Johnny Simmons

I saw both of these quite some time ago and have been mustering up the will to review them. I feel a bit terrible, because – really – little is coming. But, I must, because duty calls or something like that.

   

On Conviction

It feels like lazy journalism to say that this seems like one of those low-rent films that would be on Lifetime, but that doesn’t make it any less true. Sure, Goldwyn tries to do some interesting things in trying to make us care about this filial pair but it’s all so terribly tepid and there’s a surprising lack of urgency in a film that should feel a little bit more profound. Rockwell sure is diverting, but even he ends up seeming eventually disinterested in it all. Swank tries, too, but she’s just not luminous enough to make this work.

And True Grit

There’s just something about the tone of True Grit that seems a bit pleased with itself, perhaps it’s the Western genre but it doesn’t really feel like a true Western. I’m not one for the genre, and sure being a western is more internal than external but it’s more striking as a straight coming of age drama than a traditional western which doesn’t make it a worse film but makes me wonder why we’re being built up for the appearance of Brolin’s Chaney which falls limp – and is wholly flat, easily a disservice to the fine attempts before.

                

As an aside, it’s weird how both Conviction and True Grit set their lead women up for glory – character-wise, and role-wise. The general cast end up bowing down to them both and they’re both given roles that we’re almost forced to appreciate on face value.

           

Since I’ve been investing in movies and awards something has always worried me. To what extent do we identify an actor with their character? It’s an old question – a throwaway one even. You might even say that it’s silly. Of course I know I’m looking at a movie…I can separate the two… but can we really. I like movie awards – the Oscar, Golden Globes, BFCA, BAFTA, SAG and on and on and on. Something that strikes me about these awards though,particularly the Oscars, is how much they love sympathetic women. This occurred to me after I was reading some early reviews for the film Precious. I have nothing against this film. In fact, although it didn’t make my list of 9 it’s in my top 15 and I hope nothing but good come to Mo’Nique. Recent reviewers have cemented the fact that Sidibe ’s performance should not go unnoticed because of how she tugs at out heartstrings etc… It’s almost as if they’re saying – if you don’t like this performance you’re a bad person. Not because Sidibe is that good [which she probably is] but because the character is sympathetic.

                                                 

In the last decade one of the biggest snubs on most awards including the Oscars in the Best Actress category was Joan Allen for her delicious turn in The Upside of Anger. Playing Terry Ann Wolfemeyer, a bitch of a woman with a serious bug up her ass she has some serious issues. She earned a nod only from the Film Critics – Globes, SAG and Oscar all ignored. The winner that year – Reese Witherspoon for an infectious performance as June Carter. Reese was in my top three that year, so don’t think I hate her. The nominees that year were all good women from the delightful Elizabeth Bennet, the sharp but good Mrs. Henderson, the sympathetic Bree and  the similarly sympathetic Josey. Terry Ann would not have fit in here.

The other day Danny wrote a review of a favourite performance of his – Hilary Swank as Maggie in Million Dollar Baby. I have my issues with this performance. One of those is the handling of the story on Swank and Eastwood’s part. We get it, Maggie is the paragon of goodness and her hillbilly family don’t deserve her. Her main competition? Annette Bening in Being Julia and Kate Winslet in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Both were abrasive women that were no match for the sympathy one could unearth from Maggie. Not to knock at Hilary’s performance – but you have to wonder how many persons couldn’t help voting for her humane character.

                                   

Just as they couldn’t vote against hers six years earlier. Swank’s work in Boys Don’t Cry was eons better than her second win but once again she beat out two women with serious character issues. Carolyn [Annette Bening in American Beauty] was a bitch. The end. And Julianne Moore in The End of the Affair was a complex character in every sense of the word. Teena Brandon was not a perfect person – but she was very sympathetic. When it came down to Annette versus Hilary – not only was Hilary playing a most compassionate character, her rags to riches story was certainly more poignant than the recently pregnant, upper middle class Mrs. Warren Beatty. No?

                          

Kate Winslet won her first Oscar this year with The Reader. I was happy to see her win. Although I still think Hana was a supporting role, and I still think her work as April in Revolutionary Road was superior the win made me happy. But why Hana over April? Sure, Hana takes part in Auschwitz and sure she’s a statutory rapist. But look at the alternative…a bored and malcontent housewife. She ignores her children and doesn’t appreciate her husband. She literally kills her unborn child! I know who gets my sympathy vote...and it's not April.

                                       

Helena Bonham Carter gave one of the most moving performances of the 90s as Kate Croy in The Wings of the Dove…she won a solitary NBR award for her performance. In case you haven't seen this, and shame on you if you have not [the movie's on youtube] Kate is something of a gold digger.The eventual winner? Helen Hunt for her gregarious turn as a single mom in As Good As It Gets. That was almost too easy.

                  

The blue print for this article came to me while watching Cheri. Don’t worry…I’m not kidding myself that Michelle can win an Oscar for it. I know a nomination even is probably out of the question…what with the 55% on RT. But trust me, if this was a story [true or fabricated] about a single mother who must work as hooker on the side and then falls in love with a man half her age only to become jilted all those award shows would be lapping it up like honey.

All jokes aside though, I think it's unfair. I understand, we love the torn character with the sympathetic arc more...but can't we make that great divide. Can't we look at two actresses who give equal performances where one is lynched and endures the gamut of injustices and where one is the bearer of these injustices and realise that not because someone is a sympathetic character make them a better performer. Must it be that we must have some heightened emotional connection to a role before we think it's a good or even great performance?
               

Since I’ve been investing in movies and awards something has always worried me. To what extent do we identify an actor with their character? It’s an old question – a throwaway one even. You might even say that it’s silly. Of course I know I’m looking at a movie…I can separate the two… but can we really. I like movie awards – the Oscar, Golden Globes, BFCA, BAFTA, SAG and on and on and on. Something that strikes me about these awards though,particularly the Oscars, is how much they love sympathetic women. This occurred to me after I was reading some early reviews for the film Precious. I have nothing against this film. In fact, although it didn’t make my list of 9 it’s in my top 15 and I hope nothing but good come to Mo’Nique. Recent reviewers have cemented the fact that Sidibe ’s performance should not go unnoticed because of how she tugs at out heartstrings etc… It’s almost as if they’re saying – if you don’t like this performance you’re a bad person. Not because Sidibe is that good [which she probably is] but because the character is sympathetic.

                                                 

In the last decade one of the biggest snubs on most awards including the Oscars in the Best Actress category was Joan Allen for her delicious turn in The Upside of Anger. Playing Terry Ann Wolfemeyer, a bitch of a woman with a serious bug up her ass she has some serious issues. She earned a nod only from the Film Critics – Globes, SAG and Oscar all ignored. The winner that year – Reese Witherspoon for an infectious performance as June Carter. Reese was in my top three that year, so don’t think I hate her. The nominees that year were all good women from the delightful Elizabeth Bennet, the sharp but good Mrs. Henderson, the sympathetic Bree and  the similarly sympathetic Josey. Terry Ann would not have fit in here.

The other day Danny wrote a review of a favourite performance of his – Hilary Swank as Maggie in Million Dollar Baby. I have my issues with this performance. One of those is the handling of the story on Swank and Eastwood’s part. We get it, Maggie is the paragon of goodness and her hillbilly family don’t deserve her. Her main competition? Annette Bening in Being Julia and Kate Winslet in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Both were abrasive women that were no match for the sympathy one could unearth from Maggie. Not to knock at Hilary’s performance – but you have to wonder how many persons couldn’t help voting for her humane character.

                                   

Just as they couldn’t vote against hers six years earlier. Swank’s work in Boys Don’t Cry was eons better than her second win but once again she beat out two women with serious character issues. Carolyn [Annette Bening in American Beauty] was a bitch. The end. And Julianne Moore in The End of the Affair was a complex character in every sense of the word. Teena Brandon was not a perfect person – but she was very sympathetic. When it came down to Annette versus Hilary – not only was Hilary playing a most compassionate character, her rags to riches story was certainly more poignant than the recently pregnant, upper middle class Mrs. Warren Beatty. No?

                          

Kate Winslet won her first Oscar this year with The Reader. I was happy to see her win. Although I still think Hana was a supporting role, and I still think her work as April in Revolutionary Road was superior the win made me happy. But why Hana over April? Sure, Hana takes part in Auschwitz and sure she’s a statutory rapist. But look at the alternative…a bored and malcontent housewife. She ignores her children and doesn’t appreciate her husband. She literally kills her unborn child! I know who gets my sympathy vote...and it's not April.

                                       

Helena Bonham Carter gave one of the most moving performances of the 90s as Kate Croy in The Wings of the Dove…she won a solitary NBR award for her performance. In case you haven't seen this, and shame on you if you have not [the movie's on youtube] Kate is something of a gold digger.The eventual winner? Helen Hunt for her gregarious turn as a single mom in As Good As It Gets. That was almost too easy.

                  

The blue print for this article came to me while watching Cheri. Don’t worry…I’m not kidding myself that Michelle can win an Oscar for it. I know a nomination even is probably out of the question…what with the 55% on RT. But trust me, if this was a story [true or fabricated] about a single mother who must work as hooker on the side and then falls in love with a man half her age only to become jilted all those award shows would be lapping it up like honey.

All jokes aside though, I think it's unfair. I understand, we love the torn character with the sympathetic arc more...but can't we make that great divide. Can't we look at two actresses who give equal performances where one is lynched and endures the gamut of injustices and where one is the bearer of these injustices and realise that not because someone is a sympathetic character make them a better performer. Must it be that we must have some heightened emotional connection to a role before we think it's a good or even great performance?
               

Hello. You probably don’t know who I am, but I’m a concerned fan of yours. Where have been for the past few years? For the seven years or so you have been my favourite living actress but recently I wonder if that is not becoming a bit too bizarre. I know that you are happily married to Warren Beatty, and despite him being in his seventies I’m sure he is still a delight. But must you neglect your job to enjoy familial life. I know you have children, but do they really require your undying attention all day, everyday?

When are you going to make another good movie? Do you know I sat through that horrible film, The Women, last year just so I could get see on screen? Do you think that’s fair? Certainly there were moments – and I do mean moments – that had me forgetting the crap I was looking at, but they were mere seconds. Is this what you’re subjecting your fans too? I don’t deserve this. I know you’re not callous? So what’s the issue? Don’t get me wrong. I can only imagine how horrible it was losing that Oscar not once but twice to that sickening monstrosity, otherwise known as Hilary Swank. And I know it must have been horrible losing your Golden Globe and not even getting an Oscar nomination for Running With Scissors the same year that Warren received that Lifetime Achievement Award from the FPA. I did enjoy your work in Mrs. Harris and yes I do believe that Helen Mirren has enough awards and she shouldn’t stoop to taking yours too.

But theses are all occupational hazards of being an actress. We still love you. I am (im)patiently awaiting your return to proper cinema. Where are the days of Julia Lambert, no more Carolyn Burnhams? I wouldn’t even mind The American President right now. What I’m getting at Ms. Bening is – when are you coming back to worth? Time is running out, we are not getting any younger. I heard you might be starring in that film with Julianne Moore and I pray to God that this information is accurate. I don’t know how much more time I have. I don’t know how more time you have.

Goodbye, and I hope this letter finds you in good spirits.

Your Biggest Fan,
Andrew Kendall
Encore Entertainment