails. Anyways Maps is perpetuated largely with extreme Hollywood types, in which Cronenberg seems to hold very little sympathy, and in turn the film almost seems to become a zoological exercise "look how weird and shallow they are". Speaking of we have John Cusack as Stafford Weiss a Hollywood self-help guru.
I suppose this isn't quite the ideal review to first start with John Cusack, better known as a young leading man of the 80's and 90's, who, much like the academy, I've yet to encounter in all this time of my endeavor here, until now. I say it's not quite ideal as this isn't within his more typical wheelhouse in the strange world of Cronenberg's creatures. Cusack I'm not sure is ideal for this role either off the outset in that he doesn't really have the "look" or presence of the life style guru type. Cusack's vibe is typically more casual even down to earth, so theoretically Cusack should be working against that. We see him early on as he's treating Julianne Moore's neurotic Havana Segrand, and honestly, in a weird way, Cusack's probably the role where going a little broader probably could've been warranted, however he doesn't take this approach. Cusack sort of plays it as this soft speaker of reassurances to his client. These spoken with a thin sincerity in enough for the client yet Cusack grants no real passion within himself as he speaks the words to her. He does his job though in the most limited possible way. There's more to Weiss as he's also the father to a young child star Benjie (Evan Bird). We have a scene where he speaks to his son as sort of an interrogation put forth as a father son heart to heart. Cusack brings the same sort of emphasis on the lack of sincerity though there is a sense of a minor concern within his eyes, not really so much for his son rather his position. Complications ensue more when his daughter Agatha (Mia Wasikowska), who formerly started a fire that endangered the family, comes back to town from a mental institution. Cusack's scene with Wasikowska, has I think potential, but it doesn't quite work. Again, strangely enough, I think Cusack downplays it too much, this in the scene is kind of Stafford being the guru and "loving father"while threatening his daughter to make her go away. Cusack I suppose at least gets this across, but his rather just cold way of playing it makes it a tepid scene. Although again this may be a problem with Cronenberg in general who struggles with comedy, and in turn his actors often do too, unless you're William Hurt...oddly enough. Cusack's scenes honestly just don't work in general, he's just part of that clock that's broken. Cusack eventually breaks that zen state, although even then his zen state wasn't that refined so the break doesn't have that much impact, when he starts yelling about the state of disrepair of his family. Frankly his best scene is at the very end of the film just for the decently realistic reaction to seeing someone on fire (in a scene that otherwise has to be one of the most atrocious scenes from a filmmaker capable of greatness that I've seen due to CGI fire that needs to be seen to be believed). Cusack isn't the worst part of this film, but he doesn't overcome its weaknesses in the least. He's not ideally cast, he doesn't overcome that, and this is just a largely unsuccessful performance from him.
Tuesday, 30 June 2020
Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2014: Ricardo Darin in Wild Tales
Ricardo Darin did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Simon Fischer in Wild Tales.
Wild Tales is an entertaining anthology film about revenge.
Ricardo Darin plays one of the leads of this anthology. His case for revenge is built upon his car being towed due to an unmarked no parking zone. This forces him to deal with a demon most of us know all too well...government bureaucracy. Darin fittingly actually plays his part in a very down to earth way even given the sort of tongue in cheek approach the film has overall. His performance though works in this regard as he really needs to do the simplest thing, which is to show the quite natural frustrations that come from the situation he is in. Darin is effective in this regard in creating the build within Fischer's slow degradation. This in starting with just the casual tones of trying to explain himself to the rather unfeeling workers. Darin naturally segueing towards overt frustration when they won't hear his case and just threaten more fees for him. Darin's performance being this properly slow dissolve in creating the right sense of exasperation in his expression and his shorter and shorter fuse as the situation continues. Darin creating that natural descent so many of us experience in dealing with the unstoppable, uncaring, force of bureaucracy until he eventually snaps. This leading though Fischer to lose both his job and for his wife to commit to divorce proceedings. Darin effectively sort of tips past that brimming point to show sort of the insanity brewing in his eyes as his situation only gets exacerbated at every second. Darin finding the darkly humorous qualities really by playing it straight, and just sort of showing the natural frustrations just going towards an extreme most wouldn't let it get to, we'd probably just pay the fine. Fischer does not though instead choosing to explode part of the towing garage, being a demolition expert by trade, without killing anyone, and leaving just a brief moment for Darin's performance. This as Fischer is hailed a hero by most for his acts against bureaucracy, to the point that even his family seems proud of him. I'll give Darin credit for his final moment in bringing just the right degree of smug satisfaction as though now Fischer has it all together through his act of domestic terrorism. This is a short performance, though one that gets the job done with nice degree of efficiency, and is enjoyable portrayal of a most unusual revenge seeker.
Ricardo Darin plays one of the leads of this anthology. His case for revenge is built upon his car being towed due to an unmarked no parking zone. This forces him to deal with a demon most of us know all too well...government bureaucracy. Darin fittingly actually plays his part in a very down to earth way even given the sort of tongue in cheek approach the film has overall. His performance though works in this regard as he really needs to do the simplest thing, which is to show the quite natural frustrations that come from the situation he is in. Darin is effective in this regard in creating the build within Fischer's slow degradation. This in starting with just the casual tones of trying to explain himself to the rather unfeeling workers. Darin naturally segueing towards overt frustration when they won't hear his case and just threaten more fees for him. Darin's performance being this properly slow dissolve in creating the right sense of exasperation in his expression and his shorter and shorter fuse as the situation continues. Darin creating that natural descent so many of us experience in dealing with the unstoppable, uncaring, force of bureaucracy until he eventually snaps. This leading though Fischer to lose both his job and for his wife to commit to divorce proceedings. Darin effectively sort of tips past that brimming point to show sort of the insanity brewing in his eyes as his situation only gets exacerbated at every second. Darin finding the darkly humorous qualities really by playing it straight, and just sort of showing the natural frustrations just going towards an extreme most wouldn't let it get to, we'd probably just pay the fine. Fischer does not though instead choosing to explode part of the towing garage, being a demolition expert by trade, without killing anyone, and leaving just a brief moment for Darin's performance. This as Fischer is hailed a hero by most for his acts against bureaucracy, to the point that even his family seems proud of him. I'll give Darin credit for his final moment in bringing just the right degree of smug satisfaction as though now Fischer has it all together through his act of domestic terrorism. This is a short performance, though one that gets the job done with nice degree of efficiency, and is enjoyable portrayal of a most unusual revenge seeker.
Monday, 29 June 2020
Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2014: Damián Alcázar in The Perfect Dictatorship
Damián Alcázar did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Governor Carmelo Vargas in The Perfect Dictatorship.
The Perfect Dictatorship is a largely effective satire, though longer than it needs to be and when it turns dark it becomes pitch black (though seemingly entirely appropriate to the events its riffing on), about a series of media maneuvers in order to cover up political screw ups.
Damián Alcázar who played the sympathetic cartel member in director Luis Estrada's previous film El Infierno, here plays perhaps the most duplicitous character in a film filled with the morally bankrupt. Alcázar portrays the extremely corrupt Governor of a Mexican state whose act of corruption is used as a coverup by the president of Mexico for a gaffe. Alcázar's initial appearance is one of full on comedy as we see footage of the man as he admires a bag of money that are ill gotten gains. His physical manner where he is embracing the cash, with this most glowing admiration of it is hilarious and instantly establishes the rather unsubtle ways of the governor. This continues verbally as he attempts to defend himself in a news broadcast. Alcázar's oh so insincere attempt at political affability is just perfect as the governor tries to explain that the footage of him isn't of him, and that there must have been some sort of digital manipulation. Alcázar is wonderfully incompetent initially in portraying the governor having this sort of expression that is two things, a complete lack of shame and even more so just this slight sense in his eyes of blame. Blame of course not for himself but for anyone else. This furrowing of the brow that Alcázar uses to emphasize a man who knows he's angry at everyone for causing him problems. He soon attempts to fix this problem by bribing the same television station that broadcast his bribe footage to help him. Alcázar's great though in portraying this as even incompetent this with this terribly misplaced confidence in his grin as he slides over the traditional briefcase of money for bribing.
The governor's problems though are fixed through another manufactured, though technically real story, of a kidnapping of two girls that the media will exploit for all that's worth, and so will the governor. Alcázar is a highlight then in the collage of abhorrent behavior whenever it returns to the governor to see how the situation will benefit him or how something is harming him in some way. Alcázar's terrific by just reveling in it all and being as ridiculous as the part needs, though never going too far overboard, rather having just the right amount of fun on that edge. I'll admit I have special affection for the moments where we see the governor watching his favorite soap opera and Alcázar's expression is a man absolutely gripped by the experience of the rather flimsy drama in front of him. Alcázar I'd actually say is the performer who is best equipped within the narrative to handle the rather extreme tonal shifts, that often involve his character. This is as he goes about ordering or doing himself, the deaths of others often rather suddenly. Alcázar makes these moments work by bringing the same sort of nearly brainless petulance in these actions more akin to a spoiled brat than a deeply intelligent man. Alcázar though manages to be unsettling the sense though of the danger of a spoiled brat with a great deal of power and violence at his disposal. This in portraying it with the same ease as he does in taking a bribe and just emphasizing that it is all a day in the life of the governor. I must give particular credit to Alcázar for managing to craft comic moments even out of these later on in his casual manner in which he threatens others later that he'll have them commit suicide as well, as the men he shot and had shot had done. Alcázar makes it work though by just owning the sleaze as a man who just thrives within the behavior by not portraying a hint of doubt or hesitation in it all. Alcázar excelling in a near final sequence where the governor is announcing the return of the twin children as his personal triumph. Alcázar's eyes beaming brighter than they could possibly be, and his smile at its most pure in its excrement eating. Alcázar brilliantly portraying a despicable man living his absolute best life, and showing that in triumph his disregard for all things decent becomes all the more blatant. This is a remarkable performance from Alcázar as he finds the right bite within the satire through comical, though still menacing, portrayal of a most amoral man.
Damián Alcázar who played the sympathetic cartel member in director Luis Estrada's previous film El Infierno, here plays perhaps the most duplicitous character in a film filled with the morally bankrupt. Alcázar portrays the extremely corrupt Governor of a Mexican state whose act of corruption is used as a coverup by the president of Mexico for a gaffe. Alcázar's initial appearance is one of full on comedy as we see footage of the man as he admires a bag of money that are ill gotten gains. His physical manner where he is embracing the cash, with this most glowing admiration of it is hilarious and instantly establishes the rather unsubtle ways of the governor. This continues verbally as he attempts to defend himself in a news broadcast. Alcázar's oh so insincere attempt at political affability is just perfect as the governor tries to explain that the footage of him isn't of him, and that there must have been some sort of digital manipulation. Alcázar is wonderfully incompetent initially in portraying the governor having this sort of expression that is two things, a complete lack of shame and even more so just this slight sense in his eyes of blame. Blame of course not for himself but for anyone else. This furrowing of the brow that Alcázar uses to emphasize a man who knows he's angry at everyone for causing him problems. He soon attempts to fix this problem by bribing the same television station that broadcast his bribe footage to help him. Alcázar's great though in portraying this as even incompetent this with this terribly misplaced confidence in his grin as he slides over the traditional briefcase of money for bribing.
The governor's problems though are fixed through another manufactured, though technically real story, of a kidnapping of two girls that the media will exploit for all that's worth, and so will the governor. Alcázar is a highlight then in the collage of abhorrent behavior whenever it returns to the governor to see how the situation will benefit him or how something is harming him in some way. Alcázar's terrific by just reveling in it all and being as ridiculous as the part needs, though never going too far overboard, rather having just the right amount of fun on that edge. I'll admit I have special affection for the moments where we see the governor watching his favorite soap opera and Alcázar's expression is a man absolutely gripped by the experience of the rather flimsy drama in front of him. Alcázar I'd actually say is the performer who is best equipped within the narrative to handle the rather extreme tonal shifts, that often involve his character. This is as he goes about ordering or doing himself, the deaths of others often rather suddenly. Alcázar makes these moments work by bringing the same sort of nearly brainless petulance in these actions more akin to a spoiled brat than a deeply intelligent man. Alcázar though manages to be unsettling the sense though of the danger of a spoiled brat with a great deal of power and violence at his disposal. This in portraying it with the same ease as he does in taking a bribe and just emphasizing that it is all a day in the life of the governor. I must give particular credit to Alcázar for managing to craft comic moments even out of these later on in his casual manner in which he threatens others later that he'll have them commit suicide as well, as the men he shot and had shot had done. Alcázar makes it work though by just owning the sleaze as a man who just thrives within the behavior by not portraying a hint of doubt or hesitation in it all. Alcázar excelling in a near final sequence where the governor is announcing the return of the twin children as his personal triumph. Alcázar's eyes beaming brighter than they could possibly be, and his smile at its most pure in its excrement eating. Alcázar brilliantly portraying a despicable man living his absolute best life, and showing that in triumph his disregard for all things decent becomes all the more blatant. This is a remarkable performance from Alcázar as he finds the right bite within the satire through comical, though still menacing, portrayal of a most amoral man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)