Was watching The Social Network again last night and while I doubt Jesse Eisenberg will take the win at the Oscars, I still absolutely love that role and that performance. James Franco had a—and I don’t use this phrase, really—tour-de-force thing going on in 127 Hours; that movie does not exist without him. Jeff Bridges was incredible in True Grit (saw it today, more on it below). But, there are a lot of actors in the Academy and they will appreciate more what Colin Firth did for The King’s Speech; and, really they should, and he is deserving of a win. Nonetheless, as far as personal choices go, I would say Aaron Eckhart close to if not on the list as well for his performance in Rabbit Hole—Nicole Kidman seems to be getting a little more attention but I was more impressed by Eckhart—for which he has only gotten a Spirit Awards nomination. (Given Ryan Gosling’s track record—The Believer, Half Nelson, Lars and the Real Girl, if you want to see him do some great work—I am hopeful that his performance in Blue Valentine will be a good one, but like Eckhart, I’m not sure the Academy will notice him… too small a movie when there are some big ones with worthy roles (the ones mentioned above)
Rabbit Hole wasn’t all Eckhart, though. Kidman was good, and the movie was far better than I’ve seen some critics give it credit, calling it emotionally empty and whatnot. Sure, these aren’t characters that wear their emotions on their sleeves (most of the time) but that’s sort of the point. It’s a couple facing everyday life—though, it occurs to me now, I’m not sure what Eckhart’s character did everyday, for work… which reminds me of a screenplay I wrote a while back, not to toot my own horn or anything, but Rabbit Hole did remind me of it, made me want to dust it off and reread it to see if it’s any good. Like Rabbit Hole, it’s about a couple whose child has recently died, though not by accident but by murder, and at one point the husband breaks down and there was a line I always loved (and I’m not necessarily one to love my own lines after I write them) about how he can’t even remember what he used to do for a living. The fact that it only occurred to me now, writing this, that Eckhart’s character’s job was not specified (or at least, not so that I noticed) kinda fits with that sort of emptiness (though not the emptiness critics have mentioned). Rabbit Hole paints a bleak sort of picture but doesn’t wallow in the pain of these people, and the actors play it well, from Kidman to Eckhart, Miles Teller to Dianne Wiest. These actors play quite well people who are in pain but are not letting it show except in very vulnerable moments, something you wouldn’t get usually from a more mainstream movie—hell, you won’t really get much of a mainstream movie that’s so much about grief as this is; at least, I can’t think of a recent one*
*mainstream meaning studio movie, not Oscar recognized, as just last year The Single Man got some Oscar attention
On to happier things with The Tourist. It isn’t likely to be on any Oscar lists, but then again, it did get a Best Picture nod from the Golden Globes, where drama and comedy (not that I consider The Tourist to be a comedy, mind you) are awarded separately, not to mention acting nods for both leads. The leads do well with what they’ve got—don’t get me wrong—but these two won’t be on Oscar lists for their performances here. Angelina Jolie, in particular, is given very little to do but stand around and look good, more a femme fatale/macguffin than a rounded character… except maybe in a few spare moments where one is reminded that Jolie can still do subtle. Johnny Depp has the larger role here, and perhaps if The Tourist had played more as a comedy (as the Golden Globes see it) he would have had something truly award worthy here. But, really, this movie isn’t played as a funny mistaken identity piece but a straight spy/crime film crossed with a romance that isn’t very romantic. And—SPOILER ALERT—if you think about where this film has to go in the end, given tourist mistaken for lover (who’s had plastic surgery but no one, even Jolie’s character, knows what he looks like now), then you can guess a major twist before you even go in… consider: how does the climax go if Jolie’s character falls for Depp’s and then the real guy shows up? If this were some realistic drama, there’d be death and sadness but this is a movie that is just light and shallow enough that the Golden Globes see it as a comedy, so it isn’t coming to that, so—SPOILER, REALLY—you guessed it, he’s not mistaken for the guy at all; he IS the guy, and it all gets wrapped up in a neat little package… too neat really. This movie needed to be more of a comedy or more of a drama, not taking itself seriously or really inserting some believable jeopardy. And, despite being built around two big leads, this is not enough of a romance or even a comic caper to be driven by personality but instead yields to plot. So much so that even at the Globes, I don’t see this film taking any awards home; it is up against The Kids Are All Right, after all, and despite its flaws, that film very well may show up at the Oscars—for Best Picture maybe but definitely for Annette Bening… (and, to get off on a brief tangent, I was more impressed by her performance in Mother and Child than in The Kids Are All Right, but other than maybe my wife, I haven’t heard of anyone who agrees with me on that)
Another film that WILL show up on Oscar day is True Grit. Expect Jeff Bridges (but I wouldn’t guarantee it), and I would hope the Oscars follow behind the Golden Globes and SAG and Critics Choice in recognizing Hailee Steinfeld for Supporting Actress. The Coen brothers will likely get nominated for adapted screenplay and maybe director—actually, I predicted they WOULD fill out Best Director a few days ago, along with Fincher, Nolan, Aronofsky and Hooper—and Deakins has a shot at an award for Cinematography… it seems that at least since Dances with Wolves—and probably before—westerns kinda have to do some great camera work (and, with those wide open spaces, have some great opportunity for such). Though the score got a Golden Globe nomination there’s been talk of it possibly being disqualified from Oscar consideration because of the percentage of existing music (some old hymns) used in it, but really I wasn’t too impressed by the music. For music, I’d go with The Social Network, Inception, Black Swan, or Tron Legacy (but I have seen almost no talk of that last being up for an Oscar so I’m wondering if there’s some aspect that disqualifies it). Of course, Black Swan has a similar problem as True Grit regarding the music, maybe more so, since it depends on the music from Swan Lake so much (though I haven’t actually read anyone suggesting as much). My personal choice for the winner would probably be The Social Network.
But, I digress. True Grit will also probably show up in the lesser categories, editing, art direction; the Golden Globes have it up even for makeup, and the makeup work here may be subtle enough to garner an Oscar nod, maybe even a win, but not if something like Alice in Wonderland (another makeup nominee at the Globes) is against it. Still I digress.
Back to the acting. Bridges’ other role in theaters right now, Flynn in the already mentioned Tron Legacy, comes across (and has been compared to several times already that I’ve seen) as the Dude from the Coen brothers’ The Big Lebowski, just stuck in the virtual frontier and having to get his mellow not from drugs but from an awesome zen apartment (unfortunately, Tron Legacy probably doesn’t have a shot at Art Direction, since much of it is virtual, but that apartment was awesome). Though his Rooster Cogburn is definitely old and a bit of a drunkard (not a drug user), he doesn’t come across as laid back and as comfortable with life as the Dude or Flynn. He also doesn’t come across as much a broken old man as he did last year in Crazy Heart, though there is a bit of that in Cogburn. The key difference here is that Cogburn is a guy who is capable of shooting a man just to get the attention of those around him, capable of killing a guy just so, maybe, he doesn’t have to drag him alive back to the courthouse. Still, the way Bridges plays him (and, not that unlike John Wayne’s take on the character way back when), Cogburn is not bloodthirsty, nor necessarily does he seem like he drinks because he’s weary of this particular line of work. That kind of take would be a little more bleak than this movie is trying to be. After all, despite being about a hunt for a killer, with the promise of numerous deaths, several quite bloody, the film actually doesn’t come across dark. The various killers do seem a little darker than they might have, say, pre-Unforgiven (though that film might actually be a little late in the deconstruction of the western to really be an apt signpost), this movie has the Coen wit and doesn’t tend toward bleakness or darkness except in brief flashes of violence. Still, this isn’t some reconstructionist or revisionist western, just the Coen brothers doing outright what they were hinting at with No Country for Old Men.
But, I was on acting. Matt Damon, Josh Brolan, even Barry Pepper as a surprisingly controlled killer—they all service the film well, but aren’t putting out anything particularly notable. Damon delivers some good lines but I would credit the Coen brothers’ writing and directing for a lot of that more than Damon (not to discount Damon, of course). Hailee Steinfeld, though, is given a lot to do here. The film depends on her in such a way that even having the Coen brothers behind her wouldn’t be enough if she didn’t step up and give an awesome performance. And, she does just that. Her Mattie Ross is at once both more stubborn and more vulnerable than Kim Darby’s take. She’s more headstrong, something that is obvious early on when she barters (although, as uneven as the ground is there, the way Steinfeld plays it, it can hardly be called bartering) with Stonehill over the horses. She’s definitely worthy of an Oscar nomination (like Frances McDormand in the Coen brothers’ Fargo, for supporting even though she’s really the driving force of the film).
I don’t know if she’ll win—she could be up against the likes of Jacki Weaver from Animal Kingdom (who had a great role as the menacing matriarch of a bunch of criminals), Amy Adams and/or Melissa Leo for The Fighter (though I wouldn’t pick either of them, they certainly did well enough), Mile Kunis for Black Swan, Helena Bonham Carter for The King’s Speech (or Alice in Wonderland for that matter). Given these options, I’d say Steinfeld should win, and it seems like it’s been a while since a newcomer won (Anna Paquin comes to mind, though I’m sure there was another one since then)
No comments:
Post a Comment