You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Amy Adams’ tag.
We’re taking a look at Oscar categories in advance of tonight’s show. Now we’re on Supporting Actress. The nominees:
- Amy Adams, The Fighter
- Helena Bonham Carter, The King’s Speech
- Melissa Leo, The Fighter
- Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit
- Jacki Weaver, Animal Kingdom
Jared
I don't see the big deal, this FYC ad seems kinda classy...
The supporting categories are always tough for me because it is hard to figure out how, exactly, to weight screen time. Should I favor being fantastic in five minutes over a solid performance in forty-five minutes? Perhaps appropriately, I just flipped on the radio and The Zombies’s “She’s Not There” started playing. I’m a big Amy Adams fan and loved that she got to play a little against type in The Fighter. But she didn’t have enough to work with to make an impression on me. She had a few memorable scenes, sure. But I’m still not entirely certain how she nabbed a nomination over, say, Mila Kunis.
When the actress receiving a nomination is genuinely confused about it, you know Hollywood silly groupthink has reared its head again. Like a movie? Then vote for every single aspect of it! Helena Bonham Carter does a perfectly fine job, but one of the five best performances of the year? It is really odd how Hollywood can’t distinguish between different aspects of a movie they loved.
So, I fell asleep during Animal Kingdom. Apparently I was out cold. But don’t worry, after waking up I went back and caught what I missed. The whole time (at least when I was awake) I was wondering how on earth Weaver managed a nomination here. For me, it isn’t even the role being confused for the performance, but the idea of the role. The thing is, I can totally see a film where she’d be worthy of a nomination. One that wasn’t the most boring crime film of all time. And one where her role gets fleshed out a little more. I really hope, though, some casting director has taken notice and casts her as the villain in some better production, because I really do think she can pull it off admirably.
I’m a little lower on Hailee Steinfeld than others. Maybe part of it is because there’s absolutely no way to defend calling her performance supporting. None at all. Whoever first pitched the idea of doing so has balls the size of golden globes. John has mentioned how much he liked Dakota Fanning in The Runaways. Obviously the roles aren’t really comparable, but I’d tend to agree that I’m not entirely comfortable seeing Steinfeld recognized but not Fanning. I think Steinfeld has a very bright future and hope that she soon gets new roles to be her calling card.
I don’t think this category is as strong as other this year, which perhaps is one of the reasons prognosticators are finding it a little difficult to predict. Hilariously, Melissa Leo, probably the front-runner, shot herself in the foot by running For Your Consideration ads on her own dime. Doesn’t she know how to play the game? You aren’t allowed to actually say you want to win! In any case, she’s my pick here, overcoming an awful script to create a memorable presence. And really doing everything you’d want from a supporting actress, I think. She always looms large, but never takes over the movie.
John
This is a tough category to pick. Whereas so many of the other categories are embarrassments of riches, I find this one to be slim pickings.
Let’s start with the women from The Fighter. Adams simply failed to make an impression on me. So many others were impressed with her work that I concede I may need another viewing. To me, she’s being swept up in an acting nomination wave for the film. I enjoyed Leo much more, but she also has a more colorful role and I can’t deny that she does seem to be Acting Very Hard.
Everyone loved Steinfeld but she actually drove me a little nuts. I don’t think it’s her fault. For one, the lack of contractions in the dialogue sounded bizarre to me from all characters. And the inflectionless way she often delivers her lines was probably directed out of her. So I think these are stylistic choices that happened to not work for me and therefore reflect poorly on Steinfeld.
Carter is a totally blah nomination. She’s good in The King’s Speech, of course, but she doesn’t get to display much of her considerable skills. It’s just such a straight-forward role. And that leaves Weaver, who you might think therefore wins by default. She plays a ruthless matriarch of a crime family in Animal Kingdom. What makes her so successfully chilling is how sweet she is while doing awful things. I think the tendency would be for the actress to really sell the fact that the sweetness is a charade, but Weaver plays it pretty straight. So she’s just acting sweet. It’s a great choice for the film, but does that make a great performance? The same performance with different words and she’s just a normal doting mother. Or am I missing some nuance?
Oh, honey.
Therefore I have concerns over them all. I’m going to choose Melissa Leo with Jacki Weaver not too far behind. I also just want Leo to win, partly because I like her and partly because I’d feel bad for her if she won all these precursors and lost. People would be blaming it on that photo spread and it would be awful.
Snubs: I’d nominate and give the Oscar to Lesley Manville for Another Year. My off-the-wall choice is Marisa Tomei in Cyrus. (Note: I may be in the bag for Marisa Tomei.)
Oscar nominations arrive Tuesday, January 25. To prepare, we’re giving you our sharpest insight and predictions. Today: What disappointing nominations do you anticipate?
Jared:The Fighter should be KO’d
At first I wondered if the cut of The Fighter in my theater was different than what everyone else seemed to have saw. But no, the audience in my viewing seemed to have enjoyed themselves. So I’m left to conclude that David O.Russell managed to incorporate some subliminal message telling people they love the movie and my brain just isn’t wired to receive said messages (kinda like how I can’t see those 3-D Magic Eye pictures). Because the film is bad, failing on nearly every conceivable level, other than the acting.
I’d call the story cliche, but that would assume there was any semblance of a story. We get very clear depictions of each character’s lot in life, but no clue as to got they got from point A to B. To wit, the relationship between Mark Wahlberg and Amy Adams is almost entirely glossed over. They meet, go out on a date, some undefined time apparently passes and then they are inseparable. Time, I should point out, is also irrelevant to the filmmakers. Anyone have any clue the time between Wahlberg’s first fight show in the film and his title bout? Melissa Leo and Christian Bale both see their characters kinda sorta maybe have a change of heart, but it isn’t clear how superficial that change is or why we should care. Of course, that little change is really the only character or plot development in the entire film.
But OK, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with a simple story. The Fighter is a boxing movie and obviously a good chunk of boxing movies involve the fights, and it is hard to advance the story too much while the main character is in the ring. But here’s why I’m absolutely appalled David O. Russell is on the shortlist for a best director nom: the boxing is depicted as if he really rather doesn’t like the sport. The final match aside, the fights are glossed over at best, portrayed as some weird rejected video game cut scene at worst. Not even bland, the fighting scenes are, if you’ll excuse my limited vocabulary, stupid. They aren’t suspenseful, interesting, exciting, or even artistic. Just a complete waste of time.
"Say hi to yourself for me."
Absolute worst of all, though, was the character interactions. It felt like a quarter of the movie could be described in the following three beats: Character A says a line talking at character B. Character B “responds” with something no human would say and tangentially relevant to what character A said. Then there’s a cue (be it in the dialogue or visual) about how these people are white trash. I could see a line or two for comic relief, maybe, but the filmmakers felt this bizarre need to consistently unsubtly describe the characters and their town as white trash. It wasn’t funny, it wasn’t clever, it was just obvious and worse, it was mean.
So when Mo’Nique reads off The Fighter as a best picture nom, I’m going to be disappointed that a movie which had great acting, but failed on nearly every conceivably important other level is taking the place of so many other actually watchable films.
John: Man the levies, nomination waves are coming!
The nomination wave: it’s a common occurrence in Oscar season. A beloved film gets support across all guilds, sweeping many to nominations even if their work wasn’t as exemplary. It’s going to happen to two supporting actresses this year.
She wasn't nearly as committed to head enlargement in The King's Speech
The first, and most prominent, is Helena Bonham Carter in The King’s Speech. Carter is a great, versatile actress, but this is such a nothing performance. It’s not like she’s bad, but she’s a stock supporting character without a ton to do. She’s more interesting this year in both Alice in Wonderland and Harry Potter. Even she admits to being puzzled over why this performance is getting singled out for award attention.
I'm wicked strong willed!
The other is Amy Adams for The Fighter, a sentiment I know is not shared by many. I’ve actually seen plenty of arguments that she’s the supporting female star in the film and not supposed category front runner Melissa Leo. I just don’t think she does much beyond sporting a Boston accent. The film’s treatment of her character bothered me, and part of it is due to her performance (though the bulk is probably the script’s fault).
I’ve always said I’m an Amy Adams fan, but this is the third time I’ve come to complain about her on this blog so maybe my affection is waning? But maybe she just gets recognized for the wrong roles. Oscar nod for Doubt, critical acclaim for Sunshine Cleaning, and a probable nod for The Fighter, but not enough support for Enchanted or Julie & Julia.
Brian: The Town will rob a nomination from a more deserving film
Jared and John adeptly discussed why The Town is overrated last month. As Jared put it in his elegant way, “Frankly, I don’t even think the film is particularly good genre fare, much less a good movie.” So since they’ve covered much of why its bad, especially the horribly underdeveloped relationship between Ben Affleck and Rebecca Hall, I’ll keep my entry to this category short.
A Best Picture nom for The Town would be an embarrassment as it would only provide fodder for those critics who last year assailed the Academy’s decision to expand the category to 10 films. “It will allow mediocre, commercially successful films to sneak in,” they warned — and The Town is just that. After last year, when the final 10 offered a little something for everyone to be happy about, I hoped that these concerns would be laid to rest. But I imagine they will reappear on Tuesday when The Town gets its undue recognition.
Does anyone know why we love each other?
How anyone can deem that the best of the year is beyond me. The characters were one-dimensional (ooh, Jeremy Renner as a hothead!), the stakes were non-existent, the shootout at Fenway was cool to watch but ultimately unfulfilling, and the heists were forgettable. It’s as if the Academy has a Departed hangover and thinks that all Boston-related movies are somehow deep because people have funny accents. (Also see: The Fighter) So put this down as my big disappointment.
Is there anything better than being blown away by a film out of the blue? That “I can’t believe how great that was” enthusiasm as the credits roll? My latest surprise revelation was Julie & Julia. I had only middling expectations going in. I’m not really the target audience and the critical reaction had been mixed: Meryl Streep was supposed to be wonderful as usual but only her half of the film was worthwhile.
Well I found myself entirely enchanted. Yes of course Meryl turns in another terrific performance. But it’s an all-around entertaining time and I didn’t even feel like the “Julie” part paled significantly compared to the “Julia” part.
Sticking with Julie for a bit, I think it’s true to say that a story of one woman blogging a cooking challenge isn’t going to be a cinematic as the Julia Childs story of revolutionizing cooking forever. And while I would agree the script doesn’t develop Julie as well as it perhaps could have to make the viewer care for her more, the Julie story is not a notable let-down compared to Julia.
Maybe it’s a generational thing, but I related to Julie. We’re a hyper-connected and creative generation and that yearning to make a mark in the world – or at least to find a worthwhile outlet for expression – resonated. (I mean, here I am writing on a blog after all.) Maybe Julie’s need to create and connect and overshare just doesn’t have the same impact on people who didn’t grow up with Live Journal. One’s connection with Julie can vary widely, but I imagine it helps if the entire point of her story isn’t dismissed outright.
The fact that Julie isn’t necessarily a likable character doesn’t detract from the film. In fact I think it probably makes it more interesting. Without a dynamic character that’s allowed to have some large flaws I think the Julie story really would fall flat. And it’s nice to see Amy Adams in a role where she can dial down the chirpiness.
That said, it’s undeniable that the Julia story is wonderful and the real heart of the film. Streep is just delightful and I found the journey through Childs’ life fascinating and enjoyable. One of the more interesting elements is her marriage to Paul, played superbly by Stanley Tucci. Their deep devotion to each other is played straight and without false drama, which is refreshing and not at all boring. Even while sharing scenes with the marvelous Streep playing the larger-than-life Julia Childs, Tucci shines and their chemistry is sparkling.
It seems likely Streep will get a Best Actress nod here, and it would be well-deserved. I wonder if someone else gives the exact same performance, would even get consideration? On the other hand, who else could give the exact same performance? And Tucci would get a (again, well-deserved) Supporting Actor nomination if he wasn’t probably going to get one for The Lovely Bones instead. And I’d be happy with an Adapted Screenplay nod as well since the story is so infectiously enjoyable.
I caught Julie & Julia on a flight where I was already jet-lagged out of my skull and my previous two nights had been spent on an overnight bus hurtling down a Kenyan highway and on an airplane, so I’m looking forward to seeing it again while in a more normal state of mind. If it charmed me even while I was completely out of it, I’d call that a good sign. And this time I’ll be able to eat more than airline food while watching it.
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 »
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.
Recent Comments