OVP: Best Actor
The Nominees Were...
Demian Bichir, A Better Life
George Clooney, The Descendants
Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Brad Pitt, Moneyball
My Thoughts: You have to admire Oscar's work in this category, even if you don't always agree with the performances being ranked amongst the year's five best. Instead of, say, choosing Leo DiCaprio for one of his worst recent performances (and I say that as a huge DiCaprio fan), they instead thought outside the box. Sure, we have the matinee idols in Clooney and Pitt, but we also have Demian Bichir, a largely unknown actor in the US, but a member of a prominent acting family in Mexico, making him the first male Mexican actor to receive an Oscar nomination since Anthony Quinn. You have a potential screen idol-in-the-making in the suave and charismatic Jean Dujardin. And then you have one of the most snubbed actors in the history of the Oscars FINALLY getting an Oscar nomination, Mr. Gary Oldman.
We'll start at Oldman's subdued, brilliant performance. Oldman has long teetered around Oscar-he was a BAFTA and SAG Award nominee long before AMPAS noticed him. It's a crime, considering that Oldman truly is one of the great actors of his generation, though he doesn't have the hardware to back it up like one of his peers, Sean Penn. Oldman's work in Tinker Tailor is actually so subdued and calculating it's kind of hard to believe that Oscar noticed, considering the gold man's penchant for the big and bold-perhaps the guilt factor had gotten to them, or perhaps they just took the opportunity to honor an introverted performance for a change. You see Oldman's George Smiley, and the clearly dangerous man underneath. Whereas most films would have their hero constantly erupting, and then reminding the audience that they aren't usually like this, Oldman's Smiley stays calm, and all-knowing. He shows his emotions sparingly, and plays Smiley as a man who is always aware of himself, unlike the men around him who are constantly sacrificing to find a life that their job in the "Circus" doesn't allow. Some actors would fall into anathema when given the choice to play such a calming force, but Oldman uses his eyes and carefully selected word choice to keep the audience always intrigued, without ever getting to see all the cards.
Demian Bichir was the other surprise nominee of the five Best Actors, but he wasn't a surprise because of his introverted character (there's enough flash to go with this character to get him noticed), but because the largely unknown actor (again, in the US-he's a bigger force in Mexican cinema) was starring in a tiny film about a touchy subject-illegal immigration. The film itself is strong, occasionally preachy, but never so much that it feels like you're getting a lecture. Bichir's performance reminded me so much of The Bicycle Thief, and indeed, the film borrows from that Mt. Everest of film making. Bichir's character gets a little bit more latitude toward the end of the film than Maggiorani's character. Bichir is able to gain a better life for his son, in a devastating scene where he apologizes to his son for not being around for him. The scene is testament to the character that Bichir has created in the film-always so cautious, with a focus on work and his son's education, he realizes that this may be the last time he will ever see the son he has devoted his life toward-it's a scene that hits further home when you realize that this is a very real story-there's no embelishment here-this likely happens every single day. Bichir puts a face on the lower income illegal immigrant who is trying desperately to make a better life for himself and his family. It's a film that ages well, and never loses its pangs of sadness.
Jean Dujardin also gives a performance that ages well. For those of you who have been waiting, here's The Artist review that I actually celebrate the film's best part-the hammy, charming movie star on the decline portrayed by Dujardin. Dujardin, unlike his costar Bejo, doesn't have confusing motives-he's a famous and handsome movie star that loves that fact that he's a famous and handsome movie star. He has chemistry with literally everything in this movie-his fellow actors, those dashing suits, even the most precocious dog you've ever seen. Dujardin also captures the humiliation and self-doubt that people who fall from great heights feel when they are suddenly given a comeuppance, whether or not they deserve one. Also, the performing bits, and the dancing, are sublime, and Dujardin, a trooper on the red carpet, never gives less than 100% to the physicality this role demands of him. I would imagine that Charlie Chaplin himself would have smiled.
George Clooney is an actor who knows a thing or two about oozing charm onscreen. Clooney is an actor that creates a lot of division amongst film connoisseurs. Perhaps it's because he's so handsome, or because he makes the performances look so easy, but some often say that he's simply playing himself, a barb that they'd never throw at Gary Oldman, for example. This is highly unfair. The men he plays in Michael Clayton and Up in the Air, for example, are complex and deeply flawed men whose motives we understand, even if we can't always agree with them. This is not the case in The Descendants, however, when I will have to side with the detractors. Clooney never reveals the motives of his character, and this is a problem for such a deeply open person (remember the scene when he rushes over to his friends' house to confront them about his wife's affair just moments after he learns of the betrayal?). Is he upset that he hasn't been there for his wife, does he blame himself or others, is he a good guy caught in a bad situation, or a bad guy who got thrown into the deep end of the pool and was forced to swim. There are too many unknowns about what drives Clooney, and he uses that considerable charm to gloss over his character flaws, falling into the trap that so many critics have unfairly accused him in the past. I know I keep bringing this up, but compare his performance (in nearly every frame of the movie) with that of Judy Greer, who gets only a few brief scenes but makes a serious indent on the film as a woman who has just realized that her husband has been cheating on her. Greer's motives are crystal, and the contrast to what she's achieving onscreen to what Clooney is doing when she's not on the screen to guide him shows the lack of direction in Clooney's performance.
And we now end with Brad Pitt, giving his second best performance of 2011. One of my biggest pet peeves of awards season is when people insist on calling someone's work the "best performance of their career." I get that it's there to get them buzz and sell tickets (political columnists do the same thing when they state that someone is in the "electoral race of their lives"), but it takes away from when the actor is truly extraordinary, instead of their consistent excellent. Brad Pitt's best performances are when he's playing a deeply flawed, morally questionable, but still enthralling character like in The Tree of Life or The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. His beauty and charisma are able to be used far more potently when we have to juxtapose them with the reprehensible men he's portraying.
This isn't to say that Pitt is poor in Moneyball, just that he's been better (and that's okay-Pitt's an awesome actor-him being average for him is still a major win for the audience). I love the sun-soaked nature of the character he's bringing to life-a man who gave up on his dreams years ago and is now wandering around looking for a good time, rather than making any sort of significant mark on the world. When he realizes that he's doing just that by changing the nature of baseball, Pitt gives him a shaky balance that works beautifully for this man, Billy Beane, that's on the screen. He now has a chance on a dream that he had given up on, but also doesn't want to show that he cares. Most actors would have had a complete character attitude adjustment, but that's not what we do in real life (if we're always late, it takes more than missing one appointment to get us to change our ways, and being on-time once doesn't mean that we don't struggle with it again in the future). Old habits die hard, and that's a refreshing reality when we look at Pitt's stellar, but not career-best work.
We'll start at Oldman's subdued, brilliant performance. Oldman has long teetered around Oscar-he was a BAFTA and SAG Award nominee long before AMPAS noticed him. It's a crime, considering that Oldman truly is one of the great actors of his generation, though he doesn't have the hardware to back it up like one of his peers, Sean Penn. Oldman's work in Tinker Tailor is actually so subdued and calculating it's kind of hard to believe that Oscar noticed, considering the gold man's penchant for the big and bold-perhaps the guilt factor had gotten to them, or perhaps they just took the opportunity to honor an introverted performance for a change. You see Oldman's George Smiley, and the clearly dangerous man underneath. Whereas most films would have their hero constantly erupting, and then reminding the audience that they aren't usually like this, Oldman's Smiley stays calm, and all-knowing. He shows his emotions sparingly, and plays Smiley as a man who is always aware of himself, unlike the men around him who are constantly sacrificing to find a life that their job in the "Circus" doesn't allow. Some actors would fall into anathema when given the choice to play such a calming force, but Oldman uses his eyes and carefully selected word choice to keep the audience always intrigued, without ever getting to see all the cards.
Demian Bichir was the other surprise nominee of the five Best Actors, but he wasn't a surprise because of his introverted character (there's enough flash to go with this character to get him noticed), but because the largely unknown actor (again, in the US-he's a bigger force in Mexican cinema) was starring in a tiny film about a touchy subject-illegal immigration. The film itself is strong, occasionally preachy, but never so much that it feels like you're getting a lecture. Bichir's performance reminded me so much of The Bicycle Thief, and indeed, the film borrows from that Mt. Everest of film making. Bichir's character gets a little bit more latitude toward the end of the film than Maggiorani's character. Bichir is able to gain a better life for his son, in a devastating scene where he apologizes to his son for not being around for him. The scene is testament to the character that Bichir has created in the film-always so cautious, with a focus on work and his son's education, he realizes that this may be the last time he will ever see the son he has devoted his life toward-it's a scene that hits further home when you realize that this is a very real story-there's no embelishment here-this likely happens every single day. Bichir puts a face on the lower income illegal immigrant who is trying desperately to make a better life for himself and his family. It's a film that ages well, and never loses its pangs of sadness.
Jean Dujardin also gives a performance that ages well. For those of you who have been waiting, here's The Artist review that I actually celebrate the film's best part-the hammy, charming movie star on the decline portrayed by Dujardin. Dujardin, unlike his costar Bejo, doesn't have confusing motives-he's a famous and handsome movie star that loves that fact that he's a famous and handsome movie star. He has chemistry with literally everything in this movie-his fellow actors, those dashing suits, even the most precocious dog you've ever seen. Dujardin also captures the humiliation and self-doubt that people who fall from great heights feel when they are suddenly given a comeuppance, whether or not they deserve one. Also, the performing bits, and the dancing, are sublime, and Dujardin, a trooper on the red carpet, never gives less than 100% to the physicality this role demands of him. I would imagine that Charlie Chaplin himself would have smiled.
George Clooney is an actor who knows a thing or two about oozing charm onscreen. Clooney is an actor that creates a lot of division amongst film connoisseurs. Perhaps it's because he's so handsome, or because he makes the performances look so easy, but some often say that he's simply playing himself, a barb that they'd never throw at Gary Oldman, for example. This is highly unfair. The men he plays in Michael Clayton and Up in the Air, for example, are complex and deeply flawed men whose motives we understand, even if we can't always agree with them. This is not the case in The Descendants, however, when I will have to side with the detractors. Clooney never reveals the motives of his character, and this is a problem for such a deeply open person (remember the scene when he rushes over to his friends' house to confront them about his wife's affair just moments after he learns of the betrayal?). Is he upset that he hasn't been there for his wife, does he blame himself or others, is he a good guy caught in a bad situation, or a bad guy who got thrown into the deep end of the pool and was forced to swim. There are too many unknowns about what drives Clooney, and he uses that considerable charm to gloss over his character flaws, falling into the trap that so many critics have unfairly accused him in the past. I know I keep bringing this up, but compare his performance (in nearly every frame of the movie) with that of Judy Greer, who gets only a few brief scenes but makes a serious indent on the film as a woman who has just realized that her husband has been cheating on her. Greer's motives are crystal, and the contrast to what she's achieving onscreen to what Clooney is doing when she's not on the screen to guide him shows the lack of direction in Clooney's performance.
And we now end with Brad Pitt, giving his second best performance of 2011. One of my biggest pet peeves of awards season is when people insist on calling someone's work the "best performance of their career." I get that it's there to get them buzz and sell tickets (political columnists do the same thing when they state that someone is in the "electoral race of their lives"), but it takes away from when the actor is truly extraordinary, instead of their consistent excellent. Brad Pitt's best performances are when he's playing a deeply flawed, morally questionable, but still enthralling character like in The Tree of Life or The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. His beauty and charisma are able to be used far more potently when we have to juxtapose them with the reprehensible men he's portraying.
This isn't to say that Pitt is poor in Moneyball, just that he's been better (and that's okay-Pitt's an awesome actor-him being average for him is still a major win for the audience). I love the sun-soaked nature of the character he's bringing to life-a man who gave up on his dreams years ago and is now wandering around looking for a good time, rather than making any sort of significant mark on the world. When he realizes that he's doing just that by changing the nature of baseball, Pitt gives him a shaky balance that works beautifully for this man, Billy Beane, that's on the screen. He now has a chance on a dream that he had given up on, but also doesn't want to show that he cares. Most actors would have had a complete character attitude adjustment, but that's not what we do in real life (if we're always late, it takes more than missing one appointment to get us to change our ways, and being on-time once doesn't mean that we don't struggle with it again in the future). Old habits die hard, and that's a refreshing reality when we look at Pitt's stellar, but not career-best work.
Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes have the advantage of nominating ten men in this race, so while Owen Wilson in Midnight in Paris, Joseph Gordon-Levitt in 50/50, Ryan Gosling in Crazy Stupid Love, and Brendan Gleeson in The Guard all got mentions, I'd suspect that the drama nominations for Michael Fassbender in Shame, Leonardo DiCaprio in J. Edgar, and Ryan Gosling in The Ides of March probably meant they were considerably closer (even with a ten-wide field, Oldman and Bichir didn't get mentioned, and Clooney/Dujardin took the trophies). For the SAG Awards, we saw Oldman get replaced by DiCaprio once again, with Dujardin taking the trophy. And with the BAFTA's, Dujardin again was victorious, and this time it was Bichir who sat out rather than Oldman, with Micheal Fassbender's sex addict in Shame getting mentioned once more.
Performances I Would Have Nominated: While I will happily say that I like this lineup better than Best Supporting Actor, I won't say that it couldn't be improved. In particular, the acting duet on display between Tom Cullen and Chris New in Weekend is incredibly stellar-both are nearly first-time film actors that bring incredible depth and knowledge to their characters. Since the Academy didn't see that film (it was very, very small), they're forgiven not nominating it. What's unforgivable is not taking the time for Michael Fassbender's stunning work in Shame, which as the precursors show, was definitely in their screener pile. Fassbender is astounding as a man consumed by addiction-he's dangerously sexy (despite his antics, with that charm and physique and swagger, you know that half the audience was ready to go home with him despite the emotional baggage, which is a testament to how believable the character is). And while "brave" is not the exact term that comes to mind considering Fassbender's handsome profile and other...enviable attributes, it's hard not to see a little sexism on display here-a woman of Fassy's skill and beauty who did this sort of performance would be heralded, and likely would have taken away Meryl's trophy. Since Fassbender is a gorgeous and sexy man, however, the Academy dismisses his performance, making him age before he gets his statue.
Oscar's Choice: Oscar decided Clooney didn't need a second trophy just yet and decided to go with the exciting import in the Best Picture nominee, Jean Dujardin.
My Choice: If Fassbender were an option, this would be a simple decision. However, with him out, it comes down to the two surprise nominees, and since both pull off their roles masterfully, I'm giving it to Oldman, who has the more difficult role in my estimation. Bichir gets second, obviously, followed by Pitt, Dujardin, and Clooney.
My Choice: If Fassbender were an option, this would be a simple decision. However, with him out, it comes down to the two surprise nominees, and since both pull off their roles masterfully, I'm giving it to Oldman, who has the more difficult role in my estimation. Bichir gets second, obviously, followed by Pitt, Dujardin, and Clooney.
And now, I'll turn it over to you-which of these five gentlemen deserved to win Best Actor? Who was wrongfully snubbed in the category? And of all of the performances of the year, who most deserved Best Actor of 2011?
No comments:
Post a Comment