|
|
|---|
Sunday, 29 November 2009
I'm really in the mood to see Titanic right now. You know, I know that right now it's the norm to hate this. The allegedly schmaltzy dialogue, those one note characters, the histrionics of the scenes and all that jazz. But screw that. Firstly, what the hell are they talking about? And two. Who cares? I'm sorry. I happen to like love this movie. A lot.
And isn't that picture just lovely?
Everyone keeps thinking that this one’s all tied up. I don’t know about that. Sure, Inglourious Basterds seems to have thrilled but I just don’t think that it’s going to be that cut and dry. I mean, come one, where would the fun in that be? I suppose this always ends up being the weakest category by default and though I’ve seen some men who’ve impressed, I’m not quite ready to grovel at the feet of any of them as yet. Still, as I did with the last category I’m going to weigh in on what I’ve seen thus far, and what I’m anticipating in this category.
CURRENT TOP 5
Jim Broadbent in Harry Potter & the Half Blood Prince
Rupert Friend in The Young Victoria
Anthony Mackie in The Hurt Locker
Christopher Waltz in Inglourious Basterds
I could see two even three of these men making my ten, but then I remember that there are so many films you don’t expect the supporting actors to come out and grab because they’re not campaigned, but then they’re good. Take last year, two of my top performances had zero buzz.
ENSEMBLE FILMS TO LOOK OUT FOR
An Education: Pater Sarsgaard and Alfred Molina
So I’m not sure if Sarsgaard is lead or not, but I could see both these guys going far with these performances.
The Last Station: James McAvoy and Christopher Plummer
I heard that they’re going to campaign him in lead; which pisses me off. That’s going to just make this campaign crash and burn. I’ll see if it’s supporting or not when I see it.
A Single Man: Matthew Goode, Nicholas Hoult maybe Lee Pace
I don’t what I’m going to expect, or if the performances are going to be any good. I’ll see.
The Men Who Stare At Goats: Jeff Bridges, George Clooney, Ewan McGregor
Are any of these guys lead? I heard Bridges is good, but my anxiety for this is waning…
It's Complicated: Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin
I’m not really looking forward to this movie, but who knows?
PERFORMANCES I’M AWAITING
Stanley Tucci in The Lovely Bones: I’m awaiting everything that this movie’s about. He could definitely land here, but I hope he can pull it off.
Paul Schneider in Bright Star: I’m yet to see this [obviously]. I’m a fan of his, but I’m wondering if I’m going to be a fan of this performance. I hope so. But something tells me…
Jude Law in Sherlock Holmes: Do I really have to explain this? I want to be this guy. Enough said. I’m biased, sue me.
Matt Damon in Invictus: Who knows, maybe I’ll like it.
Christopher McKay in Me & Orson Welles: This looks nice, light and fun. But then there’s Efron . I’ll see how it turns out.
Should I put any other performances on my anticipated list? Anyone impressed you much thus far?
PREVIOUSLY: Supporting Actress; thus far
Saturday, 28 November 2009
Oscar Predictions are in the air and most everyone is talking about Crazy Heart. Some have called it the country version of The Wrestler. We’ll see how that goes. Still, more than a Picture contender everyone seems certain four time Oscar nominee Jeff Bridges is finally headed for Oscar success. I don’t know about that. We’ll see what happens. Still, whenever I think about Jeff Bridges I can’t help thinking about the other Jeff; the Jeff that no one cares to remember – Jeff Daniels.
I’ve always felt that Daniels has gotten the royal shaft from the Oscars – I still don’t know how doesn’t even have an Oscar nomination. So, though this may turn out to be Jeff Bridges’ year [maybe] I’d like to take a few moments to remember the other Jeff and what’s he’s contributed to cinema.
Harry Dune in Dumb & Dumber (1994)
I couldn’t resist.
Bernard Berkman in The Squid & the Whale (2005)
He wouldn’t have made my top 5, but considering some of the competition it would have been nice to see him end up there. If it was the other Jeff you know they’d have been all up in that.
Flap Horton in Terms of Endearment (1983)
Terms of Endearment was nowhere near my favourite film of 1983, but it had its merits. And yet, for some inane reason John Lithgow earned an Oscar nomination for nonexistent role. And Jack wasn’t even that outstanding and won the damn Oscar. When they don’t like you, the really don’t like you.
Tom Baxter/Gil Sherpherd in The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)
I know loads of people are obsessed with this. Me? Not so much. Still, I thought he was the best in show. And that’s saying something because Mia Farrow was good.
Louis Waters in The Hours (2003)
In his one scene he sizzles alongside Meryl Streep. He’s playing the parallel to the role Miranda Richardson and Toni Collette play in the other time periods and he more than measures up. It’s nothing like we’ve seen him before and he pulls it off exceptionally.
I’ve always been a bit oblivious to Robin Wright Penn. I know she’s Sean Penn’s wife, and I vaguely remembered her from Forrest Gump. I was aware that The Private Lives of Pippa Lee was essentially a film about her and I was interested at the purported presence of Winona Ryder and especially Julianne Moore. Thus, I ventured to see it.
I suppose The Private Lives of Pippa Lee could be termed as an Indie film. Pippa Lee is a fifty year old woman with twins in their twenties. It's written and directed by Rebecca Miller who adapted the story from a novel she wrote. Pippa is married to a man thirty years old senior and currently living in a posh retirement home that her husband – an editor – can well afford. Essentially, she’s the perfect wife. The film chronicles Pippa’s past as she comes to deal with the growing distance between her and her husband. I’m sure I’m not the only one who remembers a few years ago when Evening was advertised as the film with a collection of some of the world’s best actresses together. That flopped, but I suppose we can look to Nine for a collection to beautiful and talented women. But on this note, The Private Lives of Pippa Lee should not be underestimated. Robin Wright Penn, Maria Bello, Winona Ryder, Julianne Moore, Monica Belucci, Shirley Knight, Blake Lively. Perhaps they’re not as glamorous as Nicole Kidman and Penelope Cruz nor as revered as Meryl Streep and Vanessa Redgrave; however each of these women; some working with five minutes, some working with fifty minutes; gives a great performance.
It seems that as far as critics are concerned The Private Lives of Pippa Lee is not an unbridled success. It’s yet to open in the US, but reviews if positive are never grossly so. And I suppose it’s not a perfect film, not by any means. Miller sometimes falters when she has scenes that don't move the plot forward. But the film is utterly charming. Of the aforementioned women I could not help but be most impressed with Winona Ryder. It’s not that she’s best in show – she isn’t. I don’t know if others will share my sentiment, but in a small role Ryder is bathetic and sympathetic all at once. But all the other women are great. Maria Bello’s psychotic mother is a great treasure, and Julianne Moore [who incidentally shot her scenes in two days] is a nice treat. All this is grounded by the performance of Wright Penn. She must play the good guy to all these atrocities; as must Blake Lively who plays her younger incarnation. I’ve never been impressed with Lively – but here she shines. With a maturity I’ve never noticed before she does a fine job.
It’s a women’s picture but no one can put Alan Alda in a corner; and as Pippa’s husband he’s a treat. And Keanu Reeves [whom I loathe] didn’t destroy the film. Not one bit. The entire ensemble contribute to making a perfectly enjoyable little film. In a perfect world I suppose someone from the cast should be in contention for some awards – but I’m not even going to go there. Still, this is a nice film. I know it won’t be a huge success, but I sincerely hope it makes a profit. Imperfect, but no less enjoyable for its faults, Pippa Lee is a treat.
Friday, 27 November 2009
American Thanksgiving has come and gone and as December begins and Christmas draws nearer a young movie blogger’s fancy turns to Oscar buzz. It seems the norm. as the year draws nearer, all the prestige pictures are released and we can’t help but contemplate who will win what – and we predict. But I don’t predict the Oscars. I just don’t have the heart. Sure when it’s a few days before I’ll get a list of who I think will we nominated. I’m actually quite good at that, but I don’t have the longevity like some for year round predictions. I suppose then you’re wondering what exactly the title of this post means.
I’ve seen a little over thirty films of 2009 so far – not outstanding, but considering it’s not that bad. I’m already wondering what my own personal awards will look like next February. There are a host of films I’ve yet to see. But that only makes it interesting. Still, with only a few important titles under my belt I’ve already taken a liking to a few of the Supporting Women in films I’ve seen thus far. So I’ll take a look at them whilst looking ahead at the women who’re likely to uproot them.
CURRENT TOP 5
Maria Bello in The Private Lives of Pippa Lee
Kristin Chenoweth in Into Temptation
Patricia Clarkson in Whatever Works
Marion Cotillard in Public Enemies
Diane Kruger in Inglourious Basterds
Each of these five women with their limited roles do much to improve their respective films. I’d have loved to have any of these women in my top 5 in any particular year, so I must pay tribute to them now since it’s likely that few if any will remain in my top ten by the time I’ve seen all the films I want to.
ENSEMBLE FILMS TO LOOK OUT FOR
Nine: Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench perhaps Nicole Kidman or Kate Hudson
I know Cotillard is being campaigned in lead, but she’ll probably be supporting for me. If Nine hold up it could easily take three spots in my end of year awards.
The Lovely Bones: Susan Sarandon and Rachel Weisz
It’s very possible to see both these women taking a spot in my top ten or even the top 5. I’m looking forward especially to Susan Sarandon who was probably my favourite actress of the nineties.
Precious: MoNique, Mariah Carey perhaps Paula Patton
I won’t try to escape the buzz for Precious. I wonder if MoNique will top my awards... Still I am a fan of hers and she could very well take a place, and if Mariah is as amazing as they say, who knows?
Up In the Air: Vera Farmiga or Anna Kendrick
Vera Farmiga is my biggest draw to this film, and if she’s good she could end up here. I’ve been hearing good things about Kendrick, so she too could make a play for it.
PERFORMANCES THAT COULD IMPRESS
Julianne Moore in A Single Man: With a little cameo she’s scintillating in The Private Lives of Pippa Lee in a nondescript role. I only wonder what she’ll do with a proper role here. I hope she doesn’t disappoint.
Natalie Portman in Brothers: I’m keeping my fingers crossed here. The trailer seemed promising enough.
Drew Barymore in Everybody’s Fine: No one’s predicting this, but not being Oscar worthy doesn’t mean I won’t like it. Maybe I’ll like it, or maybe I won’t. But I’m looking out.
Rosamund Pike in An Education: I was a fan of this young lady in Pride & Prejudice. I’ve never been a hater of a performance based on screen time, and regardless of how short this is, if I’m impressed so be it. we’ll see…
Marcia Gay Harden in Whip It: I should have seen this by now. Marcia has topped my Year End Supporting Actress list twice, will this be enough to land her there again? I doubt…but she could be in the running.
Previously: Part Une
Sometimes it seems that some films are just begging you to hate them. It’s not the typical horror of Blades of Glory or I Love You, Beth Cooper hatred. No one would anticipate those two horrors to be anything but. It’s when you watch a film that not exactly disappoints, but leaves you unmoved even though there are moments – fleeting perhaps – that make you sad it’s so horrible. It’s so with Antichrist for me. I didn’t plan on disliking Von Triers’ latest release. I’m no fan of his, but there’s no active dislike. What turns this movie into a conundrum is that there are scenes, like that ethereal opening that thwart your complete hatred. But even that sole scene, as beautiful as it is, seems so indulgent. Or that walk Gainsbourg has in the woods. Beautifully done – but not all too necessary. Or is it?
Sometimes it seems that some films are just begging you to hate them. It’s not the typical horror of Blades of Glory or I Love You, Beth Cooper hatred. No one would anticipate those two horrors to be anything but. It’s when you watch a film that not exactly disappoints, but leaves you unmoved even though there are moments – fleeting perhaps – that make you sad it’s so horrible. It’s so with Antichrist for me. I didn’t plan on disliking Von Triers’ latest release. I’m no fan of his, but there’s no active dislike. What turns this movie into a conundrum is that there are scenes, like that ethereal opening that thwart your complete hatred. But even that sole scene, as beautiful as it is, seems so indulgent. Or that walk Gainsbourg has in the woods. Beautifully done – but not all too necessary. Or is it?
It’s silly things like the fact that Willem and Charlotte seem to be a poorly matched couple. And even sillier things like the fact that their accents don’t match. Obviously people have married with differing accents, but it’s even the smallest things like that. And you wonder, is that Von Triers’ intent? It would be too supercilious to lodge the complaint of him being gratuitous – for at the end of the day, what is gratuity? But you can’t shake that gimmicky feeling. Like that wordless first scene I referred to earlier with the now controversial shot of the penis in the shower. What exactly does that add to the tone of the film? It’s all about the director’s preference of course, but would Antichrist have been any worst of without those three seconds?
You can almost see Von Triers’ menacing visage imprinted on screen laughing at us all. The way that his titled in superimposed on the screen is definitely macabre and almost ridiculous. Filmmaking is all subjective when it comes down to the nitty gritty, but I haven’t changed my initial reaction. Certainly, I’ve let it mull over for a day. I still don’t like it. That’s that.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
An unnamed married couple retreat to the woods to deal with some psycholgical issues in Antichrist. I'm not Lars Von Triers fan. I've not seen that many of his films, and for of those I've seen - I'm not that impressed. Sue me. I didn't like this movie. Not one bit. I could end this post with that, since I'm not quite sure how to explain. Charlotte Gainsburg performance rang through as so false for me, I'm nonplussed as to how she's won awards for this. As I said, Dafoe was my main draw here. He's capable, but unexceptional. I suppose the film is Von Triers giving the finger to the world; but hot damn. I was unmoved. I was uninterested in either of the two characters. Nothing. Zilch. I don't how the heck I'm grading this.
I'll be back with Part Deux
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
I cannot call myself a legitimate fan of the science fiction genre. In the last two decades there are only two films in the genre that I found particularly excellent. The sleeper hit 2002 Minority Report and 1997’s underrated Gattaca. Still, I’m not biased against science fiction. It just doesn’t make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Moon functions as a scientific drama but it also delves into some interesting psychological themes. The issue of cloning has been examined oftentimes but Moon lucks out. Cloning does present an important aspect of the film, but Jones treads so lightly that we never find it overbearing. The film rises above that managing to somehow explore larger themes. Sam Rockwell is faced with the taslk of grounding the entire film. Sure, Kevin Spacey’s effective voice is used but I cannot remember since Spencer Tracy in The Old Man & the Sea when I’ve been so riveted by a performer in isolation essentially interacting with themselves.
B
I’m a Woody Allen fan. I won’t mince words about. Certainly, he’s not for all – but he’s probably my favourite comedic auteur. But Whatever Works presented a puzzle for me. Not only in reviewing it, but in watching it. It was a good Woody Allen film while being a bad Woody Allen. film I can look at it and understand the bad reviews it has been given, but I can also look at it some things; perhaps not wonderful but certainly enjoyable. So it’s quite a conundrum.
Boris is a neurotic genius, not exactly a new thing to Woody Allen films. The film examines his experiences when he takes a stray girl from the South soon to be joined by her ridiculously dysfunctional family. The film examines the hilarities that ensue when they coincide with Boris’ life. It’s ostensibly the typical Woody film; but yet it’s not. I racked my brains, wondering if I’d not be able to put my finger on it. Then it became obvious – Larry David. I’m neither here nor their when it comes to Curb Your Enthusiasm, and this is no reflection on David’s ability as an actor. However he was horrifically miscast as Boris.
Woody is getting old and it’s probably time for him to hang up the hat as far as acting goes, but I couldn’t help feeling he’d be the perfect fit for Boris ten years ago. Or what of Alan Alda? In addition to being an exceptional actor, Alda can play a mean character with traces of sympathy. I don’t know if it’s him or if his interpretation of the character was amiss but I felt nothing for him. There’s a scene towards the end. Evan Rachel Wood’s Melody is leaving Boris. As she tries to break it gently to him he gives a series of sad but funny lines. It’s supposed to be pithy and funny, but David’s delivery gave me nothing. I don’t know if it’s me only, but he just didn’t work for me. The first twenty minutes particularly depend on him and thus those first twenty minutes are horribly weak for me. But it gets better.
Evan Rachel Wood is a fine actress. She’s not exceptional but she’s good. Her country accent may be schmaltzy a bit at first, but she doesn’t overdo and I found her so enchanting at times. As has become a stalwart in Woody recently the film doesn’t really develop until that pivotal character enters. Penelope Cruz came in halfway through Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Scarlett comes in a little earlier in Match Point, but both films take a turn [generally for the better] with both women. This time Patricia Clarkson is that pivotal character. Playing Melody’s mother it’s even a fuller character than she played to perfection in Pieces of April. And she’s great. I hesitate to say exceptional, but she’s great. The supporting cast all are great in spots, and really the chemistry though not earth shattering is pleasant.
Whatever Works is a film that Woody Allen’s fans will like, but I’m not sure if he’ll win new fans with it. It’s not as aware of itself as Vicky Cristina Barcelona, not as consistently witty as Match Point, it’s not even as unselfconscious as Scoop. But it’s good. It may be remiss of me to blame David for the failures, but that's how I see it. I’m bordering on B-, but the film really is pleasant. It may be subject to change but right now I think it’s better than that. Maybe.
B-/B
I'm not really big on celebrity birthdays, but a few days one of the most vivacious young actresses celebrated her 25th birtday, I'm in the mood for list making so it occurred to me that I'd make a list of Scarlett's better times on sreen. I know it's currently en vogue to dislike her, and sure she's not the best actress of her time. But I do feel she's talented. Take a look at my five favourite Scarlett moments.
Olivia Wenscombe in The Prestige (2006)
"He wants me to come work for you and steal your secrets."
Pursy Will in A Love Song for Bobby Long (2004)
"Everyone knows that books are better than life! That's why they're books!"
Cristina in Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
"I'll go to your room, but you'll have to seduce me."
Charlotte in Lost in Translation (2003)
"My husband's a photographer, so he's here working. I wasn't doing anything so I came along."
Nola Rice in Match Point (2005)
"I was doing fine until you came along."
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
If you’re into classic gossip [How’s that for oxymoron?] you probably know about the rivalry between Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. Bette put it oh so nicely when she said that nice people play bitches on screen , which is why she [Bette] often delved into more complex characters on film. Joan on the other was a bitch, and played good girls on screen to get over herself. I can’t say if that’s true, I’m not a staunch believer in Bette Davis, though I don’t really care for Joan Crawford either. Whatever. But if you’re looking for a Crawford character that’s a good girl – look no further than Mildred Pierce.
I know that my blog buddy Twister loves this movie, and it is quite good. It’s #97 on my list of favourite films. I’m not quite sure if Mildred Pierce represents some of the finest film making of the era – but there’s a particular reason that it, along with so many films in my top 100 are my favourites. It’s so easy to just pop this in and watch it; but for the life of me I always see Mildred Pierce as more of a comedy veering into camp than a straight up drama. But that probably just shows how screwed up my sense of reality is, because I suppose the film is serious. A serious melodrama, but serious nonetheless.
Spoilers Abound: Be Warned
I’m actually quite glad that there’s going to be a remake of this, since there are some things that I think can be worked on. Joan Crawford tries her best with her role, it’s the type of baity role that is still a bit boring and she really does try. There’s that scene when Mildred goes to the club and sees Veda singing. She has just recently thrown Veda out of the house and seeing Veda makes her realise just how much she loves her daughter. So when Veda suggests that she marries Beragon to have her back, it seems logical for Mildred. But, it doesn’t seem logical for me. I hate the way this issue is treated, as if it’s normal for Veda to demand this. Of course, Veda is not your typical eighteen year old – but still. I would have liked to see something more, like an internal struggle with Mildred as she weighed the options, or perhaps a bit of crying as she resigns herself to her fate. I don’t know something, though I don’t know what exactly.
Still, Mildred Pierce is still an enjoyable film. Crawford won an Oscar for her role and Ann Blyth [as her daughter] and Eve Arden [as her workmate] were both nominated. Anne was commendable in her role, though as the film continued she got a bit too schmaltzy for my liking. Eva Arden was great working with a very thin role. She definitely did an exceptional job of rising above the material. Then there’s the child actress Jo Ann MArlow who plays Mildred’s younger daughter. She’s out the film before it’s half way through, but I found her performance quite impressive. The men, I suppose, are fine; but they’re nothing outstanding.
Mildred Pierce is a nice piece of classic cinema, and it wouldn’t hurt you to watch it.
I'm so stressed out at the moment, University students are pissing me the hell off, and since I get so annoyed with lazy people - it's unsurprising. Sigh. School sucks. Moving on, I've been doing a whoooooooole lot of reading. I'm now following 211 blogs. I really have a problem, but I CAN'T STOP. I need to update the sidebar to include all those new blogs, but not now - too tired.
So Twilight was a massive success. Come on. We all saw it coming...These are some recent posts talking about the 'wonderful accomplishment'. Sigh.
Moving on, the release date for Nine is drawing closer and they're giving us these posters left and right. Jose rips into them. Not quite sure I agree with him completely. But he makes some good points, and it's a good read.
The Mad Hatter is looking at 2008. What do you think of his top 5?
Do you like Double Indemnity? The ubiquitous Billy Wilder classic? Read Univarn's review.
Fritz is ranking the Best Actress Winners. He's already ranked a number of my favourites...and he's still in the fifties! Sage is ranking the Supporting Actress Winners. Check them out.
Okay, I'm too tired to find more. I'm going to bang my head against the desk. Really, I am!
Monday, 23 November 2009
This is another issue that exemplifies how unreliable absentminded careless much I have on my plate at the moment. I don't know, somethings just slip my mind, not because they're unimportant - but because I'm me. I’ll be honest; the Katharine Hepburn Awards on my sidebar slipped my mind. I’ve been collecting your votes for the final round for what seems like a lifetime. And it’s been a while. During the temporary inertia as it relates to that feature of the blog, I’ve gained quite a few more followers and visitors so I’ll just extend the invitation to them to Vote in the Awards.
Anyhow, it’s official. On the 11th of December I will finally be releasing the results for the Katharine Hepburn Awards. It’s been a few months since the list was made, the nominees and then the finalists chosen. I’m not quite certain, but I probably will be continuing with that blogathon re-scheduled for the 11h too. Katharine Hepburn has quite a vast filmography and she’s worked with a number of legends – Grant, Stewart, Olivier, Tracy, O’Toole, Hopkins, Poitier. She’s done something for every one, so you have a wide variety of choices. There’s no stipulation; you can focus on the movie itself, you can focus on the performance. You can be a lover, a hater – no pressure. Just a few paragraphs, pages on Lady Kate. Seriously, I want to hear something from all of you. Even those of you who are not exactly Classic Cinema fans. Yeah, I'm talking to you too! And you're pretty much free to pick whichever film tickles your fancy, though I hope we can exhaust the list below.
Adam’s Rib
The African Queen
Alice Adams
Bringing Up Baby
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?
The Lion in Winter
Little Women
Long Day’s Journey Into Night
Morning Glory
The Philadelphia Story
The Rainmaker
On Golden Pond
Stage Door
Suddenly Last Summer
Summertime
Woman of the Year
So yeah, this is me begging ordering pleading asking requesting that you polish up your writing skills for 11th of December. You'll hear more on the issue before then.
Sunday, 22 November 2009
I’m not a big William Wyler fan. It’s weird. The guy is one of the most prolific directors of his time. He directed some great performances, and Oscar seemed to love him a whole lot, but I’m just not a big fan of his. I suppose it’s a bit unfair that the only film of his that’s on my list of favourites is one that many don’t appreciate that much. But that’s me; swimming against the tide as per usual. It’s also one of the last films he did – the 1967 musical Funny Girl.
Because the Oscars are crazy and could never reward a Hepburn picture with the top prize I guess I shouldn’t be that bummed that The Lion in Winter didn’t walk away with the top prize. But if they were going to reward a musical, why not reward the superior of the two – Wyler’s Funny Girl? Oliver was just abysmal – but I digress. Funny Girl is a simple story. Fanny Brice is a Jewish girl who hopes to become a star. She does, but at what cost? Like so many musicals, it’s not the actual plot that makes the film so wonderful – it’s the performers. And the success of Funny Girl as a film is rooted in Barbra Streisand’s eclectic performance as the funny girl.
The majority of the numbers in Funny Girl are sung by Fanny and this gives Barbra much room to show her range – both as a singer and an actress. She always thrived in comedy, so songs like 'Second Hand Rose' and especially 'You Are Woman, I Am Man' are done to comedic perfection. But when she gets teary eyed in those dramatic moments, it is beautiful too. 'People' is sung wonderfully, and wonderful finale of 'My Man 'is legendary for a reason, but I’ll get back to that. The pivotal song though is the title song, 'Funny Girl', written for the film version. It’s a slight number, but Streisand’s packs all her power into it, and it’s beautiful.
Omar Sharrif though is quite good as Fanny’s object of affection. The man is charming – we’d learnt that from Dr. Zhivago already, and he uses this charm once again in Funny Girl, and it’s wonderful. He and Streisand play wonderfully off each other, and though I suppose the performance is not really that strong, I’d have liked to see him nominated somewhere.
I said earlier that that final number in Funny Girl has become legendary. As Fanny performs 'My Man' and the camera closes in on Streisand’s tear stained face and all fades to black it’s all chillingly good, and it’s a nice bit of direction from Wyler. I don’t know, maybe Funny Girl is a guilty pleasure. Perhaps it’s not as good as I feel it is, but who cares. It’s #79 and I happen to like it quite much. What about you? What do you think?
Saturday, 21 November 2009
I’m going to be seeing four new films over by Friday. As you know I’m sort of obsessed with seeing as much films as possible from 2009 and currently my mediocre list of thirtysomething is not very admirable. But I’ll keep travailing, of course. I’m seeing Whatever Works – Woody Allen’s piece which has had essentially zero buzz after its early release. Then I’m seeing Moon. Univarn and others have given this a quite positive review, so hopefully I’ll enjoy it as much as they. I do think Sam Rockwell is talented. Then it’s on to Antichrist – Lars Von Trier’s controversial film. To be honest, my main draw to this film is Willem Dafoe. But I’ll see what happens here. Then I’ll be seeing The Private Lives of Pippa Lee with Robin Wright Penn and Julianne Moore. Hopefully I’ll write a review for each, but knowing me, I guess we shouldn’t bet on it. Still, I’ll try. Is there any of the four that you particularly want me to review? Tell me which of the four have you seen? What are your thoughts? And no spoilers please.
Every now and then I have to remind you guys [and myself] that what I’m currently compiling is not a list of the best films of all time – or even the best films that I’ve seen. The word best is one of the silliest words in our language. Good, better, best…who decides? I don’t know. This is a list of personal favourites – and personal favourites aren’t always reciprocal with best ever. I can say, without personal affinity that Schindler’s List is a great film, but it’s nowhere on my personal cannon. So be warned. The Godfather is another film cited as greatest ever. I’m not sure. Who knows? But it’s in my cannon. So here I am, taking a look at Coppola’s The Godfather.
It’s more often that those huge films which the ‘serious’ film enthusiast regards as necessary to the understanding of film are not the ones that are dear to my heart. It doesn’t take a brainiac to realise why. Those lesser known films would present a more personal experience than those huge ones that everyone loves. Still, The Godfather is one of the hundred films that I think about when I hear the words movies. Although it was not my favourite film of 1972 I do prefer the original to the sequel. There’s just something sumptuous about Brando, Pacino, Keaton, Duvall and Caan all in one film. Still, I suppose the typical person would object to my placing of this at #87; but all things being relative as good as it is – I don’t love it as much as I love some others.
Whichever way you put it, Marlon Brando should have two Oscars so I can’t really fault the Academy for rewarding for his role as The Godfather. And I can’t object really to the placing of him as a lead character. It’s obvious that there is some method in the apparent category placement madness. Thematically his character does loom over the film as a lead character is wont too. Still, I don’t appreciate any of the actors as much as I appreciate Al Pacino in this film. It’s probably my favourite performance of his and I really do enjoy the chemistry he shared with Diane Keaton before she became Annie Hall. Watching Pacino develop as a character as the film continues is a joy and it is a good job of acting, category confusion notwithstanding.
There is something that’s quite elegant about The Godfather. It’s a really classy film and it shows. Every shot, every scene – it’s all tastefully done. This may be a film about gangsters, but it’s not a film about hoodlums. Whereas Scorsese’s GoodFellas was about the nitty gritty of the gangster world, The Godfather was about the glamour. They’re too different films, both great in their own way. I don’t like The Godfather as much as many, but I like enough
Friday, 20 November 2009
I my have said it before, but I’ll say it again for good measure – I believe Martin Scorsese to be the greatest living director. And even one of the greatest of all time. I haven’t exhausted his filmography, but thus far I’ve yet to see a film from him that I consider to be bad. But I digress. Today, Scorsese is seen as a prerequisite of any Leonardo DiCaprio film; but back in the day there was no star more associated with Mr. Scorsese than Robert DeNiro – and three of their collaborations have ended up on my list of 100 favourite films. GoodFellas, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull are three great films. More often than not when we think of films worthy of being dissected bit by bit one of these come to mind. I had mentioned in my review of The Aviator that Martin Scorsese is probably the director who has most been touted to win the Oscar without ever succeeding. The critical reaction to Taxi Driver may not have been that overwhelming – it was one of the earlier works from Scorsese, but it was seen as a bonafide contender. And if you were to check the archives, there were quite a few betting on GoodFellas and Raging Bull. But what is it that I love about Scorsese…or more importantly, these three films?
There has been a recurring theme in the majority of Scorsese’s films – the disillusionment of the protagonist – Travis, Jake, Newland, Howard Hughes and even Jesus as far as Scorsese was concerned were perfect examples of broken men. It’s a theme that worked in each of these films, but also a theme that never felt heavy handed or unoriginal. GoodFellas emerges as my favourite of the three at #67. It’s ironic that that’s the one with the least bit of DeNiro. Ray Liotta has always been something of a guilty pleasure to me, and looking back I’ve always wondered why he didn’t make it as a ‘real’ actor. He was good looking and seemed to have more than a smidgen of talent, and what better way of being thrust into the limelight is a Scorsese film? GoodFellas is often regarded as the greatest thing that Scorsese has ever done, and though it’s all pretty subjective it is rather good. GoodFellas holds a certain importance because it saw Joe Pesci winning his Oscar. Despite not being one of my top ten favourites in the category, it’s one of the better wins of the 90s when Oscar made some glaring missteps. As with most Scorsese films the extensive cast plays an important part, and the cast of GoodFellas is pretty much spot on in terms of characterisation providing for a pretty good movie any way you look at it.
Raging Bull is a film I’m not sure I love as much as I appreciate or perhaps, respect. There is no denying that it’s something special and I must say that I consider it superior to Ordinary People – but that’s all blood under the bridge. Any one who doubts DeNiro’s prowess as an actor needs to see this film. Me, I’m no so big a fan of the guy – but when he does his thing he is outstanding. Still, I couldn’t help but be impressed with Joe Pesci’s supporting [Oscar nominated] role. It’s a performance that I like quite much, though I suppose I can’t fault Timothy Hutton either. You’ve probably heard the story of its production. After the unwittingly bad reception of New York/New York [a DeNiro classic no less] Scorsese sunk into depression and considered giving up filmmaking. Raging Bull was what pulled him back and although the initial reaction was not overwhelming it turned out to be nominated for a host of Academy Awards and today has become one of the greatest films of the eighties. Well as far as we’re concerned anyway. It’s my #90 in terms of favourites, but it’s still one hell of a film.
Taxi Driver is a bit different. Is there anyone redeeming in this film? Not likely, but it’s brilliant. For the record, I despise Rocky. I just wanted to get that out there. So, hell yes, I’m prejudiced against it. Taxi Driver is pretty straight up, with a twist of course and although I suppose DeNiro does more obviously good acting in Raging Bull, Taxi Driver depends completely on him. That pivotal scene where the audience realises that this guy they’ve been rooting just may not be so worthy of our admiration is chilling. DeNiro commitment to the role is awesome, and no one directs them like Marty can. I can only imagine what the response of the average moviegoer was to that experience. here they were probably thinking this was going to be your typical one man law machine type of flick, only to have that notion completely dashed. Taxi Driver is my #78 and it is one smart movie. You have to give it that.
So, there you have it. GoodFellas ranks at #67, Taxi Driver ranks at #76 and Raging Bull at #90. You may argue that they’re too low. You might be right. Who knows? But which of these greats is your favourite?
Thursday, 19 November 2009
I cannot talk about The Wings of the Dove without revealing what could be some psychological issues of mine. The Wings of the Dove is based on a novel by the talented Henry James. I prefer the film. Surprisingly actually, because I’m quite fond of Henry James as it is. The eponymous Dove of the title is an American heiress Millie, you’d assume that Kate Croy, ostensibly the lead of the film/novel is the dove – but I suppose she’s closer to a hawk or a vulture. Of course, I don’t think she is, it just seems to be public consensus. I don’t like Kate because Helena Bonham Carter plays her. My love and sympathy for Kate Croy’s character has nothing to do with Helena, but with my thoughts on the entire plot of the story.
Millie is an heiress and she is dying – quickly. Kate befriends Millie who forms an attraction to Merton Kate’s [secret] boyfriend. Kate, ever the thinker, suggests that Merton pretends to love Millie – she’s dying anyway – and then when she dies he’ll be rich and they can get married. There is a thin line that this film must tread on. Kate does not want Merton with money because she is some sociopath money loving woman. Kate is the type of young lady who realises that nothing can come of poverty, and she knows, more than many that without money oftentimes goodness leaves with it. Perhaps she is just a bit too selfish, but she’s not a villain. At least I’d like to think she isn’t. Reading Henry James, I can’t help but feel that he’s not all too fond of Kate, but looking at Helena’s characterisation in Ian Softley’s underrated piece I feel for Kate, palpably more than I can when her story is told through the eyes of Henry James.
I never realised how small Helena Bonham Carter was until The Wings of the Dove. Physically, her figure is so slight, even in A Room With a View she did not look as delicate. Knowing how big a fan I was, Joe said he’d like to here my criticise her. It’s not the greatest performance of all time; but I can’t recall that there’s anything I found obviously inconsistent in her performance. There was a general enigma surrounding the performance, but I figure that the character is a bit of enigma, so Helena was just doing her job.
But Helena is not the only one responsible for the goodness of the film. In such a weak year for supporting women it is a tragedy that Alison Elliot’s delightful performance as Millie could not be recognised [despite love from the SAG]. She’s the perfect antithesis to Helena and with such a resplendently good character she never gnaws at you or makes you annoyed. I suppose in a way that Linus Roache's Merton is a bit overshadowed, but he shines in the early and final scenes with Bonham Carter. Though I can’t say I care too much for his role his performance is not at fault – or, it shouldn’t be. Michael Gambon has something of a cameo and he, along all the other bit players are good in their roles.
I can always assume that the reason that this film wasn’t as well received as it should have been is because it touched on so many deep issues. Even this age of social consciousness and modernised view &etc, money is still a startlingly taboo topic. But in an age where we can regard the importance of the dollar I think we can understand Kate’s plight a little more. However, I err in making this plea. If you have seen this film there’s no telling what your reaction to Kate is. It really is up to you whether or not you think she is a character worthy of our esteem. What are your thoughts on Kate Croy? Or have you not seen this yet? And if you haven't. You should. It's on youtube for christ's sake; and it's my #75, I'm assuming that means something to you...
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
I’ve never read the novel on which The Talented Mr. Ripley is based; however it’s one of those rare instances on the internet where I’ve heard fans convinced that the adaptation was better than the original. I’m a prejudicial fan of Anthony Minghella, I’d be hard-pressed to say that each of his films has been a masterpiece; but I’d also be hard-pressed to trash them either. Minghella is just one of the directors [along with Lean, Scorsese, Cukor and a few others] that work for me, and whom I defend regardless. The Talented Mr. Ripley was released three years after Minghella’s amazingly successful The English Patient, and even if preference would entice you more to Ripley, we could hardly have expected lightning to strike twice as far as critics and the Academy were concerned. We could not expect it to be as massively successful as its predecessor, and it wasn’t. After spotty appearances at precursors it earned four Oscar nominations [Screenplay, Art Direction, Supporting Actor and Score]. It won none. But to look at The Talented Mr. Ripley from this excessively superficial stance belies the beauty and the maturity with which the film is made, and though it’s not my favourite Minghella film I do believe it’s his most accessible.
Tom Ripley is the protagonist of the story, protagonist he may be but not the hero. He is a young man of mean circumstances who upon chance is thrust into a world that begins dangerously enticing to him. It is the world of Dickie Greenleaf – a charismatic youngster – who ranges from Tom’s tyrant, his best friend and perhaps even the object of his affection. We can’t be too sure. It’s up to Matt Damon and Jude Law to promulgate this relationship. Matt must play a variation on a role he continued in the Oceans’ series. He must be a man who is charming enough but fails to make a lasting impression you, a man with his back against the wall who sees the most ridiculous of all means of escape. And Jude is a man who has lived his life in such luxury that he fails to realise just how desperate some are to enter it.
As good as this film is, and it is good, it seems that the scenes with Matt and Jude are just very well done. Two scenes with them come to mind immediately. The first is early on, Ripley takes off his spectacles and Dickie says, without the slightest trace of callousness “You know, without the glasses you’re not even ugly.” It’s a cold moment, and I don’t think even Dickie realises the meanness of this statement. It’s as if it’s already been ordained, Ripley is unattractive and definitely beneath Dickie…that much is certain. The second is later and much more chilling. On a train ride, Dickie lies sleeping as Tom sinisterly watches over him. He motions as if to caress Dickie and almost as if this were some psychological thriller [and who’s to say it’s not] Dickie wakes up right then, oblivious it would seem, though I’m not sure. He looks at Tom weirdly, “Why do you do that thing - with your neck. On trains you always do that thing, it's spooky.” I love Jude’s delivery, but Matt’s reaction too is a gem.
But the way I’m gushing, you’d think that only these two gentlemen lend their talent to the film; and that couldn’t be more inaccurate. One thing Minghella has been known for is his casts of good but not always overly popular actors. In addition to Matt Damon and Jude Law, Cate Blanchett, Gwyneth Palthrow, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jack Davenport lend their services – and each in their own way is effective in their roles. I singled out Cate, a few months back, as a potential candidate for a Supporting Actress Nominee in 1999. Her Meredith should be the thinnest character but her little acting idiosyncrasies make a true character that's better than she's given credit for. Gwyneth Palthrow’s Marge has been unfairly treated as time goes by. She’s taxed with more than just looking pretty. She plays Marge with a bit of gumption that just may have been residual from Viola De Lesseps; and it works. I’m still not convinced that her confrontation with Tom towards the end of the film is the right choice, but whenever I’m tempted to doubt her shrillness I remember that this is exactly how Marge would have behaved, and I acquiesce.
The Talented Mr. Ripley always made me wish that Minghella could have tackled some Hitchockian drama and done his worst with it. It’s not that this film is so frightening, but it’s that final scene that is so unnerving that it always leaves me with my insides a little upset. As we hear Tom kill Peter and listen to his sickening crying you can’t help but sympathise. It’s what makes The Talented Mr. Ripley such an uncharacteristic film. The prototypical villain does not end up dead, but then there is not a single character in the film – save for Meredith, and maybe not even her – who does not act solely for themselves. This movie should be seen for much – Minghella’s superb direction, the astounding technical achievements, the excellent performances of the cast – Hoffman, Blanchett, Palthrow, the amazing Jude Law and Matt Damon in the greatest thing I’ve ever seen him do. This film should not be missed. That’s why it’s my #54.
Monday, 16 November 2009
There are some films in my top 100 that wouldn’t require a long review. Actually, it’s not whether not they require a long review – there are just some films I just can’t wind nostalgic for 800 words on. The Deer Hunter is probably one of those films. I don’t think I ever want to see this film again. This is not a reflection of the film’s quality, because obviously it’s a favourite of mine. But some things just need to be experienced once for us to attain their full power. Cimino’s The Deer Hunter is one of those films.
Recently Univarn and The Mad Hatter reflected on war and the cinematic treatments of it, I mentioned this as one of my favourite war films…and it is. Treatment of war and its effects on man are not particularly new to the Academy, but The Deer Hunter is one of the smarter choices they made in terms of the genre. The film is about the Vietnam War, and chronicles the experiences of three friends. I wouldn’t mar this review with something as clumsy as a plot synopsis, because I suppose that as long as this film is, plot is not the major thing. The film is a giant advertisement for the horrors of war.
I’ve always found war as a disgusting issue and I hate to get political in speeches, so only those who know me well know my dissent on topics like war [the death penalty etc.]. However, regardless of your thoughts on war it’s difficult to watch this film without dying a little inside. It’s a film rooted in its performance, particularly those of Robert DeNiro and Christopher Walken. From 1974 to 1981 this man was on a roll [The Godfather II, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, New York New York etc] he created character after character – all troubled, each in their own way trying to grapple with the world around them. But it is Walken’s Nick who emerges as the pivotal character in the narrative. This is not by chance, and certainly Walken’s fantastic performance plays a bit in this, but in itself the role is something of a tour-de-force. Nick is the man, more than anyone, who is completely destroyed by the war – both physically and emotionally.
Film enthusiasts, some more than others, hold this film dear because it’s one of the earlier film roles of Meryl Streep. It is actually her first Oscar nomination, and don’t blame yourself if you draw a blank as to what propelled the nomination. That being said, along with Ms. Streep the other cast members [including those less important] give good performances.
The Deer Hunter is #69 on my list of favourites. It’s a good film; a good and tough film. Perhaps, sometimes before the end of the year I’ll look at it once more, just to experience it. But I need to see it to know that it is indeed a wonderful film and of the better decisions the Academy made in relation to their prestigious Best Picture Award.
Friday, 13 November 2009
I’ve been tinkering with this list for a while, so finally I’ve completed it., which marks the final category, Check out the others, if you missed.
Here is the list of the thirty supporting nominees that have had the most profound effect on me. These are the women that I think are best, well not quite the best...I'm not sure I understand what that word means anymore. Here are the women that I like the most. Enough.
TIER THREE
30 – Glenn Close in The World According to Garp
29 – Maggie Smith in Othello
28 – Julianne Moore in Boogie Nights
27 – Natalie Portman in Closer
26 – Meg Tilly in Agnes of God
25 – Angela Lansbury in The Manchurian Candidate
24 – Kate Winslet in Iris
23 – Ruth Hussey in The Philadelphia Story
TIER TWO
22 – Judi Dench in Chocolat
21 – Margaret Avery in The Color Purple
20 – Marianne Jean-Baptise in Secrets & Lies
19 – Marisa Tomei in In the Bedroom
18 – Julia Roberts in Steel Magnolias
17 – Cate Blanchett in Notes On A Scandal
16 – Oliva De Havilland in Gone With the Wind
THE FINALISTS
15 – Shirley Knight in Sweet Bird of YouthAlong with Angela Lansbury above, Knight lost her chance at Oscar to Patty Duke in The Miracle Worker. All three performances were good so I can’t say that Duke’s was underserved. Knight’s performance, though in Tennessee Williams’ play is quite good. As the estranged girl friend of hero [Paul Newman] she plays a young girl Heavenly – as tongue-in-cheek as Tennessee can get, and her role though quite important to the film; is not excessively large; but she plays it well. With a team of future Oscar winners, she holds her own quite nicely. Her ‘big’ scene comes when she faces off with Ed Begley in his Oscar winning role as her father. It’s a nice, strong moment and she does well with what she’s given.
14 – Celeste Holm in All About Eve
This performance is often regarded as inferior, especially in comparison to the ostensibly better performances of Davis, Baxter and Sanders. However, I love this performance from Celeste Holm. She’s the first person we see in the narrative, and her expressive face is what leads us back to the memory of Eve Harrington so long ago. Celeste’s part is for the most part reactive. She watches while Margo goes crazy, while Eve changes her behaviour and as her husband dallies with the actress. And it is with that expressive face that she sells it. I love that scene in the bathroom with her and Eve, and it’s exceptionally well played. Never, do we doubt her love for Margo even though her actions could have suggested otherwise.
13 – Maggie Smith in Gosford ParkMaggie Smith is exceptional. That much we know. Even with those one-liners in Harry Potter she still excels. In Gosford Park she is given the perfect role for an aging actress. Her performance is hinged into the beginning and the end of the film. At the start, the absurdity of having her maid stand in the rain is sad and humorous at once; and her narcissism in shown again at the end where she laments how trying being a witness at court would be for her. And in between that he spot-on delivery of her lines is enviable; in particular those few scenes with Kristin Scott Thomas [with whom she shared an uncanny chemistry] where she changed the course of the narrative were done well. A beautiful job from her.
12 – Patricia Clarkson in Pieces of AprilFor an actress that seems to be as ubiquitous as Patty I’m always a little bewildered at times when I realise that this is her only nomination. But then this performance is not as frivolous as it seems. The movie is enjoyable, if a bit trite but Patricia elevates her character to such a height that it’s amazing. There’s a scene that always sticks with me. It’s where she vomits in a bathroom on the road and replaces what we realise is a wig on her head. Then looking at her reflection in her mirror she gives her visage a knowing, deceptive smile. It’s a nice acting moment from her, and it’s little touches like that that make turn this character into a realistic character.
11 – Helen Mirren in The Madness of King George1994 in retrospect was quite a good year in this category. Although I was not enamoured with all the performances, it was a definite step up for the Academy from 1993. Helen Mirren’s Queen Charlotte is a Cannes’ winning performance and with reason. It is a bit of co-lead I suppose; she and Nigel Hawthorne are the driving force behind the film and she handles her role wonderfully. It’s a pity that this performance is not as remembered as it should me.
10 – Judy Garland in Judgment at Nuremberg I know that everybody in the world loves Rita Moreno’s vivacious Anita in West Side Story; but as much as I like the film and enjoy her performance I really was not gunning for her to win. I suppose that somewhere hidden there is an irony that when Judy went straight up drama she lost her Oscar to a straight up musical performance. Of course Judy has always and will always be remembered as an omnipresent musical star but this is my favourite acting performance of hers. As a pivotal witness in the Nuremberg trials there is an alarming weakness that she brings to the role which is unlike much we’ve seen her do before. Stanley Kramer handles her scenes very well and it comes off a deservedly nominated performance.
9 – Dianne Wiest in ParenthoodThere is something that just charms me about this movie; but more importantly there’s something that just charms me about Diane Wiest in the movie. As a single mother, who may be just a little crazy she imbues the character with so much good nature that she’s wonderful to watch. Never does it seem off, and never does it seem as if she’s trying too hard. Even in those silly moments with her daughter – it’s all done in good taste, so funny and yet so poignant. There’s just, as I said a charm about her that I can’t resist. She is a wonderful actress.
8 – Joan Allen in The Crucible As a fan of Arthur Miller I can’t say that The Crucible is my favourite play of his; but there is something amazing about the play nonetheless and the adaptation of it is able to capture the beauty of it. As Elizabeth Proctor Joan Allen towers above the cast [yes, even the talented Daniel Day Lewis]. Of course the effusiveness of her performance is owed to Miller’s original work; but there is just something outstanding about her performance that I just cannot put my hand on. It’s a pity that she had to go against my darling Binoche in 1996, a year earlier or later I could have seen her easily winning the populist fare that Oscar rewarded. And it doesn’t look as if he’ll ever get the recognition that she deserves.
7 – Vanessa Redgrave in Howards EndRuth Wilcox, more than any other character in Howards End, hovers over the film. It’s not the obvious type of hovering where a character’s death must be solved. But eventually we realise what it is, Ruth Wilcox is Howards End. At the end when Meg Schlegel finally gets the house, we can almost see the figure of Ruth smiling in heaven…and seeing that her character disappeared from screen almost two hours earlier, this is no mean feat. And that is because Vanessa Redgrave is so talented. I wonder if Merchant Ivory meant for this character to seem important. Even if he didn’t Vanessa certainly made it seem so. Her rapport with especially Emma Thompson is beautiful to watch and hers few scenes are just so well acted that there’s no doubt that her Oscar nomination was deserved.
I know that many are not as fond of this performance as I would like; but then many are not as fond of the film either. Glenn plays Sarah; one of a group of friend who meet for a weekend after the suicide of one of their friends. The group went to college and have met again after a parting of ways. The Big Chill is their story. You can click on the link to see more of what I thought of the performance; but with every thing she’s given and what is an ensemble film Glenn still manages to make Sarah seem more important. It’s a well deserved Oscar nomination.
I always felt that Kate’s first nomination [more than her most recent, obviously] was always the easiest; or should have been the easiest actually. With Jane Austen as her guide Kate played Marianne Dashwood, the eponymous ‘sensibility’ of the film’s title. She is the excitable middle Dashwood girls, who is Elizabeth Bennett of Pride & Prejduice – but with less morals. It’s a sweet performance from Kate, and a thoroughly English one. She plays well alongside Emma Thompson and even seems to make a convincing romantic connection with Alan Rickman, which ostensibly seems strange.
INTERNAL STRUGGLING: The Respected Women
4 – Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous LiaisonsMme Tourvelle. Michelle earned her first nomination in Frear’s Dangerous Liaisons, a nomination I wish had substantiated into a win. What I love about this performance is Michelle’s use of body language, but more importantly the use of her face. The internal struggle of Tourvelle is difficult to present cinematically, and wordiness would not be true to the character, but yet we are able to understand. Clichéd perhaps, but goodness is not something that we can hear and believe, it comes from inside and just happens to shine through. Michelle’s Tourvelle lets her goodness shine through.
3 – Helen Mirren in Gosford ParkI watched this movie thrice one day. Just because, I knew on each viewing I’d pick up something new. When you know what’s going on, it’s amazing how everything falls into perspective. There’s a scene early, it’s actually the first time we meet Mrs. Wilson, she’s directing Clive Owen where he should be sleeping. He tells her his name and you see the slightest trace of surprise on her face that is immediately cast off. It’s both the genius of Altman and Mirren that make me love that part. It’s so subtle, and yet so telling. Mrs Wilson’s internal struggle in this role is so palpable, and that last scene where she breaks down her in her sister’s arm is never superfluous, but as tender and poignant as it should be. Only Helen Mirren.
2 – Marcia Gay Harden in Mystic River
When Celeste goes to Jimmy we are to believe that this woman loves her husband. We must think that this is not a betrayal, no soliloquy is written for her to explain, we just have the actor there. And when that actor is Marcia Gay Harden, you can be assured that we’ll understand what she’s feeling – because she’s that talented. I won’t be covetous. Two Oscars in four years might have been too much, but it wouldn’t have been unseemly. No matter how much Clint Eastwood annoys me every now and again, I will forever respect him for directing this wonderful performance. Marcia Gay Harden in what could have been nothing but turned into what’s my favourite performance of her and of the entire film.
1 – Julianne Moore in The Hours
I always find it strange that I love this performance so much. Because I never question that I wanted Catherine Zeta Jones to win her Oscar, I still don’t agree with Sage and Twister when the rail about her. But still, I cannot disagree that Julianne Moore is astounding in this film. It’s the sort of performance that only gets better with age. It’s the type of performance that so many of the supporting women must do – forced to keep their feelings inside. For a film so simple, there’s that one surreal moment where Laura is about to attempt suicide and we see her bed surrounded by a murky swamp. Laura awakes with a start – a newfound intelligence. It’s a moment that shouldn’t work, in the same way that crying in the bathroom or confessing to Clarissa shouldn’t. And yet…it does work. Is it Daldry, is it Julianne? I don’t know, but it is beautiful.
Whew! That was a lot of writing. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
