You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Best Actress' category.
I can’t figure out Tilda Swinton. Part of it is that she creeps me out, and I don’t know why. Maybe it is her more than passing resemblance to Conan O’Brien and Beaker. But I can’t decide what sort of roles she should be playing. In thinking about this piece, I was also thinking about who is comparable to her. I just came up with John Malkovich, and I’m not sure there’s going to be anything better.
She’s the star of Julia, which is relevant here because of the buzz that Swinton has a shot (albeit a long one) to get a Best Actress nom for the title role. And I’m of the opinion that with a better fleshed-out character in a better fleshed-out film, she might have had a pretty good case. Which is perhaps a bit odd, given that the movie clocks in a little over two hours and Swinton is the focus of nearly every minute of every scene. Swinton’s character is an alcoholic, and as with many who suffer from the disease, it defines pretty much everything about her. I was struck by how director and co-writer Erick Zonca decided to depict Julia’s alcoholism. I think he (with the obvious help of Swinton) manages to successfully walk a fine line in showing how sad Julia’s life is without ever going over the top or resorting to cliches. It is all too easy to glorify alcoholism or turn a drunk into some melodramatic wretch.
At an AA meeting and later after a night of drinking/blacking out, Julia meets Elena (Kate del Castillo) who happens to also be her neighbor. Elena claims that her son’s rich paternal grandfather has custody of the boy and asks for Julia’s help, offering a substantial sum of money. Elena is soon written out of the film, somewhat clumsily, but not before a scene that would have put her into the Supporting Actress race, had she been a higher profile name in a higher profile film. The rest of the film has Julia stumbling through kidnapping the child, with the idea of getting a ransom, which leads her to Mexico, where the kid gets kidnapped from her.
One of the film’s major problems is that Julia isn’t a compelling character (though she is, to be sure, quite interesting). She’s mean, greedy, basically just not a nice person. Which probably is directly related to her alcoholism, perhaps she doesn’t quite know how to relate to people while sober. It hard to feel anything other than vague disgust toward the character, even her redemption is murky. And that’s a significant stumbling block to a character-driven film where Julia as a person is supposed to maintain interest in what is otherwise a fairly uninteresting kidnapping story.
I liked the supporting cast, I mentioned del Castillo, but Saul Rubinek was definitely underused. The revelation to me, though, was Bruno Bichir (who, according to imdb, has had some success in Mexican entertainment and is good friends with Diego Luna and Gael Garcia Bernal). He plays a suave stranger Julia meets in Mexico, and just might have been the most interesting character in the film. If I were to have recut the film, I would have left manic del Castillo in a little longer, given Rubinek a stronger roler, probably cut out a good chunk of the middle section, which drags, and transferred that time to the Mexican scenes, exploring Bichir’s character more in depth. So, OK, maybe I’m just looking for a sequel spinning off his character.
Obviously it is pretty early in the year to be assessing Best Actress nominations. Swinton is certainly memorable here, but I’m a little skeptical it is going to rank among my favorite performances, and given the film’s low profile, it seems relatively unlikely Swinton will grab her second Oscar nom.
The Reader was my second-favorite film from 2008. Which I hope doesn’t make me a shill for the Hollywood establishment. But since I liked it so much, I figured I should at least respond to John’s eloquent (as always) post. Specifically his problems with how they treated Hannah’s illiteracy.
I agree that it is a problem if you think the reveal that Hannah can’t read was supposed to be a shocking twist. For me, though, I thought it was more a big secret for Michael than for the audience. I also didn’t think Hannah’s illiteracy was used to explain or defend her crimes. Rather, it fit in with one of the major themes of the movie: life sucks.
Honestly, I didn’t think The Reader was a Holocaust movie, using any definition of the phrase other than a movie in which the Holocaust plays a role. What affected me most was the idea that sometimes life just puts us in bad situations. That there isn’t always a happy ending. Michael’s entire life was screwed up as a direct result of his dalliance with Hannah. And in turn he screwed up his daughter’s life (and probably messed with the lives of countless women).
Sure, the film says that if Hannah could read she probably wouldn’t have gone to the SS. But that’s not an excuse, it is an example of how sometimes life leads you down a crappy path. And yeah, if Michael had pointed out that Hannah couldn’t read, maybe that would have changed the outcome of the trial. Maybe not. Either way, it wouldn’t have changed what actually happened.
Similarly, I don’t think Hannah finds redemption by learning how to read. Unless you are making the argument that reading leads to redemption by helping her realize the magnitude of her actions, or to humanize herself, which is why she kills herself. In which case, OK, you would have liked to have seen something else? I don’t think the film ever pardons Hannah. Michael doesn’t. I don’t think Hannah was emerging from jail a new woman. And it isn’t like when Michael visits the Holocaust survivor, she forgives Hannah at all.
I know people are upset that The Dark Knight and The Wrestler didn’t get nominated and have focused their anger on The Reader, the surprise nominee. But I’d suggest that Frost/Nixon should be viewed as a weak link. Or ask yourself, did anyone really love Benjamin Button? The Reader hit me harder than any of those movies. To me, it was a bleak, bleak look at how sometimes people don’t live happily ever after, that sometimes you can’t fix things, and sometimes one person screwing up things can affect multiple people down the line. I don’t think the film is trying to address or make a statement about the Holocaust any larger than that it continues, directly or indirectly, to affect people’s lives today.
I know 2008 is a distant (bad) memory, but much like last year’s Margot at the Wedding diatribe I wanted to circle back and get a few things off my chest. It’s funny how it worked out- this site managed five posts dedicated to the entire Best Picture slate (and none for The Reader or Benjamin Button) but got up multiple posts for films like The Wrestler, Happy-Go-Lucky, and The Visitor. We know how to be relevant, eh?
The Reader’s big category nods still bother me (to the extent that one can still be bothered by Oscar nominations in May), especially if it was at the expense of The Dark Knight or The Wrestler. It’s still a decent film but not all that effective at what it sets out to do.
Plus Kate Winslet is going for her third major award for her work in this film, as she is up for an MTV Movie award! And she’s competing against some familiar 2008 Oscar faces! She’s taking on Anne Hathaway again, though for Bride Wars instead of Rachel Getting Married. And Angelina Jolie- but for Wanted. Oh and Kristen Stewart for Twilight! Taraji P. Henson (Button) rounds out the list.
But let’s step back and reflect on this again: The Reader has been nominated for an MTV Movie award (but will lose to Twilight)! Its themes clearly resonate with the tween set.
ANYWAY
To me, the film has three distinct elements: the relationship between Hannah (Kate Winslet) and Michael (David Kross and Ralph Fiennes), the implications of Hannah’s involvement in the Holocaust, and the power of literature. Apparently the Weinsteins tried to play down the pedophiliac aspect but to me it was the best part of the film. Their awkward relationship, the way he becomes totally involved in her, and the repercussions that last for decades all really grabbed me. A sexual relationship with an older woman at the age of 15 isn’t going to affect every kid for the rest of his life but it’s entirely likely that it could. By young adulthood Michael is distant in all his social relationships. And when he is unexpectedly confronted with Hannah’s past it’s devastating.
The Holocaust elements have some good ideas. Who do we blame individually when a whole society commits and atrocity? And how does that society move on? It’s a fascinating question that helps propel the film even when it falters. The line from Michael’s classmate about how Hannah’s trial is proceeding only because a victim wrote a book about her crimes – that this is selective prosecution – is brilliant and I was dismayed when the film didn’t dig much deeper. But then Michael’s trip to a concentration camp completely crosses the line into Holocaust porn, one of the most egregious examples I’ve ever seen.
And then there’s the whole message about literature and literacy that couldn’t have fallen more flat. My discussion about this will go at the end due to spoilers, but suffice it to say it nearly entirely killed the movie for me. I couldn’t have cared less about the bond of literature between Hannah and Michael.
Quick Oscar notes. Kate Winslet is terrific and it’s nice she finally got her win. She’s excellent here though I wouldn’t have voted for her. I hope her win doesn’t go down as one of those “make up” or “lifetime” Oscars but it may since she was better in every other film I’ve seen that she’s been nominated for. I loved David Kross, who learned English for the role. He would have made an excellent supporting actor nomination. The picture, director, and adapted screenplay nominations are all hogwash. Cinematography is a fine nomination, especially since Roger Deakins needs a nom every year, right?
The end here is spoilery, but let’s face it if you haven’t seen The Reader by now you aren’t going to. You probably forgot about its existence.
It’s amusing that the “big secret” of the film is not that Hannah was involved in the Holocaust, as I had assumed walking in (in which case it would have been a horribly kept secret). Instead it is that she is illiterate. So. What. The film has gall to try to explain some of Hannah’s crimes using her illiteracy: note how she never would have taken the job with the SS if she hadn’t have been promoted at an earlier job to a position that required reading skills. If you want to make a film about an individual’s culpability in the midst of a civilization committing a terrible atrocity then do it- it could be very interesting. But literacy couldn’t be more irrelevant. Does her inability to read mitigate or exacerbate Hannah’s crimes in any way? Of course not.
And then she learns to read! Hooray! What redemption! Except that it matters not at all. Y’know, because of the Holocaust and all. Here’s a hint: if you’re going to make a film about the redemptive power of literature, DON’T REDEEM THE HOLOCAUST! Redemption from Holocaust requires a lot more than reading.
But Hollywood is self-centered likes to be reminded of the Importance of Art so it ate this film up. And I’ll stop before this turns into a post appropriate for the mouth-breathers at Big Hollywood.
It is easy to criticize the Academy for its choices. Like any organization, they are going to make unpopular decisions. And as with any vote, the most deserving person or film isn’t guaranteed victory in the least. But part of the genesis of this project is the idea that it isn’t fair to ridicule a winner without seeing all of the other nominees. So, we watched all the nominees. Quixotic? Maybe. Fun? Almost always. Here’s what we thought of the Best Actress category:
I’m often one to go on about films that succeed without much of a plot. The actual story can take a back seat to the film’s characters and interesting themes or we can simply revel in its atmosphere. For every complaint from another Grouch about how nothing much happens in a movie there’s a reply from me talking about how it doesn’t matter because it’s actually a character-driven film, that the plot isn’t as important. Who cares when a story plods along if everything else is so right? Forget the usual conflict or plot twist if the film manages to fascinate us through other means.
So, um, Happy-Go-Lucky is kind of boring and nothing really happens.
It’s meant to be one of those character-driven films but I didn’t find the characters enthralling enough to hold my attention over its long spans of plotlessness. Sally Hawkins plays Poppy, a school teacher who is always genuinely happy. And it is a generally interesting character. Initially she comes off manic, like maybe she’s using her joy to mask insecurity or some sort of mental imbalance. But it’s not an act, she is just plain cheerful. And the happiness isn’t a mark of immaturity as we learn that she is grounded and certainly not naive.
And that’s a nice angle in such a cynical age. A character who’s just plain happy. Brilliant in its simplicity, no?
My problem was that it might be too simple. At some point Poppy’s cheer begins to feel one-note and even a little irritating. She doesn’t seem to express her own opinions much as scene after scene shows conversations where she simply agrees with whatever other people say even as they become contradictory. Her style of cheer is to goof around but not in a truly funny manner. She just sort of riffs without much in the way of joke development. And that’s not really all that interesting over time. It also drew away from the realism as Poppy and other characters snap off mildly amusing one-liner after mildly amusing one-liner.
There’s not much in the way of conflict. Eddie Marsan’s character is Poppy’s opposite: angry, rude, racist, short-tempered. I liked they way they play off each other for a while, but the conclusion felt a bit contrived. I’d like to see a sequel centered around him. A subplot with a pupil peters out and a scene with a homeless man is jut confusing.
So Hawkins was overlooked for Best Actress to many’s dismay but to my indifference. Sure I probably would have chosen her over Angelina Jolie but it’s not a great loss. The Original Screenplay nod is nice as something different and it does develop a fairly interesting character even if the plot doesn’t much take her anywhere.
But the big question is, Eddie Marsan’s teeth: real or fake? If fake, get Happy-Go-Lucky a Makeup nomination, post haste!
Someday it’ll get its own post, but invariably I’m happier with and more interested in the screenwriting nominations than the Best Picture ones. Granted, that’s partially because there are ten screenwriting slots. But they always seem to contain at least one movie I think was one of the top five Oscar movies of the year, but didn’t make the best picture cut. This year is WALL-E, of course, but in the past few years have included Lars and the Real Girl, The Squid and the Whale, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, American Splendor, and (because I’m not afraid to go there) About a Boy.
So I was intrigued when I saw Frozen River pop up with a screenwriting nomination. By the time I popped the DVD out of the player, I was still intrigued. Not by the movie, which wasn’t terribly interesting, but by how the movie ended up with a screenwriting nomination. The script hadn’t won many awards, wasn’t nominated by the WGA, and it was Courtney Hunt’s first screenplay. Ascribing it to savvy Oscar marketing seems unlikely given the film’s shoestring budget. And, oh yeah, the For Your Consideration ad doesn’t mention the script or Hunt.
Certain elements of the movie do smack of Oscar bait. Melissa Leo plays a woman whose gambling addict husband recently left, only days before Christmas. And who decides to run illegal immigrants across the border to help make ends meet as her part-time job at the dollar store isn’t putting food (other than popcorn) on the table for her two sons. And Leo’s accomplice is a Native American living a trailer who desperately wants to get her one year old child back.
But the reason for my surprise (and the reason the film may be described as a “small” movie) is the very narrow, linear path of the movie. Melissa Leo doesn’t have money, wants some, and sees making runs as opportunity to get some. Anything broader than that is more or less disregarded and setbacks of any real sort are nonexistent. There’s no discussion (in the dialogue or thematically) of the ethics of illegal immigration. Not much of a comment of the relationship of the reservation to the rest of the area, or even much of a glance at the rest of the area at all. There’s no evil character keeping Leo down, no particular obstacle she has to overcome.
(spoilers after the jump) Read the rest of this entry »
I can appreciate a film constructed around a concept, but to work that film better nail the intended concept. Doubt is, unsurprisingly, about doubt and as such should give the viewer a lot to ponder about doubt. However I, when enveloped in the world of Doubt, doubted the importance of the doubt portrayed, and I seriously doubt that was the intent.
It won’t be too long before the discussion grows too spoilery and I’ll have to shove it all after the jump so let’s get the Oscar stuff out of the way. Doubt tallied four acting nominations since it is a Very Serious Acting Movie. Meryl Streep’s Sister Aloysius, headmistress at a Catholic school in 1960s the Bronx, believes Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Father Flynn has entered into an inappropriate relationship with a young pupil. Amy Adams’s Sister James brings the initial allegation to Aloysius and feels torn between the two as Aloysius pursues him without firm evidence. Viola Davis has a couple emotional scenes as the potential victim’s mother with a shocking agenda.
Streep is sometimes dead-on and sometimes a little hammy. She is always a force on the screen, however, even when I wondered why something was being played up so dramatically. I liked Hoffman, as I usually do. He imparts a lot of humanity into a character who we are led to believe may have done something quite terrible. Even at his darkest moments I felt like I’d enjoy having a drink with him or even would have liked him as a teacher. Davis’s brief appearance seems to have moved many people though I’m not sure I would have made any special note of it without the Oscar hype. I think maybe part of the performance was lost on me since the substance of her scenes was occupying me, and not usually in a good way (more on that later). And Adams, well, as I said in one of our nomination prediction posts I usually enjoy her but this time she was just one-note and chirpy. What worked so well in Enchanted is now growing stale, between this and Miss Pettigrew Lives For a Day. She seemed to just get swept up in this wave of acting nominations for the film because I don’t think she contributes much to her character, and neither she nor her character contributes much to the film.
As for everything else, it failed to sneak into Best Picture or Director, thankfully. It’s Adapted Screenplay nod is pretty weak considering it probably took The Dark Knight’s spot. (By the way, writer/director John Patrick Shanley’s only other film? Joe Versus the Volcano!) That was the end of its Oscar journey, but it is very effective in transporting the viewer to another time. I’ve heard several comments, including from my mother, about how brilliantly it recreates the world of a Catholic school at that era down to the smallest detail, so some credit must be due in areas such as cinematography, costume, and art direction even if those nominations failed to materialize.
And truth be told it’s a pretty good movie. The plot is interesting and naturally dramatic. The setting and peek into the Catholic church at a time of pretty dramatic institutional change are interesting. The characters are really great and fleshed-out, especially Aloysius and Flynn. Doubt has a clear objective, however, and it doesn’t meet it. A film built on a central thesis has trouble succeeding if that thesis fails, no matter how great the periphery elements are. And so it works in a way, but not in the intended way.
I know the fellow Grouches I’ve discussed this with disagree with me, but I think a significant amount of people who see Doubt are going to leave the theater thinking it’s a film about (spoiler time- continue on after the jump) Read the rest of this entry »
I love me a good suburban malaise movie. I’ve lived in a variety of types of suburbs and now live in a city so I think I have a good handle on the pros and cons of suburban living. There can be a lot of interesting themes to mine there, not the least of which is that chase for the elusive “American dream.” That’s a broad subject to tackle though, especially for a viewer like me with a “quit yer whining” mentality.
But I really loved American Beauty so I thought Sam Mendes’s return to suburbia might be up my alley. Advanced word diminished my hopes, which even still turned out to be set way too high. The problem is that Revolutionary Road isn’t an effective portrait of the soul-sucking suburbs, it’s just a story of two tools in a bad marriage. They use the oppressive homogeneity of suburban living as an excuse for their crumbling relationship, a potentially interesting topic, but in the end they’re two pieces of work that shouldn’t be married to each other, if anyone, who just subject us to their yelling and whining for two hours. I’d be curious to hear if anyone else found themselves leaning towards one character or the other. I found myself sympathizing with him marginally more; he is a jerk but she’s truly unbalanced.
Revolutionary Road is billed to be this great acting movie, but to me it felt bogged down in its Serious Acting. Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio never felt real (she was a worse offender than him). Or perhaps the style of precise enunciation and showy emotion missed its mark for me; regardless I was not terribly impressed. Supporting Actor nominee Michael Shannon steals every scene he’s in, but he feels like part of a completely different movie. His character also managed to sap any sense of subtlety out of the film; what better way to hammer a point home than to have a crazy person just come out and say it explicitly?
Not all of it is bad, however. A lot of it is quite interesting from a technical or more cerebral standpoint (y’know, if you don’t bother with little things like plot or character). It’s fun to see a film throw itself so completely into its era, especially since 1950s America tends to get overlooked in film in favor of World War II on one side and the swinging 60s on the other. So the sets and costumes, both Oscar nominated, were interesting, as were all the little touches from the time period (like the serious amounts of liquor and cigarettes Kate Winslet manages to imbibe while pregnant, or the glimpses into the business world). And I will say it’s often effective in tone; if more people had seen it it could’ve been responsible for a measurable increase in marriage postponements. For a film with so many missteps it was impressively brutally bleak and mostly earned it.
I also really dug the ending. I wasn’t always fond of where the film leads but for where it does lead the resolution works very well. But then the very final scene killed my good will. If your film has to make an over-the-top, meaning-telegraphing final pronouncement, then make it ridiculously over the top like the absurd rat at the end of The Departed, not stupid and smug like In the Valley of Elah.
Maybe the American dream with its illusory suburban picket fence is just a formidable challenge to take head-on. One of my favorite suburbia movies of recent years isn’t really about the suburbs at all: Brick, a modern noir populated with detached youth and set among the sidewalk-free roads and empty big box store parking lots of the suburbs. Maybe suburban angst works best as a supporting character.
Earlier this week I was talking with Adam about why Doubt didn’t do much for me. Not that I’m intelligible to begin with, but I made a complete hash of my thoughts. Which sorta trashed my plans to just copy the conversation into here. Instant post, just add water. So my new plan is to ramble for awhile and see what happens. I can’t see any flaws.
I don’t think it is presumptuous to suggest “doubt” the concept, is supposed to be an integral part of Doubt the movie. Did Philip Seymour Hoffman’s priest character engage in inappropriate relations with a student? Meryl Streep as the head nun sure seems pretty positive he did, with scant evidence to back it up. Amy Adams’s naive nun teeters back and forth on the fence. And the child’s mother, as played by Viola Davis, prefers not to think about anything which could derail her son from getting through the next few months. So, fine, we have different levels of doubt, and the impact it has on decision-making.
But my fundamental problem with the film is a lack of development, a failure to communicate the so what. Fairly early on it becomes clear where each character stands, save for the one bit at the end I won’t spoil, but is too little too late. Really, it seems like the script started out as a two minute sketch, where Adams says, “I don’t know if he did or didn’t do it.” Then Streep says, “Oh, I know he did it.” Adams replies, “How do you know?” and Streep answers, “I just do.” Then Hoffman says, “This is ridiculous, why are you doing this.” Rinse and repeat.
Well the nominations have been announced and those looking for surprises are happy this morning. The Grouches did get at least one nasty surprise.
Dark Knight Debacle
I was expecting the Academy to screw up and skip over Dark Knight for Best Picture. I thought Christopher Nolan had a better shot at Director. But the huge surprise was no Adapted Screenplay nomination. Four of the five Best Picture nominees were nominated in that category with the fifth slot going to Doubt. That’s a pretty shoddy film to be passed over for.
On the other hand, it got nominated in every technical category it was eligible for besides Score and Costume for a total of 8 nominations (including Supporting Actor Heath Ledger).
The Winslet Conundrum
Kate Winslet was aiming for Lead Actress in Revolutionary Road and Supporting in The Reader despite both roles probably being lead. She won these categories at the Globes. But the Academy puts her in the Lead role for The Reader and nothing for Road.
So we can play the what if game. Rules in the acting categories state an actor cannot: a) be nominated more than once in the same category, nor b) be nominated twice for the same role. If those rules were removed I would not be surprised if Winslet qualified for Lead for both roles AND Supporting for The Reader. When something like this happens the Academy goes with the role that got the most support and that apparently was Lead for The Reader.
Hooray for Little Movies!
My happiest moment came with the announcement of Richard Jenkins for Actor in The Visitor. Melissa Leo also managed an Actress nod for Frozen River when it seemed like her chances were fading. The biggest out of nowhere surprise may be that film’s Original Screenplay nomination.
Leo’s inclusion may have meant Sally Hawkins’s exclusion for Happy-Go-Lucky but that film still managed an Original Screenplay nod. And that interesting category ALSO includes the wonderful In Bruges. Plus WALL-E, which no one would call a little movie. Those interesting nominations pushed out films like Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Burn After Reading, however.
Long shots Darren Aronofsky and the film itself for Best Picture didn’t pan out, but at least Marisa Tomei was able to join co-star Mickey Rourke as an acting nominee for The Wrestler. That’s great, though the film really should have gotten a screenplay nod. And Bruce Springsteen’s exclusion for Song is downright confounding.
Other Surprises
I’m not complaining, but it was widely expected Dev Patel to get a Supporting Actor nomination for Slumdog Millionaire and he did not. Instead Michael Shannon from Revolutionary Road snuck in from way back in the pack to give the film its only major nomination.
Another puzzling exclusion was Waltz with Bashir in the Animated Feature category. The animated, foreign-language documentary was nominated for Foreign Language Film and ineligible for Documentary Feature. Kung Fu Panda and Bolt join WALL-E as Animated Feature nominees. After the near unanimous love for the film its absence is quite surprising.
So Jared got his wish for some surprises but managed to be nearly completely wrong in his predictions.
Some other prediction notes after the jump. Read the rest of this entry »
Recent Comments