Johnny Simmons

Late in the film when Clementine and Joel meet (for the first time chronologically) we get the feeling that we’re experiencing some strange time of déjà vu. It’s a different time and yet our protagonists are exactly the same. Sure, her hair isn’t the same colour, and sure they’re not on a bus alone but Joel’s good-natured blandness is the same and Clementine’s almost sadistic cheer is still there. In what’s arguably one of the most poignant moments in the film Joel and Clementine watch as Clementine and Joel break into a house. Disconcerted by this unusual woman Joel leaves. As they look on Clementine turns to him and says, “What if you stayed this time?” That, right there, is the core of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Of course it’s decidedly difficult to recreate what you’ve already forgotten but as Joel resists the erasure procedure and as the film reaches its dénouement that piece that is the human in us all realises our love of second tries…or even the third. After all Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is about repetition

I’ve often heard Eternal Sunshine referred to as a romantic comedy, but I’m never that sure that it’s a romance. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind works because it’s completely aware of one thing – its characters. It’s not exactly a character study in the most stringent sense of the word, but from Winslet’s tumultuous Clementine to Dunst’s almost pathetic Mary. There’s no one in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind that falsified and with a plot that focuses on erasure of memories, it can’t be. With his pervasive script Kaufman takes a look at the minds of us all and even more, he looks at the relation we have to fate. Erasing a single thing, even thoroughly, can’t particularly prevent us from our own inclinations as humans. The saying goes; the heart wants what the heart wants – even when the mind doesn’t have a clue. And yet, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind doesn’t exactly hit us over the head with its message, if you can call it that.

                   

Whenever I think of the film my mind returns, almost immediately, to that train ride to Montauk. It’s tied to that scene in the erasure as Clementine wanly whispers to Joel, “Meet me in Montauk.” Of course, neither of the two is aware of their past predilection for each other, but the two click, with each other even when they don’t. It’s the sort of chemistry that seems strange, but works. Jim Carey and Kate Winslet don’t exactly cross the mind as a typical couple, but it’s their unusualness that makes them work so well – and the very fact that it’s Joel and Clementine we’re watching on film, not Jim or Kate. It’s the complete self-awareness of Clementine even as she’s self deprecating – “I apply my personality in a paste” – she says, almost as if for reaffirmation. Or, Joel’s very dour opening monologues that Carey plays just right.

            

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is not a film I can extract the best scenes and write a logical analysis of, it doesn’t really work like that. It’s all the odd, idiosyncratic bits and pieces together that make for the excellence that it is. It’s a true gem, and oddly, unlike most excellent films, it’s actually remembered for its goodness. Only yesterday Luke listed it as his 33rd favourite film. It lays just a notch lower at #34 on my own list.

One of the best thing about those fickle things called Oscars is when you bitch about them with like-minded people. Many have devoted time to critiquing the women, the pictures &etc, but what about the men? Best Actor is often an interesting thing to talk about, so last weekend Luke (of Journalistic Skepticism), Jose (of Movies Kick Ass) and I sat down and discussed the 2004 Best Actor Race. Here’s part

        

Andrew: Okay, so let's get down to it. 2004. Cheadle, Depp, DiCaprio, Eastwood and Foxx. On a purely superficial level is this one of the most diverse Best Actor lineups of the decade?

      

Luke: For this category, yes, it appears it's stepped away from its typical "old white guy" tendencies.

        

Jose: Not really, we've got four real people and Clint Eastwood. Ins't that what they always go for?

         

Luke: Yeah, except for Eastwood. Being a part of the "Best Actor" lineup seems a little off for him...

        

Jose: But they always stick him somewhere, whether it be director, producer or actor, I'm honestly surprised he's never won best score or song yet.

         

Andrew: Well in reality it's not that diverse. As you said Jose, four real people. Tis real heavy; but actor wise – we have the legend (Eastwood), the black comedian (Foxx), the black serious actor (Cheadle), the former teen heart throb (DiCaprio) and the international star (Depp)...

       

Jose: and four out of five were in Best Pic nominees, so it's rather uninspiring, especially in the face of the ones who were snubbed.

        

Luke: Very true - and what an utterly confusing lineup for Best Picture... but I guess that's another story, hm?

      

Andrew: That being said. I guess we'd all agree that Eastwood would be the first one we'd boot off of the nominee list?

         

Jose : actually not me. He’s my second fave from the nominees

          

Luke: Oh definitely - I mean, I just saw Don Cheadle's performance for the first time today actually, but I'd already say he was superior to Eastwood - or at least what I remember of Million Dollar Baby.

    

Andrew: Now you've got me interested, Jose. Who would you say is the worst of the five?

     

Jose: Worst? Foxx by all means

      

Andrew: Well to be honest, Eastwood and Foxx are battling it out, but even though I don't agree with the pick I can understand why they fall for Foxx...Eastwood does nothing for me.

      

Jose: It is such an unnatural performance, not that I've a problem with over the top acting, but he struck me as disrespectful in some aspects

       

Andrew: What do you think of Foxx in Ray, Luke?

         

Luke: I'm not a big fan of rewarding impressive impersonations, so Foxx isn't high on my list. I think with Ray I had to keep from letting myself get wrapped up in loving the music and remember that he's not truly giving a great performance. I thought the movie itself was better than he was - especially Regina King. Loved her.

         

Andrew: I'll agree on that. The thing is sometimes actors can pull off the imitative thing, but the thing with Foxx his comedic talents lay in his impersonations and he was obviously pretending to be Charles and never being him.

            

Jose: I agree, I rest my case by saying I love the fact that Cate won for playing Kate Hepburn that year looking nothing like the woman, while the praise for the whole clone thing Foxx had going on with Ray is still a mystery to me

             

Andrew: Foxx just isn't that talented to pull it off and make it work, I think.

          

Jose: Definitely! He was riding on a goodwill thing, I think he won the Oscar the day Ray Charles passed away.

          

Luke: Right - it really did just feel like an extended In Living Color sketch or something... it didn't seem like he was taking the "acting" part of the job entirely seriously.

Luke: So I take it we can all agree that Jamie Foxx left a little something to be desired?

                        

Jose: I mean the man won the Album of the year Grammy as well

                

Andrew: Duly noted, Jose. Eastwood and Foxx would be easily knocked off the list...but what are your thoughts on Depp, gentlemen? He's in the middle for me

.                      

Luke: I'm on the fence about it. I thought Finding Neverland was only okay, and this nomination was very clearly a part of the Academy's new love of him (which seems to have faded since Sweeney Todd). It definitely wasn't a good showcase of his talents.

            

Jose: He was OK, I think it's part of the sudden crush AMPAS and the world developed on him after Pirates. They’d have nominated him for anything to make up for the snubs throughout the 90's.

         

Andrew: I'm a little fool-hardy about Finding Neverland. I know it's faulty, but I'm still sucked in (like Chocolat, but that's another story).

               

Jose: Haha me too but it's more about Winslet and Christie than about Depp

                 

Luke: Yeah, that one was totally Winslet's show (and a little bit Freddie Highmore too).

                  

Jose: Right, too bad they screwed it all with that awful Charlie and the Chocolate Factory adaptation

            

Andrew: A reason I'm so willing to praise Depp is that he doesn't go over board with Barrie like he could. He seems almost willing to be a little on the sidelines.

   

Jose: You know what my problem with that was? That you could see Depp underacting. The man is all about extremes I think and weird and cooky works better for him than understated

                         

Andrew: On that note of being understated, what do you think of Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda. I have a feeling that AMPAS was trying to throw off their reputation for being anti black with Foxx and I think Don would have been a more deserving (black) winner.

         

Jose: He's great! But he rides a bit too much on the Sydney Poitier wave of political correctness for him to make too much of an impact

                    

Luke: Totally agree! I was definitely think about Sidney as I was watching it.

                   

Andrew: That didn't occur to me, but now that you mention it...

           

Jose: I felt like they were consciously trying to make him into a black Oskar Schindler

           

Luke: It was quite different than what I expected - it had sort of an early '90s filming vibe to it that I rather enjoyed. I think he would've made a far better choice than Foxx.

                       

Andrew: I was telling my sister recently that the thing with Cheadle is that unlike Foxx, Cheadle is not BLACK. He's African American (or whatever), and AMPAS has a way of liking to reward the extremes.

                     

Jose: But yeah I agree, if they were trying to make it about race, Cheadle was worthier than Foxx

              

Luke: I think that Cheadle's advantage was that he seemed to have the best in show act all wrapped up. I mean, Nick Nolte and Joaquin Phoenix just bugged me

           

Andrew: But I was impressed with Okenodo. Why doesn’t the woman get more roles?

                      

Jose: But there was Sophie too! I think the film suffered because it was so small

                            

Luke: Can I just voice my confusion about Hotel Rwanda's nomination for Best Cast at the SAGs? Why is it that Phoenix and Nolte were listed out of only four people when there were dozens of other worthy speaking parts in the film? Is it a requirement to be a famous thesp to get a nomination in that category?

                

Jose: Not if you're in Slumdog Millionaire...

              

Andrew: Well look at the situation with Precious, all those girls from class were left off and in An Education for some random reason Cara Seymour wasn't mentioned even though she had more lines than Thompson and Williams.

           

Luke: AND Seymour happened to be one of the best performances in the film!

                

Jose: But doesn't that depend on the studio submissions? Or is it SAG who chooses who's worthy or not?

                   

Andrew: Does it, Jose? I have no idea.

         

Jose: If it's the studios it makes much more sense they'd want Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie to be SAG winners over people like extra # 1 or guy who's famous in the Middle East

               

Andrew: How did Brangelina get into this coversation?

              

Jose: Well I remembered he won this year and she just came into the equation haha

          

Andrew: Back to 04. You probably know this already, but DiCaprio tops my list easily. I'm a HUGE Aviator fan. Am I over praising him?

                       

Jose: Not at all, he was robbed! And they did it again by snubbing him for Revolutionary Road!

                  

Luke: No, he tops my list too. I think The Aviator has lost some of its steam for me on future viewings, but of this group, he's easily my top choice. Sidenote - I'm watching Catch Me If You Can currently, another performance I thought he was wrongly overlooked for.

Andrew: I think the thing about Oscar, it seems they're willing to reward someone who comes out of nowhere and gives a good (or baity) performance eg, Brodey, Foxx but they won't reward people who've grown up in the business and steadily improved eg. DiCaprio, or even Pitt and Depp

       

Jose: AMPAS is such a bully that way. They love one hit wonders because they are less threatening to the establishment

         

Luke: Maybe these steady steam-gatherers are the ones who'll have to wait until they're in their 50s…

                

Jose: …or get an honorary one in that awful non-televised gala

                    

Andrew: I love how you make AMPAS some like some sinister big brother type, Jose.

          

Jose: isn't it though?

                

Luke: For some reason, I just don't see DiCaprio winning anytime soon. It seems like Aviator was that moment in time where it seemed possible. But now, people just don't get as excited about him anymore.

              

Jose: it's like they're setting him up to fail, like they did with Winslet til last year. when he makes The Departed they nominate him for the hideous Blood Diamond.

             

Andrew: If I had my way I'd immediately knock out Eastwood and Foxx for Jude, Jim or Javier.

          

Luke: I would definitely place Jim Carrey in my second spot for the year...

                   

Jose: Jim Carrey won that Oscar in my mind

                 

Luke: I'd throw in Jude and Gael as well

                

Jose: What about Paul, Andrew?

        

Andrew: I don't know what it is about Sideways, but I always feel as if it's a joke that I'm not in on. I just don't get it? Am I the only one?

             

Luke: Oh gosh no, I don't understand the appeal of Sideways, whatsoever.

                 

Jose: Perhaps not but I still think Paul was sublime. The movie I don't love as much anymore.

                 

Luke: I just remember being very meh over Virginia Madsen, who at the time I saw it was the frontrunner for the Oscar.

              

Andrew: People always talk about being moved by Paul and Virginia (of course Paul is more worthy than Eastwood and Foxx) but I find Haden Church and Sandra Oh to be much more convincing.

              

Jose: I think that had a lot to do with how all the old white guys wanted to screw her and thought "if Paul can..."

            

Luke: And Paul Giamatti is so uncomfortable to watch... maybe it's because of those trailers for Big Fat Liar where he's the big angry blue dude with equally angry blue goatee. And Sanrda Oh was my favorite in the movie, Andrew.

                              

Andrew: Paul really has gone to the dogs, but I still love him. I'd have chosen him for my 05 Supporting list (over Gylenhaal too)...but that's a whole other post...

              

Luke: So where are we at guys? It seems we’re not so enthused about, well, anyone in this category. Where do they rank #1-#5 for you?

       

Andrew: DiCaprio , Cheadle (A-), Depp (B, B+ when I'm happy), Eastwood (C), Foxx (C)... I'm a lenient grader when it comes to acting though, it's more difficult to grade performances than films

        

Luke: (1) DiCaprio ... (2) Cheadle ... (3) Depp ... (4) Foxx ... (5) Eastwood [fairly similar, there]

                

Jose: DiCaprio A, Eastwood B, Cheadle B-, Depp B-, Foxx C

                 

Luke: So does this make us bitter people that the nearly unanimous least favorite was the eventual winner?

                

Andrew: Damn, right. I'm bitter.

            

Jose: Nah, if you like the Oscars this is actually fairly common, I'm quite used to it by now

            

Luke: Especially in this past decade. Sheesh.

                

Andrew: I was so invested in 04 - it was the first Oscar ceremony I was actually predicting, and Cate's win was one of the FEW highlights.

                

Jose: They tend to reward mediocrity and feel good about it

                 

Andrew: Bening's loss, MDB winning. Aaargh.

          

Jose: I almost shed a tear when Marty lost

                          

Luke: Oh god - yeah it was a pretty bad waste of a ceremony in terms of winners.

                     

Jose: ...And damn Julia Roberts should never present anything! She's always so happy when the so-so people win

                 

Andrew: She's just a happy person who loves her life.

                

Jose: Then she should hand out the Globe for Musical or Comedy not Best director at the Oscars... but I forgive her because she was robbed of a nomination that year as well...

               

Luke: Yeah, is it time to be imaginary yet? To right the wrongs?

                   

Jose: I'm sensing it'll be more interesting than tearing apart the nominees

                     

Andrew: Oh, crap. I though we did that. Okay, throwing it out: my list: DiCaprio and Law, then Carey and Cheadle and the final spot goes to either Javier Bardem or Johnny Depp or Liam Neeson.

           

Luke: My picks: Leonardo DiCaprio (The Aviator), Jim Carrey (Eternal Sunshine), Jude Law (Closer), Gael Garcia Bernal (Bad Education), and Matt Damon (The Bourne Supremacy) ... I like a hodgepodge.

                 

Andrew: I need to see Bad Education, but Luke's list looks way more respectable than Oscar...

                  

Jose: I'm biased when it comes to Pedro but yes you should. What was Liam in, Andrew?

               

Andrew: Kinsey...are you serious?

            

Jose: oh true hahaha, I always forget him and Laura.

                   

Luke: Ah, yes. Bad Education is top-notch.

                   

Jose: Mine would be 1.Jim Carrey 2.Leonardo DiCaprio 3.Gael 4.Ethan Hawke 5.Clint Eastwood

               

Andrew: Jose...Clint over Jude. CLINT over JUDE (f***ing) LAW - I'm the definition of an obsessed Jude fan, by the way. Be warned.

            

Jose: I just don't feel like Jude was as good, I loved him in Cold Mountain but he wasn't a stand out in Closer... coming from someone who'd nominated Julia, Clive and Natalie

                    

Andrew: Bastard...I forgive you though.

                      

Jose: Thank you.

              

Andrew: I'd call this the second/third Actor lineup of the year - along with 02, 05, 06...and maybe even 09 when I think about it?

          

Jose: I agree, but I prefer 03 over 05

                        

Andrew: Ooops, I mean I’d call this the second/third WORST actor lineup. 2005 was just a baaaaaaaad year, all around.

                  

Jose: I know, 05 and 08 mostly made me want to tear my eyes out in terms of Oscars because they were stupendous movie years

         

Luke: Talking best lineups of the decade in this category? I'm definitely going to have to go with '03 and '08. Although '07 was also mostly good.

                     

Andrew: My favourite best actor lineup last decade is easily 00. I'd choose anyone from there; but 03 and 07 are close behind.

                   

Jose: I disagree. Depp and Lee Jones over McAvoy can not be good in any way

                 

Andrew: I pretend Tommy Lee Jones isn't there...I really do.

Luke: That's what I meant by "mostly good." I just couldn't get into Michael Clayton like everyone else. You might hate this, but I actually really liked Depp in Sweeney Todd. Sue me.

          

Andrew: Oh crap, Michael Clayton was 07...? Okay, 07 is out. Hated that year.
               
Okay dear reader. Do you like this new feature? Any tips? What are your thoughts on the discussion? What did you think of 2004's Actor's Race? Sound off below!

It is a rare and beautiful thing when a role seems created for one actor alone. That combination of artist and subject when done right is scintillating and is a constant joy to watch. The decade has been filled with many actors performing in roles that they seemed meant to play and few were more satisfying than this treasure.

    

Being Julia - adapted from Somerset Maugham’s “Theatre” – exists as one whimsical moment after another. In a favourite scene of mine the ever dependable Miriam Margolyes asks our eponymous heroine “Do you mean that, or are you acting? I’m never sure if you’re acting.” It’s a significant moment; not only because of Annette’s brilliant response but because of Dolly’s incidental but accurate supposition. Annette is not the first woman to play an actress, nor is she the only one to play it brilliantly. It’s a situation where Julia is always on the offensive. How do you play character that never seems to settle and exists – at least ostensibly – in her upper register throughout?

                 

Observe Annette in her first scene – not the one that rolls during the credits, the one after. She bursts into hers husband’s office for a monologue. “I’m tired, I’m utterly exhausted! I need a holiday.” Julia isn’t on stage anymore, but don’t tell that to Annette. She’s still very much ON. It’s not until she has accomplished her wish – Geoffrey’s acquiescence – that she really does lose her character and settle down to her real self, or at least what she hopes for us to perceive it to be. The thing is we notice in passing that Annette is giving a good performance but I’m never sure if we realise just how much of a double edged sword Julia Lambert is. Yes, the role exists in that tone where it’s easy to catch the audience, but on paper – delightful as it is – Julia exists not as a person, but as a character (albeit a marvellous one). Annette is forced to do twice the work.

          

It’s obviously a showcase for a woman her age; she makes those memories with Micahel Gambon work as well as she gets fed line after quotable line. Sometimes she seems to exist doing monologue after monologue as she tears through the scenes. We watch her come alive as she experiences the rebirth with Tom, but she doesn’t make it too serious because this is not a serious film. As the relationship heads downwards we are just as thrilled watching her at her low points. It’s one of the traits of an Annette performance isn’t it? She’s so willing to be a masochist – always willing to take her character through the unseemly at the expense of pride. The thing is we constantly get the feeling that she still is playing a part. It’s not that Annette is not acting sincerely, but she’s playing a woman with little sincerity…or is she?

We have to look closely for the moments when she’s caught unawares. For example, when Charles tells her he’s gay. That nervous laugh and then that slight twist of the head are unlike the Julia we’ve seen before. There is a natural easiness that is not forced. Still, if anyone brings out the easiness in Julia, it’s Roger – her son, played excellently by Tom Sturridge. In fact, Roger should be credited with the epiphany that changes the course of the film. As he tells her how unrealistic she is, the look of surprise on her face – authentic for once – is startling and unaffected. It’s as if at that moment I see the real Julia coming forth, more subtle than her histrionics imply. It leads of course to that delicious one woman show against that little “tart” Avis Creighton which will definitely be high on a list of scenes of the decade. It is unforgettable, no doubt. But that’s assured; we know Annette is capable of that. It’s the moments after when she laughs exuberantly with her assistant or when Geoffrey jovially calls her a monster. The delicious response of hers? “That’s how you love me!” And isn’t she correct? That is how we love her.

          

There is a thin line between characterisation and caricaturising. Some technical geniuses can pull it off – some cannot. I started my obsession with Katharine Hepburn somewhere in 2004 and though years have passes, although I now realise that much of the film was heavily fictionalised I still regard this performance as a magnum opus of sort. I remain enthralled by it each time I see and though I wouldn’t quite call Cate a genius (Kate is) she comes dangerously close here.

Even though persons always cite Scorsese as being filled with testosterone he has extracted some brilliant performances from women. A career defining turn from Burstyn, a life changing performance from Stone, a prodigious turn from Foster, a brilliant performance with a nondescript role from Farmiga and Cate Blanchett’s excellent take on Katharine Hepburn. I have to address the obvious before I look at Cate. She's not Katharine Hepburn, because of course Kate’s uniqueness is unparalleled but Cate Blanchett has always been an actor dedicated to transformation. Sometimes I feel that she plays her characters from the inside out. We define Sheba by her beauty, Elizabeth by her strident voice, and Galadriel by her ethereal charm and Cate works from the outside to create the Kate within. How do you play the private life of someone who never let us into her personal life? It’s the difficulty that Cate is given, and it’s why I find the performance so brilliant.

Cate/Kate is a burst of fresh air to The Aviator. She is unlike the women of the time and she lends a sense of joie de vivre to the dourness of Hughes. The entire first meeting between the two is one giant Oscar scene and even though Howard speaks it’s really just Cate’s show, with quotable line after quotable line. I do love these moments, but they’re not the reason this performance is so worthy of praise. Cate triumphs in the quieter moments when the task gets more difficult – playing Kate like a woman and not like a star. Of course, she gets the steely charm down as she tells the waiter at the Coconut Grove who calls her Mrs. Hepburn “It’s Miss” and the glint in her eyes as Howard tells her of his excursions. But I like, for example, when Jude comes to the table and in a throwaway moment critics her hands to which Cate (surreptitiously) looks at her hands. I love that moment, it’s the self conscious way that many don’t remember Kate for, but was still there. Or the glee in her eyes as she flies Howard’s plane.

Kate Beckinsale provides the sultriness of The Aviator while Cate must provide the emotional core, in some ways she must represent the absent mother of Hughes. For example, when he breaks his first flying record the joy on her face as she vicariously enjoys his success. Her subsequent monologue could get heavy handed by Cate plays it just right. And though the line is a bit too on the nose I love her reading of it, “You taught me to fly Howard. I’ll take the wheel.” The sincerity of it is profound and it’s part of the brilliance of Cate. She is carving a new character but one that has it’s root in the real Kate of course. Even she would admit that she wasn’t always the most gracious person and though Cate doesn’t exploit this, she does lend touches of the shrewish Kate. I admire Leo’s Howard but it’s undeniable that whenever Cate is onscreen no other actor has a chance. Even her goodbye from Hughes which exists as a moment for DiCaprio is still hers as Scorsese wisely cuts to her reactions you realise that even when she’s not the “centre” of attentions Cate never loses character. That final double take as she leaves the room is striking, though I wish she’d never have left the film…even if it's still a favourite of mine...

Sometimes – often I should say – I doubt my credibility when it comes to making these best of lists. Yeah, yeah it’s all subjective and whatnot but some actors just work for me more than others but then again maybe I’m just being paranoid. The whole point of making this list is to highlight those performances that have impressed me the most, so it would be remiss of me not to have this on the list...even if no one agrees.

             
#8 Jude Law in Closer (2004)

Not to regress, but when I spoke about The Messenger (one of my favourite films last year) I remarked that I couldn’t quite understand who all the critics could remember Harrelson’s (admittedly good) performance and ignore Foster’s brilliant one. It’s one of the many things I don’t understand about awards. You can’t notice one good thing about a film while being oblivious to the rest. The same thing happened in 2004. Natalie Portman and Clive Owen picked up accolades left and right for their performances in Closer but Julia Roberts and Jude Law earned few. The thing is, I was particularly angry since Jude’s Dan continually emerges as the best performance of the film for me and nothing short of excellent.

Jude Law’s most memorable performance is probably The Talented Mr. Ripley and Dan is different and yet similar to Dickie, though the two do have the same face. Dan is a struggling writer slumming it as an obituary writer at a newspaper. He meets the irrepressible Alice and after a traffic accident he takes her to the hospital. Closer is a play, and though it’s no Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf (another Nichols’ piece) it depends on its dialogue, and Jude sells it. His first conversation with Portman in the hospital is perfectly executed and it’s nice to see him turn on his charm (albeit a boorish one) for her. There’s a hint of slyness about him and you notice his eyes seem to be taking in more than just the obvious, but he’s not suave. I remember the scene where Portman tells him she was a stripper, his knee-jerk response as his eyes widen is perfect. But like all the characters in Closer Jude is no angel.

As we flash forward to his first meeting with Julia I wonder why he’s less nervous now. Is it Alice? His novel? But there is a pep in his step now and he flirts with Anna his charm is undeniable. As cute as he and Natalie look together I remain convinced by the relationship between he and Julia here, even before it begins. The two work brilliantly together, and as they drift into their banter it’s a delight to watch. It’s obvious what’s coming next, or is it? I, surely, wasn’t expecting Dan’s chat-room liaison with Larry. But it’s the appearance at the Julia’s party where Jude has another brilliant moment. Most recall Portman and Owen’s scene but it’s the adjacent scene between Roberts and Law that impresses me. The attraction between the two is palpable and the resulting confession Dan gives to Alice is no surprise. It’s memorable as being Portman’s moment but the sincerity of Jude here is worth remembering. “I want someone who doesn’t need me” is what he tells her. Dan is selfish, perhaps the most selfish of the story, but Jude is careful not to make him unredeemable and that’s an important quality of his because even though he’s the most selfish he’s also the most sympathetic.

His final scene with Julia always saddens me a little. It’s the lone moment of happiness the two share, and they’re soooo comfortable together it’s a pity they couldn’t remain thus. That solitary moment in the bathroom when he realises what has happened is superb. It’s a talent Jude has of showing his emotions with the slightest movement. If I have to single out a moment it’s his breakdown to Clive Owen. It’s pathetic and shameful and Jude sells it completely. It’s difficult not to pity this poor fool – and it’s really downhill from there, relationship-wise. The romance with Portman isn’t as authentic anymore and that defining moment (the “slap”) is unfortunate. I know that many feel Dan gets what he deserves but as Julia and Clive return to each other and Natalie returns to herself I feel badly for Dan as he remains there and learns in the most pitiable of ways who Alice Ayres really was. It’s right, I guess, that the last moment of him features him using his excellent facial expressions again.

It’s anyone’s guess why British actors are so successful in Hollywood. I suppose if you measure it there are more American actors in the business – obviously – but when we think of important thespians (Olivier, Burton, Leigh, Hopkins, Day Lewis, Dench) we often turn to that little island and with the new generation of actors coming up even though Australia and other parts of Europe have made their indelible stamp on it all, there is still a significant quantity of British talent continuing to impress on the screen. And few are more important than this lovely lady in this wonderful performance.

            

Many single this out as Kate’s best. I wouldn’t go there, but with such an illustrious résumé there are a number of performances you could make the best of argument for. Eternal Sunshine was one of the better films from 2004 featuring a brilliant turn from Jim Carey as Joel Barish; but the performance that stuck with me the most was Winslet’s Clementine. It’s difficult to adequately analyse the merits of Carey and Winslet in this comedy since the film’s nonlinear format asks you to assess their performances in no stratified order, so it’s not until the end we can look back and fill in the blanks. A favourite part of mine occurs towards the beginning of the film – though it’s towards the end in real time – the trip to Montauk. It would probably rank somewhere in top 10 scenes of the decade and though Carey’s boorish discomfort is effective it is Kate – completely – who makes it work. The conversation may sound pointless and meandering to the less attentive but it’s filled with little clues that Gondry is giving us and Winslet sells it completely.

Clementine has a number of hangups, and she knows them. In fact, she reveals a key portion of her character early on. She says it herself actually – I’m a vindictive little bitch, truth be told. It sounds like a throwaway, but it’s not actually. But as moody as she is Clementine is she is also spontaneous, fun and honest. It’s sort of a tug-o-war between the good and the bad and it’s this irrepressibility about her that Joel adores so much and it’s the difficult task Kate is given. It’s an occupational hazard, but I always marvel at Winslet’s ability to do accents. It’s precise without ever sounding pedantic and I credit her Clementine with some of my favourite line readings – You’re freaked out because I was out late without you, and in your wormy little brain…you’re trying to figure out, did she fuck someone tonight? It’s to Kate’s credit that we want to slap and hug Clementine at the same time.

The thing is when an actor becomes renowned they’re often boxed into a particular niche. A free spirit like Clementine doesn’t seem like the “quintessential” Kate performance, but Kate is an actress – above all else – and it’s a credit to her talent that she makes Clementine work. Like my favourite performance of hers – Marianne Dashwood – the performance depends on the candour and sensibility of her character. We don’t often think of Kate like this, but it’s how I often remembered her. Whether with a British accent or an American one I love her playfulness and her honesty. When she says I’m just a fucked up girl looking for her own piece mind we're right there with her. She is isn't she? Her Clementine is real and absolutely perfect - flaws and all. Few do line readings are as well as Kate's and with Gondry’s brilliant script she’s exceptional.

                      

Comic relief is usually a good way of becoming a remembered in films, but comic relief in a comedy that’s already funny is no guarantee that you’ll be remembered. I’m not sure if I’m the only one who remembers this entry, but I know quite a few who don’t. Unfortunately so, since she’s a top notch comedienne. So, here’s a look at a funny lady who’s become forgotten:

                     

                

Amy Poehler is too young for the role of Rachel McAdams’ mother; that much is obvious. However, in Mean Girls with the aid of a fake breasts and a plastic-like makeup we have her transformed - kind of. We first meet her on our visit to Regina’s house where she brings drinks to the Plastics and Cady. An apprehensive Cady asks if any liquour is involved to which Poehler deadpans: No. What kind of mother do you think I am? Do you want some though? Because if you’re going to drink, I’d rather you do it in the house. Cady smiles dubiously and we can’t help but laugh. As an SNL stalwart Amy is notorious for her comedic timing. However, her speaking lines are not what sell me on her character - it's her expressions. At the Christmas concert as the Plastics do their annual dance of Jingle Bell Rock, the camera alternately cuts to Amy in the aisle dancing in tandem – every gyration, every twist of the hip. It is one of the funniest moments of Mean Girls and it works because we completely believe that this woman is living vicariously through her daughter and friends. It’s as she tells them, You keep me young.

               

Often forgotten characters are cameos that enhance their films, even their not remembered long afterwards. If done right I’m always ready for a good cameo even though it’s more common in the comedies. In 2004, though, a favourite cameo and forgotten character occurred with this man:

                         

Jude Law has one scene in The Aviator, a film that towers at just below three hours. It’s no surprise that this is forgotten stuff, it’s not exactly that essential to the plot, but it sure is interesting. Howard and Katharine Hepburn are out on what’s probably their first of dates when Hughes’ press agent and the brash Mr. Flynn crash their table. Jude Law exudes the charm of old Hollywood; it’s the kind of cameo that you wish could become the subject of a film – because he certainly could pull it off. It’s of course just an excuse for us to hear about Old Hollywood, but it is welcome. Errol kisses Kate’s hand praising her turn in Alice Adams whilst simultaneously remarking that she should use Lux on her hands, to which she self consciously looks at her knuckles. He then launches into a hilarious tirade involving his prospective seduction of a “Ms. DeHavilland and her equally luscious sister”. It all culminates in Errol extracting a pea from Hughes’ dinner plate which only ticks the schizophrenic Hughes off. What makes this scene work is that Jude plays it as if he’s the star here, and it’s perfect for what we perceive Hollywood legend Flynn to be like. What’s even more delightful is Scorsese’s directing. As Howard and Kate leave the Coconut Grove we pan over to Flynn beginning a fight with a not-so-innocent patron that hints at – but doesn’t overstate – his anger issues.

Jude Law is an excellent actor, even if he’s hit a slump lately and his bit performance in The Aviator is just proof of his talent, and seeing Cate opposite him [even if it's only for a few moments] is good enough for me.

I’ll just bite the bullet now. I’m a fan of Lindsay Lohan. She’s definitely hitting a rough patch, but in her heyday she showed the promise of becoming one of the more talented performers of her time. It’s not often that a teen movie makes you think as much as it makes you laugh, and it’s not often that a modern teenage film about girls can be smart enough that it doesn’t turn into a chick flick. But, there is always that one special one and for me Mean Girls is that one.

                          

I figure a good deal of my early appreciation of Mean Girls derived from my teenage lust appreciation approval for Lindsay Lohan, however that doesn’t distil the goodness of the film.; both as a cinematic treat and a teenage experience. I have two older sisters, so my repertoire of light [and often senseless] teenage films is not exactly sparse. I’ve seen Bring It On  which is fine[and the dreadful sequels] more often than I’d care to admit, many of Julia Stiles’ and Lindsay’s and even some Hilary Duff [not too much, thankfully], Cruel Intentions, The Hot Chick and on and on and on.

Generally, I like to think of Mean Girls as the best of its kind. You may think me blasphemous, but I see no reason why it couldn’t have gotten some love from the Academy. As much as I love my AMPAS, [or used to]  I have to admit that a film’s reception often depends on momentum. Sure they weren’t in competition against each other, but having a teenage film like Juno up for laurels and Mean Girls not even getting a screenplay nomination seems awfully backward. But I digress. Big surprise. Back to Mean Girls. As someone who’s generally reticent about Tina Fey I have to applaud her effective writing of Mean Girls, not just by teen films’ standards – but generally. The script is riddled with quotable line after quotable, Gretchen's breakdown and the catch-phrase that's so fetch. It's just funny moment after funny moment, and the cast is more than up for it. Lindsay, Rachel McAdams, Lacey Chebert, Amada Seyfreid, Amy Poehler, Tim Meadows, Lizzie Caplan and even Tina Fey doing her non acting schtick, are all on point here.

              

Mean Girls is a film that works well for males as well as females; for adults as well as children. In its own way it’s little intricacies are just as fulfilling as any serious film. Okay, I’ll level with you. Mean Girls isn’t the best acted, best directed or best written film. But we can’t all be! It’s a good watch. It’s satisfying and funny, but it’s real and serious. It’s thought provoking but never moralistic. What more could you want in a comedy? My name is Andrew, I’m a straight guy – and I like Mean Girls. Perhaps I should be in therapy, but tt’s my #80?

               

Am I alone on this one, or can you appreciate the loveliness?

By nature, I am an obsessive soul. Thus, whenever I get interested in something my appreciation of it is not often tempered and usually veers into the neurotic. Neurotic is probably an ideal way to describe my relationship with the Academy Awards. Even though the actual results were less than perfect that first time [re picture] I was hooked from the beginning. There was a time I could list [from memory] Oscar winners in the major categories from the mid-seventies onwards. I told you – neurotic. Even though I’ve gotten wiser in the missteps of the Academy I still [inadvertently sometimes] end up regarding that day in Spring as the culmination of all things cinematic. This year, however, the nominees have not even been announced and I’ve already become disillusioned, I fear.

             

The state of the race [a word more pertinent than we realise] had exasperated me before it even began. The fêting of Meryl Streep from the get-go already annoyed me. Sometimes it really doesn’t help not being a fan of Streep because she is the most ubiquitous actress [actor] at the moment. Nevertheless, despite my general my general apathy towards her I wouldn’t deny excellence if I see it. I'm always ready to recognise a good performance form her, which is why Julie & Julia disgusted me so much. Of course all these adjectives – best, excellent &etc – are completely subjective, but the only thing Julie & Julia did was confuse me as to the validity of its place in the Oscar race. I’ve never been fond of the accented Streep preferring her more subtle performances [her Clarissa Vaughn remains as one of my favourite portrayals of the last two decades]. Of course, she’s accented quite often but Julie & Julia regurgitated memories of Bridges of Madison County a film that only makes me see red. I finally realised my issue with Streep when I read this lucid article on the woman. It gets a bit snarky, but is a startlingly good read. It’s not that her Julia Child is a horrid performance. But, chameleon or not as someone who knows absolutely nothing of Julia Child her performance made me cringe at points. I couldn’t help but imagine the more unaffected Sigourney Weaver in the role. What really irked me was the residual belief that Meryl had been robbed of a third Oscar, this entitled to this win for Nora Ephron’s diverting comedy. It’s as if they had forgotten that La Streep has two Oscars – the entire debate of her comeuppance being extinguished by woman after woman was lost on me. What turned my disappointment in the Best Actress race into the deepest dredges of disgust was the addition of a certain Sandra Bullock. I’ve never bore ill will towards Ms. Bullock – her work in countless comedies from the inspired Ms. Congeniality and While You Were Sleeping to even the dubious Two Weeks Notice has always charmed me in their placid way. I saw The Blind Side late in the game, and although the term abject horror would be an over-exaggeration of my response it wasn’t far from it. I couldn’t even write a proper review the thought of the film annoyed me so much. Of course I’d prefer Streep’s flawed but superior Julia to Bullock’s uninspired Leigh Ann, but the very fact that that’s the end all of it is quite dismal.

                                                      

I’m yet to see the heavyweights for the Actors’ race. Bridges and Firth are not my favourite actors, but with the good roles I’m willing to board either train; but I can’t help feeling cynical and thinking that perhaps Bridges is not being rewarded for a [possibly] good performance in Crazy Heart but for lifetime achievement. Noble perhaps, but still annoying. When people like Ben Foster and even Sam Rockwell are ignored at ceremony after ceremony while Morgan Freeman – a man I admire without fail – can be nominated for his unimaginative Nelson Mandela only puzzles me, but is nothing compared to George Clooney’s moderately charming but lifeless Ryan in Up In the Air. But then I realise that with so many celebrating these pieces it’s not so much as unoriginality from the awards’ ceremonies than actual belief that these performances are the best of the year, which is even more disconcerting. If Freeman gets love for coasting in Invictus, why not Johnny Depp for Public Enemies?

Mo’Nique’s Precious win has many citing it as one of the imminent saving graces of the next award ceremonies and with her eclectic Mary Jones it wouldn’t be completely undeserved. But that category has become so auto-tuned that voters just seem to throwing the usual suspects together and ignoring quieter gems with potential to disturb the waters – Samantha Morton, Marion Cotillard [not only for Nine] on some days even Patricia Clarkson. I’m not saying that all of these women trump Mo’Nique, perhaps none of them do. I realise the ball’s completely in her court, and since I’m an undeterred fan of the comedian I don’t call foul. I’m worried that I’m missing something when Anna Kendrick keeps appearing on so many best-of lists, Seriously? We're touthing this performance? But, I won’t go there.  Again.

          

The race seems to have come down to Avatar and The Hurt Locker and scores have cried foul at Avatar’s Golden Globe win. Not me. I’m still undecided as to which of the two I’d give my vote to, but Cameron’s Avatar has turned into the film I’m rooting for. Not because it’s my favourite film of the year. It’s not. But despite it’s gigantic box-office it’s ironically tuned into the underdog. Someone, I can’t recall who, called it the tendency to hate the popular kid – which Avatar has turned into. I won’t deny the ostensibly potency of The Hurt Locker – it’s probably even more profound for Americans who know its themes all to well. Bigelow and Boal have crafted something wonderful, but the relegating of Avatar to some strange names “video-game movie”, “Pocahontas redux”, “stilted dialogue”, "stodgy acting" and on and on and on confuses me. Some people just don’t like it. That’s understandable, but I’ve never been a film apologist yet I can’t recall the ludicrously horrid dialogue of Cameron. I’m sure it wasn’t Oscar winningly quotable. But since when has Best Picture turned into a screenplay award? I understand the correlation between the two, but I can’t help calling foul when Avatar’s screenplay is advertised as one of the worst this year. But that’s probably one in the long list of things eluding my poor brain this Oscar season.

I’m signing off from this season. I doubt I’ll continue my four year long tradition of skipping school to hear the nominations live [embarrassing], and I’m definitely not inclined to join in predictions, though it’s always fun to read others. I’ve already committed to the LAMB’s 2010 production of Devouring the Oscars and will be writing on a Best Picture nominee. I’d love to see an off-kilter choice like Bright Star, The Messenger or Coraline. I’d prefer not to write on Invictus, Up In the Air, Inglourious Basterds or Precious. I don’t want to write a bashing post since nominations should be a happy thing. I’m sure at least a few of the nominees will be pleasing. Watching the Golden Globes though, I couldn’t ignore the number of sad [and sometimes angry faces] – Lee Daniels, Jason Reiteman, Quentin Tarantino, Jeremy Renner all looked peeved throughout. I wouldn’t have been backing many of them but I realised that each of the nominees want to win and deserved or not I wish them the best of luck. Being nominated has become less estimable and I can understand their apparent melancholies. But as far as Oscar is concerned, I've lost the drive. Let's hope next year is better...