Johnny Simmons

Nine, along with The Lovely Bones and Chéri from the unholy trinity of films from 2009 that I liked much more than the most.

    

I don’t find anything inherently dubious in the fact that I liked all three. However, my unreserved love of Nine makes me occasionally question my objectivity, the film was the one I was most excited to see last year in a way I wonder if I willed myself to like it. I’d seen 8 ½ once and my memory of it was not expansive. (like Alvodomar and Bergman, my knowledge of Fellini and other non-English directors is unfortunately sparse). I anticipated Nine because I’d had the Broadway Recording with the delectable Jane Krakowski on repeat ever since I ever found out that there was someone called Maury Yeston and read the book of the musical. From an adaptation perspective (using the musical and not Fellini’s film as the base) Nine is almost blasphemous. The bulk of the score remains (although key numbers are excised) but the screenplay bear little resemblance to the musical’s book. It is such that Nine (the film) most daringly inventive aspect is also its most exasperating.

It’s difficult to parlay my thoughts on Nine into a succinct or comprehensible review without sounding esoteric, supercilious or confused (hence this post). It’s understandable, Nine was notably panned by the majority or “important” people. Not since Le Divorce have I been so dismayed at the critical response to a film (that includes The Lovely Bones, Running with Scissors and Chéri) – incidentally that was another Kate Hudson piece with a cast to salivate over (Naomi Watts, Glenn Close, Leslie Carron, Stockhard Channing, Bebe Neuwirth). Apologies, I’ve digressed. Yes, Nine’s concept is so outlandish that it really is more abstract than realist, I’d even go as far as to approve its intentions and execution as something of an intricate piece of artwork…

Before I continue, though, I must express the slightest bit of confusion. It happened with Burton’s Alice in Wonderland and it happened with Marshall and Nine. Why are directors held accountable for the (perceived) flaws in a screenplay? With Nine the lines are admittedly more blurred. The quasi-reality of Guido’s musical consciousness becomes an enigma – one I’m not sure is the work of Marshall, Tolkin or Minghella (who’s dead and cant’ speak for himself). Perhaps, it’s some odd hybrid of all three. Though structurally Nine is only a distant relative of its stage incarnation (complete with Yeston’s approval, though) one of the things that some forget is that musical wise it’s difficult to make Lilli’s rapturous ode to French coalesce with the pseudo European pop beats of the dancing whores or the delightfully wordy and very Broadway opening number of Guido. In many ways, I expect the stage is kinder – we’d be more willing to accept the disparity in themes there.  Cinema is different. Each song almost exist on different parts of the spectrum and ignoring the exception to the rule – consistency in musical forms is essential to a musical. Nine’s solution (a tentative word choice) lies blatant in the script – ten scenes in the life of a man. With the bulk of the original significance in the actual number 9 out of the film and with the eponymous number oddly absent, it’s any question that the film just wasn’t called Ten. add the eight principal vocalists together with Guido’s younger self and Dante and we’ve acquired the ten most important faces of the film. The bulk of the film occurs in the ten days leading up to the making of it, ten numbers are song: “Ten sequences, each one set in a different period”…

This amidst its supposed cheer (so very deliberate). Nine is not about Guido’s demise but Guido’s eventual epiphany in ten numbers. There is no thread to bind the ten episodes, but the man himself. One of the final shots of Nine is a picture of the actual film’s title card, only this time Guido is making it. Nine (the one we’re watching) is the actual Nine that Guido’s trying to create. Am I being naïve in seeing the film as a literal creation / therapy session for our protagonist? Up until the epilogue with him and Lilli precisely the sort of slightly incongruous, oddly charming, delightfully schizophrenic thing that the “new” Guido would create. Remember, all he can make now is a film about a man trying to win back his wife. Pity may not always lead to love, but it’s close enough and it’s just the sort of thing that Guido would make for Luisa.

Nine is so obviously NOT rooted in reality. Marshall not-so-subtly tells us from the inception. Isn’t it odd that Stephanie – a Vogue reporter that Guido has yet to meet (chronologically at least) appears in the overture which celebrates the women in Guido’s life? The prologue acts as a beginning of our relationship with Nine but it’s all happened before – we’re now getting to see it. Measure it against the second appearance of the ensemble (sans Luisa) and the significance of the roll-call becomes more obvious.

I had a greater respect for seeing Nine this time around. Before it was just thrilling to watch and such, but I found even more method in Marshall’s ostensible madness, amidst the original fun – well as fun as a morose rumination on talent wasted can be. It is such that Daniel Day Lewis’ first impassioned (misguided) plea for world dominance is final look at the completely decadent Guido that is only hinted at. Though it’s still not my favourite actual number (look to Fergie) or my favourite song (look to Nicole); I feel great fondness for that first song. The more I see Nine (and I’ve seen it many times now) the more I come to appreciate his performance. His sensibility is precisely the type we need for Marshall’s concept. It also makes me appreciate the placing of this number as the first song in the musical – we can almost group the songs chronologically. We move from the present – Guido’s “wanting” of appreciation, his “wanting” of pleasure with Carla (which is reciprocated) and Lilli’s “wanting” of the music, the life and the laughter. Lilli yearns for fun in the moment, but she casts the narrative backward. She explicitly warns him not to do that, “That’s death.”, but he’s not known for listening. He’s looking back to Saraghina – already past. Incidentally, Luisa is looking back too, living in Guido’s past (just as Stephanie is, oddly). Guido is a bit like a hollow, albeit affable man. There is nothing to him but his movies. “My husband makes movies.” That’s it. Stephanie is not enticed by Contini, she’s enticed by Contini’s Cinema Italiano. What happens when the talent fades? Even Saraghina’s passionate urging to Be Italian doesn’t tell us much. what is it to be Italian? I don’t think Guido knows either. He isn’t helped by the fact that his mother wonders, “Do you think that so many will love you like I do?” She doesn’t answer, but she thinks no – Guido thinks so too, that’s his problem – he can’t give all of himself because there’s nothing to give.

As we head into the final trio of numbers (the three that resonate the most, despite – or because of – their bleakness) Claudia seems to be looking back but she’s moving forward really. Kidman’s “I’d rather be the man” just might be the most layered line reading of the entire film (in retrospect, her Claudia is the film’s biggest enigma). It’s this time around I notice – for the first time – the potential play on words in “Unusual Way” . Guido has made her whole by making a “hole” in her. An unusual way? Definitely – that’s why she’s moving forward without him, like Luisa. Like Guido too, actually. Guido, the man, is leaving Guido, the artist. He thinks he’s reached the epiphany – he’s wrong. The movie’s not the problem. He is. He’s such a mess of conflicting emotions that he doesn’t realise that he can make this movie – everything he needs is around him. He needs to realise that by making Nine (the movie within the movie) – a bit of catharsis, really. Notice how in that final roll call he looks not once at his supporting cast. He only has eyes for himself (well, the younger incarnation of himself). He’s not necessarily a “better” man – but he has the ability to become a more focused “artist”.

I am curious, though; does Luisa take him back when the film is complete? She’s masochistic enough, probably. The thing is, everyone wants Guido to give them more – they want all of him. What they don’t realise is that he’s giving all that he has to give. Nine came off to many as cloying, turgid, uninspired and [insert negative adjective]. I’m the opposite. For me it’s difficult to separate Nine from its protagonist. I love it for that. Am I the only one?

When A Room With A View closes and we segue into the ending – unlike anything Forster had written – I’ll admit, I get a little happy. I’m always wont to call myself a cynic, I usually am, but I can’t deny that Lucy Honeychurch’s happiness makes me just (vicariously, of course) as pleased. It’s one of the reasons I don’t read A Room With A View in its entirety, even though I’m sensitive to the fact that a happy ending makes us lose Forster’s point – but so be it. It’s a little similar to my response to Atonement’s end, so I guess I’m really an idealist at heart.

I wonder if there’s some point that on all three of Merchant Ivory’s Oscar bids they lost to films that were more (broadly at least) male centred. Truth is, I’d have given The Age of Innocence the win in the last bid, but Scorsese’s tempered piece wasn’t even in the running. It’s not that Merchant Ivory is women based, regardless of how much I adore film books will always be my first love and it’s in this same way that Merchant Ivory is not for everyone. Of course, neither Platoon, Schindler’s List or Unforgiven are films for everyone but easily – the audience base is wider. A Room With A View, like so many of Forster’s works, examines the issue of class divisions in England but unlike a certain other class division piece A Room With A View is definitely milder – not for the worst, though. The film concerns…

A Room With A View stars Maggie Smith in a register she’s particularly used to playing, and yet her Charlotte is not a lazy characterisation...and Helena Bonham Carter as Lucy Honeychurch is lovely...it's her second film so she's not as developed as she was in the nineties but as Jose says...Her Lucy's combination of sexual awakening and innocence is delightful and sweeping. You can't put it any better than that. She's so lovely and she's only a part of the excellent cast. Denholm Elliot and Julian Sands are good as is Daniel Day Lewis and Judi Dench is small but fulfilling roles - before they became legends of the trade. I don't know why A Room With A View isn't remembered just a little more, it's such an excellent piece and it's so much fun....but not in the way you'd expect. It's thoroughly British and thoroughly entertaining and #13 on my list of favourites...What do you think of it?

Don’t you hate it when the lovers don’t end up together? Damn, realism to hell I think everyone gets those pangs in the stomach when the credits roll and you realise that the lovers will be remain apart. The thing is, it works in films. So many classics have been memorable precisely because the lovers end up apart, it hurts, but it’s still true. It doesn't count when they die, so things like Titanic and Atonement don't count. I'm talking about those films where everyone ends up alive - but they also end up alone, living alone and not liking it.These are the five that I think do the deed best. Interesting enough, interestingly all five are Best Picture winners four are Oscar winners.

 Clark Gable doesn’t do much for me, granted I’m not the target audience for him to “do things to”. He’s a fine actor, but I just never go crazy for him. Of course, Gone With the Wind is all about Ms. Vivien Leigh who is completely riveting as our protagonist Scarlett. Unlike another entry, Gone With the Wind is often referred to as a love-story, at heart - something I never really see. I will admit though, Gable and Leigh do have some striking chemistry and that makes the film just a little more excellent.

Ingrid Bergman is just lovely, and Bogey is no slouch himself. It's another one of those tragically memorable ones and with good reason, I suppose. I don't love it quite as much as the everyone else, but I do love it.There is much to love. True, the romance sometimes is secondary much of the plot - like with Gone With the Wind) and true it's a story that's more about coping with life's hardships than about love...but it's still a story about love at the end of it all.

Yes, the last one's the one that didn't get that Best Picture win (or nomination), but I'll always pretend. Michelle Pfeiffer and Daniel Day Lewis are scorching even though they spend so much time apart, but little things like a kiss on the neck, a glove are all so erotic, and it's all so tragic. Scorsese knows how to direct tortured souls, and Newland and Ellen are two such souls. Unlike the above four, they don't even get to consummate their relationships and spend just a few moments of almost bliss. Heartbreakingly tragic.

Little by little I’m doing my bit to exorcise the past from my regular posts. I’m on the verge of wrapping up those “decade in review” posts I began ages ago. You though I’d already finished, didn’t you? Well, not quite. I’ve already given you the fifteen male performances I’ve admired most this decade, so I’ll unveil the entire fifty. Before I do, though, if you're wondering about the picture of Anthony...he's the actor of the 90s in my book and I just love him in The Remains of the Day.

     

                    

*Albert Finney in Big Fish

*Alfred Molina in An Education

*Ben Foster in The Messenger

Benicio Del Toro in 21 Grams

Benicio Del Toro in Traffic

Christopher Walken in Catch Me If You Can

Clive Owen in Closer

*Collin Farrell in In Bruges

Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda

Ethan Hawke in Training Day

*Ewan McGregor in Big Fish

*Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge!

Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon

Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain

Jackie Earle Haley in Little Children

Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain

*Jim Broadbent in Moulin Rouge!

*Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

 Joaquin Phoenix in Walk the Line

Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean

*Mark Ruffalo in You Can Count On Me

*Paul Dano in Little Miss Sunshine

Paul Giamati in Cinderella Man

*Paul Schneider in Bright Star

Russell Crow in Gladiator

Tom Wilkinson in In the Bedroom

*Viggo Mortenson in The Road

       

- As noted by the asterisk, 22 of these performances were not recognised by Oscar, it’s a shame on the Oscars part. But then again, it’s not really that surprising.

- I've got waaaaaaaaaay to few supporting performances here, don't I?

- I love all the performances above, but the bolded ones are the top half. So they're my twenty-five favourites...Fifty is so much, and I still feel like I left out some exceptional ones.

- Unsurprisingly Leo features the most on the list with his three performances. I did say before he was favourite actor of the last decade. Greats like Day Lewis and Seymour Hoffman among others are there twice.

- I find it so weird that Viggo Mortenson came out of nowhere to give two (perhaps even three, or four) great performances in this last decade. I wonder if we can expect more great things to come from his this decade.

- Ewan McGregor and Mark Ruffalo both impressed in the first half of the decade, but they’ve faltered since. Is a comeback imminent for either?

                    

Martin Scorsese is my favourite director so it’s no surprise that he makes quite a number of appearances on my list of 100 favourite films. People love Scorsese...even his films that don’t get all the love [King of Comedy, Mean Streets, Casino] are still widely loved...expect for this. I could be wrong. Maybe there are people out there who love this...but I’ve never met them. I think this is Scorsese’s most underrated film. It is not ostensibly about deception, anguish or war as Good Fellas, The Departed or Raging Bull. But The Age of Innocence is as profound as Scorsese’s other works. The story is adapted from Edith Wharton's novel of the same name. It tells the story of a Newland Archer, a wealthy New York Bachelor. He is engaged to May Whitfield – a pretty, rich and dim young lady who seems infatuated with Newland. Newland is ready to set down and all seems to be going well until the appearance of May’s cousin – Countess Olenska. Olenska is European and divorcing her husband – scandalous in New York. May encourages Newland to befriend Olenska – she a social pariah...and their friendship becomes something more...

I wasn’t around in the days when the phrase Merchant Ivory signified brilliance but I’m still appreciative of the great work they’ve done in adapting classic literature to classic film. Few have done it as excellently as they have. The Remains of the Day was their final juggernaut that triumphed with Oscar – and yet the film won none of the eight Oscars it was nominated – a pity really. Something The Remains of the Days shares The Age of Innocence is a relationship between two protagonists that doesn’t go too far; in some ways I suppose it’s even going far to call the relationship between Stevens and Miss Kenton a romantic one. But it is. Isn’t it? And like Scorsese’s flick The Remains of the Day is concerned with changing social norms.Stevens has a definitive connection to his home and it’s a bit tragic to watch as it’s auctioned off, bit by bit.

The Age of Innocence is a beautiful period piece...but above all else, it is an actors’ flick. Michelle Pfeiffer, Daniel Day Lewis and Winona Ryder give outstanding performances as the three leads. If I ruled the world Daniel Day Lewis would have won a second Oscar for either this or In the Name of the Father and Michelle Pfeiffer would have also been on the receiving end of a nomination and battling it out with Emma Thompson for the win. I always marvel at how these performances were ignored. Winona Ryder was the lone cast member to make it to the Oscar race. On first viewing I was smitten with the performance. It does not hold up as well, but it is still a good performance. It’s a difficult character. Is May really that bland or is it Winona’s characterisation? It’s a tough call...but I think that May is just an unremarkable young lady. But the ending of the film makes you reassess everything that you thought earlier. Is May in fact the least honest character in The Age of Innocence? It doesn’t seem outlandish to assume that perhaps May knew of Newland’s attraction to Ellen throughout, and that one assumption makes her character so much fuller. May just may be the most artful wife. It’s a typically Scorsese turn – even if the inclination is provided by Wharton.

And speaking of endings, who can forget the lovely departure Emma Thompson makes in The Remains of the Day. My allegiances do lie with that other Thompson/Hopkins/Merchant Ivory flick. But even I won’t deny that Emma and Anthony are quite excellent here. The Remains of the Day is Anthony’s story completely and nothing he has done before or since feels as profound, real and iconic as his Stevens. It’s a wondrous thing to watch him as he shields his emotion. In some ways his Stevens seems to be the perfect companion to Helen Mirren’s Mrs. Wilson. The two would have existed in perfect cohesion. The film is all Anthony’s, but this never prevents Emma from making her mark – and with so little time. Pragmatic and yet attractive Emma is excellent throughout, but it’s here tears at the end of the film that always get to me. Such skill.

             

I know everybody was going crazy in 1993 about Schindler’s List and The Piano – two great films. But my three favourites of that year were The Remains of the Day, In the Name of the Father, The Age of Innocence. Their ranking changes from year to year but these three films had the most profound impact on me – for different reasons. I already spoke of In the Name of the Father; The Age of Innocence appears at #47 on my list of favourites and The Remains of the Day at #33. Which do you prefer?

I’m nothing if not consistent. There are actors who continually work for me, regardless of the role they take or the film they star in. When you view an actor as the finest of his craft I suppose it’s a bit weird when you have to make lists like these. I do consider this man to be the best actor below sixty at the moment, even if my favourite performance of his last decade doesn’t top the list. I know everyone continues to praise his Plainview, which was excellent even if it was outside the top 15. The Day Lewis performance that really impressed me last decade was this – unfortunately snubbed – piece.

              

If any actor can be referred to as a chameleon it’s Daniel Day Lewis. I’m uncertain who Daniel Day Lewis – the man – is. But he has the ability to become so many different characters that it’s thrilling even disconcerting at times. In Gangs of New York he plays Bill the Butcher – a man as charismatic as he is dangerous. In the thrilling prologue we watch as he kills the father of our protagonist. As I write the word protagonist I wonder if Amsterdam really is the central character of our story. Perhaps, a bit like The Departed dually centred piece Gangs of New York exists in the same realm. Bill is a thrilling character, and he’d probably show up high (higher than Plainview I think, even) on a list of iconic characters. But the iconicity of Bill doesn’t lie completely in the writing – it depends centrally on Day Lewis.

                 

I began my admiration of Day Lewis after this film, and this is actually the first searing memory of him I have. I remember when I first saw the man (out of character) I was uncertain if it really was him. It’s not just the makeup, because the use of cosmetics is slight in unearthing Bill’s character. But every movement from Day Lewis seems to be from someone completely different. His swaggering walk, his laconic manner of speaking and the little tics in his movement are all completely different from Daniel Day Lewis, as he appears normally. Gangs of New York is recalled as the last important Hollywood epic and though the film is not absolute perfection, like all of Scorsese’s films it’s well worth your time. Ostensibly Day Lewis is at his most exhilarating in the first third of the film. As he tears through the film, even though the cast (particularly DiCaprio, Diaz and Broadbent) do good work there’s no one that equals his excellence here. It’s a total immersion in character that’s almost frightening to behold. Even though the theatrics diminish as his character develops Daniel doesn’t become any less satisfying.

                 

Bill is a beast of a man, but it’s to Daniel’s credit that we never think of him as a monster. His devotion to Amsterdam is interesting to watch as is his reaction when Amsterdam’s identity is revealed. His barbaric swipe at DiCaprio is chilling as we watch the glint in Day Lewis’ eyes. He is never the hero of our story, but he continuously looms over the narrative like a bad dream of unnerving spectre that we cannot avoid. His final scene opposite DiCaprio is a poignant moment. We’ve spent the entire time waiting for this moment, and when it comes it’s not as satisfying as we hope it would be – no fault of Scorsese. It’s actually the point of it really. Bill is a terrifying creation, but he has his ethics and his reasons for why he lives. Even though the narrative never delves too deep, Daniel’s excellent performance always keeps us aware of this.

             

I resent the current state of affairs that made me wary about seeing Nine. Sure, I’m not one to quake and  I do often go against the crowd – just see my reviews of The Lovely Bones and Up in the Air and you’ll get the picture. It’s probably because 8½ was everyone’s drawing board for reviewing Nine, one of those timeless classic – yadda, yadda ya. Truthfully I’m not too fond of 8½. Granted, I’ve seen it once but other than a lovely Anouk Aimee I wasn’t too invested. Then there’s the fact that other than the visual parallels (which are admittedly milked too much) I never thought Nine was an adaptation of 8½ anyways. It’s like criticising West Side Story for not being faithful to Romeo & Juliet. It isn’t. It’s based on a Broadway play in turn inspired by Romeo & Juliet. The same goes for Nine. But I don’t want to start this out as a defence. I’m too prone to rebuttal and we can’t all like the same things – still, this was putting me in a bit of a quandary. I’m  experiencing the critical version of Guido I suppose, I’m suffering from a block. So – instead of a review - a list!

                   

I WORSHIPPED – the music. Naturally. I like Maury Yeston, he’s a poor man’s Stephen Sondheim , yes, and Nine is his piece de resistance. It’s a shame that some of my favourites were cut but each of the ten songs is beautiful to me. Even "Folies Bergeres" which always irritated me from the Broadway Cast sounds lovely here.                 

I ADORED – Carla and Luisa and Claudia. They’re the three women most important and I suppose each is perfectly cast. Certainly Marion Cotillard is the best, but Penelope is not  that far behind. She’s no worse than the company she keeps in that Oscar nominated batch, I only hope StinkyLulu has a space for me in his smackdown so I can salvage the imminent 2s and 3s she’ll be getting. Claudia was never a big role, but don’t tell Nicole that – she plays it like a lead, and that’s what any Diva does. She sings "Unusual Way" in an alto which is more haunting that Laura Benanti’s mellifluous soprano.

                       

I LOVED – "Be Italian". I’m glad they took out the line "Be Italian" you rapscallion and vocally Fergie is the best Saraghina I’ve heard and she’s easy on the eyes.

             

I GREATLY APPRECIATED – all things technical. Lighting, cinematography, costumes, hair and makeup and set design were all splendid.

           

I LIKED VERY VERY MUCH – Judi and Daniel. I’m probably alone on both counts. "Guido’s Song" just may be my favourite number and I just love how Daniel enunciates his words. When he sings "I Can’t Make This Movie" I wondered how anyone could doubt him… and Judi, darling Lilli Judi is great, as per usual. People recognise Streep isn’t doing her best work but love her nevertheless. It’s a shame the same can’t be said for Judi. She’s awesome, I like her French.

                             

I LIKED (with slight reservations) – Sophia and Kate. I like "Cinema Italiano", so I won’t go there. Stephanie is superfluous, but I can see what they were aiming at. Sophia just has to look majestic and Italian, and of course she does. I would have preferred if she’d actually song the song "Nine", but "Guarda La Luna" is a pretty number.

               

I DISLIKED – the cutting of "Simple". I know, songs will be cut (see above) but Carla needed an emotional number, it’s a pity they wanted to turn her into comic relief only.

                       

I DID NOT APPRECIATE – the story. The runtime is standard for a film, but it all flies by and so much more could have been addressed. The subplot of Guido’s childhood could have been explored so much more and though “The Bells of St. Sebastian” is not my favourite number it is necessary, though I suppose it is more of a “stage” number.

I UNDERSTOOD (but did not love) – Marshall’s approach. It’s not just Chicago redux, you can’t sing a number like "Folies Bergeres" in real time, it’s obviously fantastical. His attempts at making Nine a literal world of Guido is obvious, but more could have been done to focus on his indecisivenes and his growth as a man - sans women.

                    

I’m alone for the most part, but what’s new? Nine is imperfect, but it is inspired. I’m waiting for Marshall’s next musical since this is not the film from Hell that it’s been touted as and though he needs to bring all his talents together I know he can make something excellent in the future. His problem is not that he's a bad director, his problem is that he doesn't know to combine his talents. My prayers are with him, I hope the backlash doesn’t destroy his career.

The men were pretty matched. There were a few outstanding ones, a couple of fair ones and then the rest.

                   

Runners Up: Jeff Bridges in The Hours, Tom Hanks in Catch Me If You Can

Chris Cooper in Adaptation

Ian Mckellen in The Two Towers

Paul Newman in Road to Perdition

Dennis Quaid in Far From Heaven

John C. Reilly in Chicago

Cooper should have been nominated for American Beauty, maybe. But I wasn’t too hot on him in Adaptation. Still, I wasn’t that mad at him for getting his Oscar and stuff. It was cool seeing Newman and Reilly nominated, though absent from my five both did good jobs.

          

Stephen Dillane in  The Hours

Ed Harris in The Hours

Jude Law in Road to Perdition

Viggo Mortenson in The Two Towers

Christopher Walken in Catch Me If You Can

It was surprising that Jude didn’t pick up traction for his Road to Perdition performance. It was a haunting performance in a good film. It was no surprise that Dillane was ignored, but he was the perfect ally to Kidman and gave a solid performance. One reason the train scene works is because of the reaction shots of him. Viggo does his best work of the trilogy in The Two Towers and it’s a pity that no acting nods came his way. Christopher and Ed had the top two spots for me. I know many felt Ed was a major hambone, but he was my favourite. Figures.

          

Adrien Brodey in The Pianist

Leonardo DiCaprio in Gangs of New York

Hugh Grant in About A Boy

Tom Hanks in Road to Perdition

Guy Pearce in The Time Machine

Brodey is the best of this bottom five, but I still didn’t see what exactly the hubbub was about. And I’ll always be miffed that he has the title of youngest winner in this category. I don’t know how Leo picked up no traction for either of the performances he gave that year.

             

Tom Cruise in Minority Report

Matt Damon in The Bourne Identity

Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York

Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can

Jack Nicholson in About Schmidt

Leo wasn’t my favourite of the bunch, but it was an excellent performance that went completely ignored. There is no other actor that could have creditably sold the teenage and adult life of his character, and it goes to show that he’s been better than people give him credit for. No one could top Daniel Day Lewis’ monstrous turn in Gangs of New York, and when it looked like the SAG were on to something it’s a pity that Oscar couldn’t follow suit. Tom Cruise gave what is arguably my favourite performance of his in Minority Report where he brought all his assets to the table. Damon and Schmidt didn’t exactly take stretches, but both performances were effective and the single most important performance in both pieces.

I'm a bit late...but not quite. So it's time for the final acting category...and the results. The Oscar lineup was not exactly bad...but I was no big fan of some [two as a matter of fact]. But it could have been worse.

Mathieu Amalric in The Diving Bell & the Butterfly

I suppose one break out French star was enough for one year. And in retrospect I suppose it was too passive a role for those voters. Still, it was a promising turn from him.

               

Gordon Pinsent in Away From Her

As magnificent as Julie Christie was I couldn’t account for the complete ignoring that he got from everyone. Is it because he's not a big name, and the only old people who get nominated are the ones who've been getting nominated since they were young and popular?

            

Matt Damon in The Bourne Ultimatum

The guy has charisma. It’s undeniable. He essentially carries the film on his shoulders and makes light work of it. Maybe not Oscar worthy, but still good.

       

Tobey MaGuire in Spiderman 3

I know that the Second part of this series is lauded, but really I preferred MaGuire in this one. The premise was a bit ridiculous at times, but above all I really found his performance impressive. Could you remind me why people hate him?

            

Joaquin Phoenix in Reservation Road

It’s no Johnny Cash, but given the faulty script he performs admirably. Now it’s just a questioning of him leaving his music behind to concentrate on the acting he was go good at.

          

Benicio Del Toro in Things We Lost in the Fire

Virtually ignored by the precursors and undeservedly so. It's not his fault the film was badly promoted.

          

Ryan Gosling in Lars & the Real Girl

It’s better than his Half Nelson performance, but this was a packed year for the actors and he just couldn't make it. That SAG nod was interesting, though.

      

Tom Hanks in Charlie Wilson’s War

Though I’m no fan of his, I like when he does light comedic fare and it’s what he excels at here. It’s an atypical role for this Hollywood’s golden boy and he handles it well.

       

Emile Hirsch in Into the Wild

It should have been the performance where he made his mark on Hollywood…but alas no. strangely enough, McAvoy too was aiming for that. Neither was successful. It’s a fine performance and he obviously has talent. We’ll see how it goes.

      

Philip Seymour Hoffman in The Savages

Really, I believe he was more impressive than Linney; not by much – but still. It’s the dramatic comedy he excels at playing pathetic characters. It’s very well played, with two good performances in this category it’s a wonder they gave him the nod in supporting.

          

Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood

We’ve come to except no less from him, and as I said before this performance is one of epic proportions. He’s just outstanding and that’s essentially all that can be said.

           

Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Did he peak too early? Will everything he does be measured against Jack Sparrow? This is not Jack Sparrow, but his nomination [I felt] was deserved. 'Epiphany' is obviously a moment of great acting, but it is the scene before that grabs me – 'Pretty Women'. An unforgotten song and scene, but the delivery of the duet [and 'My Friends'] is haunting in an ethereal way.

          

Philip Seymour Hoffman in Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead

It’s easy to ignore his performance. We’ve seen him play brash, sensitive, guilty and innocent. The role is obviously a showy one, but that doesn’t diminish his goodness. When he breaks down to Finney towards the end it’s a chilling moment. It’s a great performance from him, as per normal.

        

James McAvoy in Atonement

Whereas Keira dominates the estate portion of the film his low-key romantic hero is unfairly ignored. However as the second half begins he becomes the strongest narrative force and especially in that ‘meeting’ with Briony his line readings are impeccable. It’s an outstanding achievement that would have not have been out of place in the Golden Age of cinema.

             

Brad Pitt in The Assassination of Jesse James

It’s a perfect example of inspired casting. Like with Casey Afleck it would seem that Brad was born to play this role. He has the physicality and the charisma and he does become Jesse James. Despite the lack of love from the American Awards there’s a reason he was a winner at the Venice Film Festival.

            

So, what are your thoughts? Have at it.

So seeing that the list of my Favourite Best Actress nods was somewhat well received I’m done a companion piece...for the Best Actor race. If you’re lucky, I’ll continue the trend for the supporting categories. So here’s the list of my  favourite Leading Nominees – Actors...beginning with the thirteen runners up. [Click on the films for more information]

     

28 – James Dean in Giant 
27 – Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver

26 – Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon

25 – Robin Williams in The Fisher King

24 – Montgomery Clift in A Place in the Sun

23 – Tom Hulce in Amadeus

22 – Jack Lemmon in Days of Wine & Roses

21 – Paul Newman in The Hustler

20 – Javier Bardem in Before Night Falls

19 – Peter O’Toole in Lawrence of Arabia

18 – Leonardo DiCaprio in The Aviator

17 – Spencer Tracy in Judgement at Nuremberg

16 – Paul Newman in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof

                         

Yeah, I spoke about his awesomeness in my review of the film and he cracks the top 15. I haven’t seen him in that much but what I’ve seen him in he’s good. And then there’s the fact that French people are just great. But yeah, his Gregory is a despicable man, but he’s still incredibly charming. He would be a good friend to have a sticky situation – unless he turns on you, of course. I haven’t seen Going My Way but I really don’t think that Bing Crosby could have topped this. It's not the stock villainous role, he really is good in this. And he thoroughly deserved his Oscar nomination.

                                               

Along with The Ten Commandments they show this film every Easter here. This one is better, even though it’s a bit schmaltzy, it is a nice movie. And Burton is good [as usual]. I suppose he can be accused of being over the top. But Marcellus was going crazy, so it’s an occupational hazard. And this was the first Richard Burton performance that I saw, so it’s that much more special too. And Jean Simmons doesn’t hurt either. I'll admit it, those scenes when he goes crazy are my favourite. Yeah, they're total Oscar bait. But I can't help it. It's really good in a scary kind of way.

                                          

And here we have it, the greatest thing that Sean Penn has ever done – and probably ever will do. And he did it under the hand of Tim Robbins. I still cringe when I think he lost to Cage, not because Leaving Las Vegas was unworthy but because Cage is just despicable; but I digress. Matthew Poncelet truly is one of those incredibly complex characters and your reaction to him is completely subjective. Sean's work here is incredibly layered and it was so early in his career too. It's a truly incredible performance...not to be ignored.

                               

Are you fed up seeing him? Can't help it. I can't believe that he only has four nominations, he seems so ubiquitous. He has not starred in that many films either, but when he does he's outstanding. And Gerard is outstanding. I am a bit prejudiced against Scottish accents in film, they just make me want to implode. But Daniel made me make an exception. It's a sympathetic character, but he doesn't beat it over our head. He plays Gerard as just an ordinary guy - the good, the bad and the ugly. And that's what makes me like the performance. Gerard is not the stock hero. He is instead a real person.

                                                 

Tracy had all the charisma to play this role and he did it just right. Sure, I don’t know why Gene Kelly or Frederic March were not nominated too, but it’s all good. You can’t have everything, I suppose. Henry Drumond is a great character in print, and Spencer brings it effectively to life. Whatever your opinion on evolution [and if you’re smart you’ll realise the film is about more than that] it would do you good to at least experience this film and performance at least once. Stanley Kramer allowed Spencer to give three outstanding performances and this is probably the greatest of them all.

                                            

It’s my favourite performance from Sir Hopkins. The man is a legend and he’s done wonderful work for decades but I’ll always think of James Stevens when I hear his name. It’s a difficult character, we never see the man breakdown and he’s never spontaneous. That closing shot and the expression on his and Emma’s face is truly poignant. In a year of Liam Neeson and Daniel Day Lewis and Anthony I am slightly miffed that Hanks won, though his performance was fine but oh well. That's life. 

                                         

This is another one of those introverted roles, though Almasy does have some showier moments. It’s a real pity that this guy doesn’t have an Oscar. Of course losing to Geoffrey Rush is much more noble than losing to Tommy Lee Jones, it still is losing whichever way you put it. There’s a scene at the beginning where denounces the use of adjectives. Fast car, slow car, chuaffer driver car.... Someone asks, Broken car? He winces almost imperceptibly, still a car. It’s mot a particular groundbreaking part of the film, but it’s in moments as small as this that we see some truly good acting from Fiennes. And yes when he gets drunk at the dance he's just as good playing loud and angry.

                        

Do people really hate this guy? And if yes, ummm why? This is another guy that needs to do more movies...he's not getting any younger. What's so good about him in this role is that there are scenes where he's not the centre but his facial reactions are thoroughly convincing. Warren is somewhat underrated as an actor but he's really good in this. And for that matter, so is the movie.

                          

Did you do a double take? Sorry, don’t rub your eyes. You’re seeing correct. I won’t go into people’s hatred of this film... I like it, and well yeah, that’s about it. W. P. Inman. Jude's accent is so freakish in this movie [in a good way] and yeah though I kind of watched hoping to see more of him and Nicole it was all good. His part of the film is less interesting, and it depends purely on his talent [and Philip Seymour Hoffman a little] to make it work. It could have gone horribly wrong, and I know for some they feel it did, but for me Jude made it work. Kudos to him.

                                                   

It’s the best thing that he’s done; that I’ve seen at least. Yeah, I would have given him the Oscar. I mean if they weren’t going to give it to the oldie, why not give the fresh young’un? Don’t ask me. Benjamin Braddock is just hilarious. He carries the entire film on his shoulders and all the other cast members are just supporting to him. His movement and antics alone are enough to convince you of his feelings in those montages. And the line readings aren't half bad either, Mrs. Robinson, are you trying to seduce me? You think?

                                     

There’s a moment in the movie where Bud is sifting the channels. He tries to watch Grand Hotel, but the ad breaks keep annoying him. It’s not a big acting moment, but Lemmon’s facial expressions always sell me. People always say Some Like It Hot or Missing was where he was best, but The Apartment has always been it for me. Bud is just a great character and all of that [well most if it] rests on Jack. Sure the screenplay is good, but this is one of those roles that would have been empty if done right. And luckily, Jack does it right.

        

I sure wish that he would have won the Oscar, though I have nothing against William Hoden. Clift may not be the best actor in the world, but he doesn't deserve to be written off as only a looker. I thought he was really good in this and deserves praise. It's the tortured character that is his specialty, but he plays it just right. A heartbreaking performance that is even sadder when you think of how his life [and career] ended.
                                       

                                       
3 – Richard Burton in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

I am not drowning. Even though George won’t admit it, he is slowly, but surely a drowning man. The middle of the film where he rips into Nick during the macabre Get the Guests is one of the best parts of this already great film. He outdoes the entire cast [all of whom give career best performances] and he absolutely takes control of his role. Everyone marvels at Liz's age transformation, but Richard ages too. Just look at The Taming of the Shrew [shot after this to see how young he was]. It's a great performance from any angle.

                                         

What the hell is about this guy? But yeah, here’s to Stanley Kowalski. Tennesse Williams is a genius for writing this, and Brando is a genius for interpreting as well as he did. It’s one of the greatest male performances, and yeah Stanley is despicable but [be honest] don’t you wish you were him? And you can’t not remember that famous calling of Stella. Lolita was right that perhaps people love him just a little too much. He doesn't always ace it, but boy-oh-boy. When he does, it's just marvellous and he deserves all the recognition here.

                                                                  

I feel a bit generic to put this as the best, because so many people say that it’s the best...but maybe it really is the best. The fact that he’s about thirty years too young for the role always boggles my mind. What exactly prompted them to give him the role? And the fact that he’s just as good as Katharine Hepburn boggles my mind too. This is just an outstanding performance. I’ve never seen Charly and I never want to see it because I know that I will scream in anger when I see whatever crap it was ROBBED Peter O’Toole of his Oscar. Wrong, wrong, wrong!
                            
And know that somewhere someone's going to be ticked off by at least one of these choices. So have it. I'm ready, I'm ready, I'm ready...