Johnny Simmons: Ed Harris

Showing posts with label Ed Harris. Show all posts

Friday, 18 March 2011

Flashback: Stepmom

0 comments Posted by 2011 at 14:48

Having grown up with my mother, from a young age, I harboured a potent hatred for Lifetime Television and their – usually – heinous attempts at made-for-television movies. Occasionally, they would augment their barrage of banal man-hating films with similarly banal man-hating feature films, and I suppose it was in this vein that Stepmom became a staple in their line-up for sometime in the early 00s, playing once a month for some time. Yet, I responded to Stepmom not with my knee-jerk defensive male stance. Despite a deliberately manipulative screenplay from Gigi Levangie, I readily admit to being a legitimate fan of Stepmom.

True, I’d admit that there’s something vaguely disappointing about getting three fine actors like Ed Harris, Julia Roberts and Ed Harris together and ending up with Stepmom as the result. Considering that each of these actors were at their peak in the late nineties you’d expect something stratospheric - Stepmom, though, thrives on its simplicity. At times it even takes comfort in some of the most mundane of cinematic clichés. There’s only the slightest hint that Julia –an actor who is rarely indicative of physical transformations – must represent the latent materialism of Isabel by her imprecisely blonde hair. And, Sarandon – so comfortable in the role of pervading sensibility – wears her hair in those sensible ponytails, making the juxtaposition between practicality and flamboyance all too obvious, and I’ll admit occasionally humorous.

As fine an actor as Harris is though, he struggles in Stepmom with a character that’s a sounding board for the women and their issues. I find it odd that in an ensemble much more permeated by women (The Hours) he manages to come off so excellently, but it’s probably proof of Stepmom and its insularity, something I don’t particularly fault it for. It’s a film about women’s issues, and at its strongest moments there’s a striking amount of self-awareness – regardless of how garish – that makes for some great moments between Julia and Susan. Susan, usually conveying a much warmer temperate in these maternal roles (Little Women, Lorenzo’s Oil), seems to be at odds with Jackie’s harshness in the first half – especially in those arguments with Isabel, where Julia, so naturally winsome, seems so charming I can’t see why anyone wouldn’t love her. It’s a situation somewhat hampered by Jena Malone, in her youth here, who approaches her troubled teen role with that prototypical, very literal, characterisations of child-actors with this role. She oftentimes turns Anna into such a cliché that Liam Aiken’s Ben is a welcome distraction. He manages to be equally strong opposite Roberts and Sarandon.

Of course, though, it’s all about Julia and Susan, and that scene in the café where they both admit to their greatest fears is always poignant to watch – emotionally manipulative or not. As much as I love Julia, I can’t deny that it’s Susan who takes the reins there. But, the nature of Stepmom is such that by the time the film ends a comparison of the two women is furthest from the viewers’ mind. We realise that each woman buttresses the others performances – both lacking what the other has. Julia’s natural cadence with her physicality is in opposite to Susan who exudes a quiet intensity without movement, and that final shot – so very deliberate – of the two always makes me nostalgic, somewhat. And I think, even though Lifetime continues to be awful when it comes to original films I still like to think of them fondly for showing features like Stepmom. It’s one of those films deprecatingly given the “chick-flick” moniker, but it avoids melodrama (albeit by an inch), and I can’t deny I think of it fondly, then and now.

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

Oscar Talk: The Supporting Men (and a look at the Spirit Awards)

0 comments Posted by 2011 at 13:47

I don’t care for the Supporting Actor category. It’s odd; I can’t put my finger on something that makes it less interesting than the others. Sure, every now and then a Chris Cooper or Morgan Freeman does little for me but it’s more often than not made up for by the Benicio Del Toros or Tim Robbins of the world. Perhaps it’s the fact that the last three years in this category have been filled with undeserving nominees (paging Matt Damon) and less than eclectic winners (paging George Clooney and Morgan Freeman). The Independent Spirit Awards have announced their nominees, and their claim to fame may be found in the fact that they’re usually one of the bodies who announces their nominees just as the seasons begins to pick up steam. I don't think that their list of nominees in any category, this one in particular, is the end-game.

The supporting category is often where aging thespians finally get their due (Robbins, Freeman, Broadbent). I’m not inherently against wins for a good career. In the case of Henry Fonda, Oscar-less or not he was still deserving and that’s the way I’m feeling about Ed Harris. The Way Back is set to make a qualifying run in December for the Oscars. I’ve had my eye on this one for some-time. Harris along with Saoirse Ronan and Collin Farrell seems like one I’d be interested in. Logically, Harris seems like a real contender. I’d have given him the Oscar in 1998 or 2003 and depending on what day of the week he’d give Javier Bardem (Before Night Falls) a run for his money in 2000. Even if Weir’s drama doesn’t take off in any other major categories I can see a nod for Harris sticking The Spirit Awards didn't nominate him, but I this early in the game I don't think that's going to hurt him.

Geoffrey Rush is another stalwart who seems assured a nod. He’s been nominated alongside Harris in 1998 and 2000 and he has an apparently solid role in Best Picture contender The King’s Speech. Rush seems like the sort of person who’s perennially nominated for the Oscar though he’s only one once (1996 for Shine). That sense of ubiquity could prevent him from actually winning, but he’s probably assured a nod. From Harris to Rush we’ve got two actors who had strong showings in 2000 and we’ve got more actors who gave strong performances that year to add to the lot. Depending on who you ask Mark Ruffalo and Christian Bale should have made the Oscar lineup for You Can Count On Me and American Psycho - I’d have nominated Ruffalo in a heartbeat. This year Ruffalo’s got The Kids Are All Right. It was a summer hit, and it’s not at the top of the tier – but he looks to be a solid contender and Bale’s been attracting praise for David O'Russell’s boxing drama The Fighter.

I gave Jeremy Renner best-in-show notices for The Town though that wasn’t an indicator of much since I wasn’t particularly blown away by it. It seems Legendary Pictures is trying to sneak him into the race. The fact that The Town has been so critically acclaimed does surprise me a bit, if precursors support it he could be the perennial “fifth-nominee” but I’m reticent. Andrew Garfield comes to mind as someone who could sidle their way into the race. The Social Network is looking like a stronger contender as the days go by and he does emerge with the most sympathetic category. Add that to the fact that his star is definitely on the rise could see him getting pulled into the category. It’s not uncommon for well received ensemble flicks to pick up a single acting nod in this category (think The Departed or Crash). As much as Eisenberg impressed me I’m not sure he’s on his way to a nod. Justin Timberlake keeps popping up, and though he impresses me it doesn’t seem like a logical choice unless AMPAS go batshit for Fincher...I don’t see that happening.Then there's Get Low which could Robert Duvall's ticket back to the Oscars. Bill Murray apparently has a plum role, and I'm thinking if he moves from the Spirit Nomination on to the SAG he could easily become a potential spoiler in the race.

Predictions (for now)

Andrew Garfield The Social Network

Ed Harris The Way Back

Billy Murray Get Low

Mark Ruffalo The Kids Are All Right

Geoffrey Rush The King's Speech

Alternate: Christian Bale The Fighter

If it were up to me I’d thrown in Rhys Ifans from Greenberg and Michael Shannon from The Runaways two supporting performances from earlier in the year who should be remembered but probably won’t. I'm a bit shocked that after all the love for Greenberg the Spirit Awards still ignored Rhys. Shame.

The Independent Spirit nominated Bill Murray in Get Low, Mark Ruffalo in The Kids Are All Right, John Hawkes in Winter's Bone, Samuel L. Jackson in Mother & Child and John Ortiz in Jack Goes Boating. See the full list HERE.

Sunday, 28 February 2010

Performances of the Decade (Male)

0 comments Posted by 2011 at 16:44

Julianne Moore is often singled out as an unfortunate actress. The woman has been nominated four times and lost each. What's interesting though is that on each occasion Moore was probably not even the top 3 when it came to the voters. I'd have easily voted for her in 1997 and probably 2002 and she was a close runner up in 1999. The reason I mention Julianne, is that if I had to think about a male counterpart to Julianne the person that I'd immediately refer to is Ed Harris. Like Julianne, he too has had four losing nominations with never a chance at winning; and like Julianne he gave a performance of a lifetime - as far as I'm concerned anyway - in 2002. This performance is often regarded as the ultimate hambone, but I don't agree. Obviously. It's a performance I persist should have won an Oscar.

#12 Ed Harris in The Hours (2003)

The Hours is a woman's story, we know that: yet I really love it. The men never really get the chance to shine as the ought - even though John C. Reilly is fine and Stephen Dillane is subtly moving. Still, with all the crutches thrown his way Ed Harris carves an outstanding performance, in my opinion at least. Richard is Clarissa's friend - though I hesitate at the connotations of the word. They once had a relationship - a tenuous one by the looks of it - and though he has changed his preference the two remain friends, lovers even (without sex). The time of the film is indeterminate, mid nineties we can assume; and Richard is an AIDS victim collecting a prestigious award.

It's difficult to write about Ed without mentioning Meryl because his performance is in some ways a subset of hers, which I've mentioned recently. I mentioned that each segment has its similarities, but it's all really pronounced - saturated almost - in Clarissa's arc. Richard represents the husband figure the two previous woman share, but Harris' Richard is just a bit smarter the rest. Perhaps it's his illness, but the strange clairvoyance he possesses never fails to unnerve me. It is he after all who gave Clarissa her title of Mrs. Dalloway. Richard loves to tease Clarissa, it's obvious, and in that first scene it's difficult to feel any sympathy for Ed - despite his plight. But no one can do line readings like Ed. I love when Clarissa asks him if he's eaten: Well can you see it? Is it here? Do you see any breakfast lying around? I must have eaten it, mustn't I? Ed is appropriately macabre, almost comical as Richard.

But then, I think about how difficult a role to pull of this is - which makes me love it even more. It's not difficult to write this off as the typical histrionic diva-esque role. Richard exists almost as a character in a Greek tragedy, and in some ways he's similar to Kidman's Virginia. He just doesn't fit in his surroundings, and it's obvious. He's almost ridiculous opposite the subtlety of Meryl's Clarissa, but that's why I respect Ed so much. He makes it work. That clairvoyance is a key to Clarissa and to the entire film, since The Hours really is all about diving Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway over and over. He has the power lines and he doesn't undersell them, but he doesn't over sell them either. Oh, Mrs. Dalloway...always giving parties...to cover the silence... It's not a line to take for granted.

Ed has it hard because he's an important character with little screen time and he needs to make the little screen time work for him. That longing look as he looks at a photo of his mother is pathetic...as is his suicide. Isn't it strange that he and Streep shine in reading a line that's almost the same. She tells Louis Don't touch me. He tells her Don't come near me. We know what's coming, but we can't look away. But I still have to face the hours... It's not my favourite arc, but that moment is one of the most striking for me. Streep's harrowed face and Ed's expressionless one. Absolute perfection.

But what do you think? Yay or nay for Harris' Richard?

Saturday, 27 February 2010

Performances of the Decade (Female)

0 comments Posted by 2011 at 15:19

Not to rehash the obvious, but my thoughts on Meryl Streep are not a secret to you. Still, it’s not like I hate the woman and I do appreciate those moments when she impresses me. She has always had a knack for showing the utmost vulnerability and I do like her when her voice is unaccented. This performance marks my favourite of hers since her 1985 Karen in Out of Africa.

#13 Meryl Streep in The Hours (2003)

It’s no coincidence that her character’s name is Clarissa Vaughn; the similarities to Virginia Woolf’s Mrs (Clarissa) Dalloway are not accidental. With the exception of the resplendent Redgrave, Streep seems to be the perfect person to illustrate Clarissa (Vaughn’s and Dalloway’s) sereneness and composure even if that shot of her in front of the mirror is anything but serene. One of Streep’s selling points has always been the astute way she uses her face and I love that meeting she has with Eileen Atkins in the flower shop. She twists her face into an almost imperceptible scowl as Atkins speaks of Richard’s book. Subtlety at its best. But of course she really starts “acting” when she meets Richard’s flat. Strange that I say “acting” though, because the very reason I am so enamoured with this performance is because of Meryl’s fluidity here. When I look at her, I don’t see Streep in makeup or with an accent “acting” – I see Clarissa Vaughn – a real woman, through and through. From the most subtle of looks – like that look as she travels up the elevator, Clarissa is an enigma but still completely real.

Streep and Harris really do shine opposite each. It’s easy to write off the chemistry that the two share; a bit too much like the gay man and the straight woman (Will & Grace) but it’s not a cliché and seeing as thus ruins the beauteous rapport between the two. Like the entire ensemble, none are just saying lines to the other. Each word from Richard elicits a response – sometimes palpable, sometimes downplayed – from Streep and it’s all completely real. Clarissa’s motives do cause me to wonder though. What is the drive behind her devotion to him? Guilt? Love? Friendship? What makes the film so good is that the drive behind it is unimportant because whatever *it* is, it’s absolutely moving.

As autonomous as each story is, The Hours thrives on the similarities between each segment and the commonality of the visitor is potent in each. Virginia has Vanessa, Laura has Kitty and Clarissa is thrown by Louis. It’s hard to judge a performance so saturated with emotion, but this meeting is one of Streep’s strongest. She is so thrown by Jeff that we can’t help but sympathise with her, that moment of extreme vulnerability – uncommon for someone so composed – is especially moving. I love her reading of the line “Don't touch me.”. It’s this moment that throws her portion of the narrative in a different direction. The scars from this meeting are almost visible as she returns to Richard’s for that fateful final visit: which my favourite moment of hers and she sells it, completely.

She is already frazzled as she enters the room, and it’s difficult to remain indifferent to the obvious change in Richard. This doesn’t even seem to be the same man we saw earlier and Clarissa knows this. Her pleas with Richard are so profound and watching Harris’ gaunt figure at the window is all too ominous and the subsequent fall never fails to throw me. As I said, Streep’s Clarissa depends on reactions and Streep’s reaction is key here. Simply sublime. It is (of course) the peak of her performance, not in the literal sense but emotionally. She’s broken afterwards and continues the rest of the film dejectedly; only her portion has a twist the others don’t. She has a second visitor. It is Julianne’s moment but Meryl never takes the bait to be non responsive (but she never goes out of the way to make it too much) and that’s why her Clarissa works.

I can’t share the general love for Streep, though I continue to respect her for continued productivity and even though it’s rare that I adore a performance of hers, the one rare Clarissa Vaughn makes up for the Julia Childs and Sister Aloysius.

What were your thoughts on Meryl here? Is it a favourite of yours or do your prefer her other work?

Friday, 25 December 2009

2002: Men in Film

0 comments Posted by 2011 at 08:34

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

Supporting Actor

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

Tier Two

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.

The Nominees

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.

Lead Actor

Tier Two

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.

The Nominees

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.

Thursday, 4 June 2009

#30 The Hours

0 comments Posted by 2011 at 03:16

The Hours is #30 in my list of favourite movies… of course the more accurate title would be Films I’d Watch Over and Over again. The first time I saw this movie was sometime back in 2003 on A&E and I can’t forget thinking how bleak it was, but not in a bad way. There are a lot of things I like about this movie, but what I like the most is the acting. Every actor in the movie give outstanding performances making me think it was the best ensemble of 2002. It’s hard, and unfair, to judge the performances against each other but the standout performance for me in many ways was Meryl Streep’s Clarissa Vaughn. The Academy love her so much and yet they couldn’t nominate for this. This is arguably my favourite Streep performance, it may not be as good as others, but it’s still pretty damn good. Her Clarissa is the most sympathetic protagonist of the three part story and she has some really strong scenes especially those with another big star – Ed Harris. I am still pissed that Harris did not win the Oscar he deserved for Best Supporting Actor that year, it was way better than that other actor. Claire Danes, Jeff Bridges and Alison Janey who are also participants in Clarissa’s arc also play important roles and give strong performances.

If Streep plays the most sympathetic I guess that ostensibly Julianne Moore plays the least sympathetic, but that’s such a cop out in terms of judging her performance. Julianne Moore is really, really, really a good actress. Of all the actors in The Hours she achieves the most with the least. Just looking at her eyes we see so much more, which prevents her Laura from become a caricature… and that voice. It’s just freakin’ wonderful. A completely deserving Oscar nomination followed – and don’t you know it sometimes I wish she had won the Oscar even though I was supporting Catherine at the time. She has the most poignant line of the whole movie for me when she says It was death, I chose life. Toni Collette is the only person in this arc that really wows me (other than Julianne), this is my favourite performance of hers, I never saw as this kind of coquettish character, although I suppose coquettish is the wrong word...

Then there is Nicole Kidman’s Virginia Woolf, who invisibly, holds the narrative together. It is her Mrs. Dalloway that Laura is reading… that Clarissa has become. Virginia is really a troubled character, and although I know many people will identify the train scene as there favourite there are two other scenes which show the wonderfulness of Nicole Kidman’s performance. There’s the scene where she is cajoling Nelly into going to London. It’s just so freakishly weird, and uncomfortable as she tries to command her with her eyes and that taunting tone and expression with the cigarette in hand. Then there is the scene with Miranda Richardson, no not kiss. It’s when she tells her, even crazy people like to be asked Nessa. This line, I think, represents the entire point of Virginia’s arc. The problem is not that she is crazy, but at least let others treat her as a person… and oh wasn’t Miranda Richardson outstanding? Don’t you wish Oscars were given for cameos? I almost wish she’d have a movie of this character; she was so effective as the Woolf’s sister. Kudos too to Stephen Dillane who played Leonard, Kidman’s husband.

All the actors in The Hours need to thank David Hare for his wonderful script. The novel seems almost inadaptable, but he is able to make it just wonderful and gives each character so much to do. And let’s not forget Stephen Daldry. Some have criticised his lack of subtlety, but that’s not the point of the movie… or maybe it is, who knows. Still, you can’t really fault him. If they HAD to split the director/picture category in 2002, couldn’t they have given it to him? Or at least give the Oscar to Philip Glass for his amazing score. Anyway, that’s all gone, but this movie remains.

The Hours is a great movie, and I think everyone needs to see it – I suppose it won’t be for everyone, but you won’t know until you see it… so you should see it.

Wednesday, 29 April 2009

2000-2009 THE BEST IN SHOW The Gentlemen

0 comments Posted by 2011 at 11:43

The last ten years in film have been good. Let’s look at the Actors who helped. It’s more or less the usual suspects. I think I need to single out the following who did not make the list – Paul Giamati (Sideways/Cinderella Man), Heath Ledger (Brokeback Mountain, The Dark Knight), Christian Bale (American Psycho, The Dark Knight, The Prestige), Jack Nicholson (The Departed, About Schmidt) and Ralph Fiennes (The Reader, The Constant Gardener). Brad Pitt was the runner up (Babel, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Oceans’ Eleven, The Assassination of Jesse James) and Benicio Del Toro (Traffic, 21 Grams) and Tom Wilkinson (In the Bedroom, Michael Clayton) barely missed it. Sorry, but it's only nine...

Jude Law - #9
Jude Law is my favourite living male British actor. He gave great performances in AI: Artificial Intelligence, and The Road to Perdition. He then gave a poignant performance as Inman in 2003’s Cold Mountain (Lead Actor nomination – Oscar) followed by an undervalued performance in Closer the next year. That same year he was also rewarded as an ensemble(SAG nod) for being a member of my favourite cast that year The Aviator. I heard that he may be coming to Broadway soon with his acclaimed portrayal of Hamlet, so maybe he could conquer the stage before returning to the screen to win his Oscar – sometime. He’s going to win eventually… right?

Russell Crow - #8
Crow won his first Oscar for his performance in Gladiator at the turn of the millennium then and was nominated the next year for A Beautiful Mind, which I still believe to be the best performance of that year, even though I was not a fan of the movie. His performance in Master & Commander and Cinderella Man were both Oscar worthy and he also gave a solid performance in American Gangster. I wonder if he will ever get that second Oscar. I don’t think it’s going to be for Nottingham – but who knows?

Ed Harris - # 7
Is this nepotism? Of course it is. It’s my list after all. In 2000 he directed and starred in Pollock earning a Best Actor nod – the second best of the year as far as I was concerned. Then he gave the best supporting performance in The Hours (Oscar nomination), but he was snubbed. He also gave solid performances in A Beautiful Mind and particularly in A History of Violence. He needs to get back to work and get that damned Oscar. It’s about time!

Johnny Depp - #6
He has become a star. From Chocolat, to The Pirates of the Caribbean (Oscar nomination) and its sequels, Finding Neverland (Oscar nomination) and Sweeney Todd (Oscar nomination) he has done well for himself. Some even call him the most due actor for an Oscar. I won’t go that far. But he is a cool guy. I don’t think Public Enemies is going to win him that Oscar – but it’s forthcoming. I think.

Philip Seymour Hoffman - #5
After years of being a character actor I gained respect for him in Cold Mountain where he managed to do some scene stealing opposite Jude Law. No awards buzz came until 2005 when he won the Oscar for Capote. He was nominated in 2007 for Charlie Wilson’s War, a year filled with great performances from him – Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead and his terribly comedic work as the best thing in The Savages. Last year he got nominated for his work in Doubt. Hoffman is also a stalwart on the Broadway stage. He deserves all the respect he gets. I wonder when he’ll get Oscar number two…

Sean Penn - #4
Which was the better performance? Mystic River or 21 Grams. Penn won the Oscar for the former and countless awards for the latter. 2003 was a good year for him. And last year he joined the elite club of actors with two lead Oscars for his turn in Milk. Along with Kate Winslet he has managed to gain awards’ nods after All the Kings Men. I’m waiting for Jude Law, Patricia Clarkson and Anthony Hopkins.

Daniel Day Lewis - #3
This was a tough one to have him so low. Is he the best working actor right now? Maybe. He was robbed of the Oscar for his astounding performance in Gangs of New York which earned him an Oscar nod. He then gave another riveting performance that earned him his second Oscar in 2007 in There Will Be Blood. He’s set to star in Nine this year, and I’m looking forward to that. After playing so many terrorising characters it will be nice to see him play nice!

Javier Bardem - # 2
He gave the best performance of 2000 in Before Night Falls (Oscar nomination), gave another spellbinding performance in The Sea Inside and then won his Oscar for No Country For Old Men. His commendable performance in Love in the Time of Cholera went unnoticed, but his performance in Vicky Cristina Barcelona earned a Golden Globe nod. I love this guy. I can’t wait to see what he does next!

Leonardo DiCaprio - #1
There wasn’t really any contemplation as to who would get this spot. He started his love affair with Martin Scorsese in Gangs of New York in a very undervalued performance. That year he also gave a good performance in Catch Me If You Can. He earned his second Oscar nomination for the best of the year performance he gave in The Aviator. Then his astounding performance in The Departed went unnoticed by the Oscars – despite SAG and Golden Globe nod. He was nominated for Blood Diamond – another good performance. He then gave his career best in Revolutionary Road – the best of the year I believe. He failed to even garner a Oscar nod – but that’s all blood under the bridge. It’s time to look ahead to his next date with Scorsese. Is it finally time for Oscar to come a knocking? F*** Yeah! Excuse my French.