OVP: Best Actor (2008)
The Nominees Were...
Richard Jenkins, The Visitor
Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn, Milk
Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn, Milk
Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
My Thoughts: We're nearing the close of the 2008 write-ups. Hopefully you've been enjoying them, since we'll be heading straight into 2014 and our seventh OVP contest (I've already seen all of the nominees from that year as well). First, though, we'll get through the 2008 contest, which was largely a two-man race between two men who emerged as contenders in the 1980's for the crown of "Greatest Actor of His Generation." One of those men actually achieved it, the other wandered the wilderness for years and years before finally stumbling across the role that felt basically written for him. Let's begin with the leading men, shall we?
In the Supporting Actor race, I started with the frontrunners for the trophy so here I'll end with them. As a result, we'll commence with the guy that felt basically like he made into this race by the skin of his teeth: Richard Jenkins. Jenkins is one of those rare character actors who randomly scores a major nomination midway through his career for that rarest of things: a prestige film with a largely unknown character actor at its center (Melissa Leo joined him in this list over in Best Actress, which we'll get to next). Jenkins work has what I call a "case of the handsomes"-it's moving and interesting and he's too fine of an actor to not sell some of the bigger "my life is empty" moments, but I don't feel like the film added enough to his work, and his character feels too introverted for the camera. I left knowing little as to what had driven him to be on autopilot for so many years, and couldn't really get into his work.
Brad Pitt's Benjamin Button is a similar sort of conundrum. His character also feels so unknowable, and it's hard to see why he doesn't fight harder for things in his life-his character is so passive when everyone around him seems so frantic to create something real in their existence. Frequently the film has so many wonderful attributes, but it doesn't know what to do with its story and with Benjamin-is he forced to have a half life because of his weird age affliction? It seems that way, but we never really know why, and there's too little experimentation with his age and his experiences as he gets "younger," so we don't get to see Pitt stretch those muscles. Pitt is probably my favorite working actor (male or female), but even he can't totally elevate the script, though he acts with enough grace that we know he wants to find something more.
Frank Langella is in many ways similar to Mickey Rourke in that he has been trying for decades to have a role like this one, the one that takes him out of the "recognizable, but missed potential" category and into that of the vaunted actor who makes a play at the Oscar. Langella certainly went after it with gusto, recreating the role that won him a Tony, and there's no doubt that he gives a great surface-level performance of Nixon-the swagger in his voice, the way that he recreates that sort of untouchable aspect of a president (my friend Tory once said, while we were discussing the 2016 contenders, that it felt weird because they felt so small and yet one of them would become "immortal"-it's true that there's sort of a living history aspect whenever glimpsing a president). However, I never felt like I got inside of Nixon in a personal way-we occasionally got a glimpse of the madness, but Howard's direction is too focused on the interviews themselves and not what made this giant so paranoid and daunted by his demons. As a result, Langella isn't able to elevate the film in the same way that some of his competitors do, though he's very good in this role.
Sean Penn, despite five Oscar nominations has yet to be discussed in the OVP since they all happened prior to 2009, so this is my first shot for him at an Oscar. Penn's work here is extremely-polished. He finds the tenor of Harvey's voice perfectly, and he also makes him a deeply knowable person. There's a moment toward the end of the film, when Harvey is listening to Tosca at the San Francisco Opera House where a flood of emotions wash over his face, and we realize the turmoil and the pressure that Harvey and the community have placed on him, and how he gets so little reprieve. We also see it in the way he clearly feels lonely in his relationships, trying desperately to find a piece of himself that doesn't seem to be there. It's a fascinating take from Penn-this isn't a saint when he so easily could have been one, but instead a man of fire and personality-he's not bad, but he's also authentic. I loved that about Penn's work in this picture, and am glad he's found so many roles that distinguish him in this way.
Mickey Rourke, on the other hand, had taken what was a promising start in films (winning quick prizes for Diner and Barfly) and turned it into such a bloated nightmare of a career that he briefly quit acting to just box. For this reason I suspected that Rourke would win the Oscar in 2008 at the time, but I wasn't sold entirely on the idea he should. There are moments in the film that are absolutely spellbinding, such as the final monologue before he leaps to his potential doom, but I felt that Rourke's scenes with his daughter didn't have the same sort of interesting heart that the rest of the film (it felt too cliched and too traditional for a man of his distinct personality). Still, even if he can't quite sell those moments and if he's essentially playing himself, there's something mammoth about watching such a wasted talent finally having his moment, and when Rourke is on in the film it's hard not to see the excellence.
In the Supporting Actor race, I started with the frontrunners for the trophy so here I'll end with them. As a result, we'll commence with the guy that felt basically like he made into this race by the skin of his teeth: Richard Jenkins. Jenkins is one of those rare character actors who randomly scores a major nomination midway through his career for that rarest of things: a prestige film with a largely unknown character actor at its center (Melissa Leo joined him in this list over in Best Actress, which we'll get to next). Jenkins work has what I call a "case of the handsomes"-it's moving and interesting and he's too fine of an actor to not sell some of the bigger "my life is empty" moments, but I don't feel like the film added enough to his work, and his character feels too introverted for the camera. I left knowing little as to what had driven him to be on autopilot for so many years, and couldn't really get into his work.
Brad Pitt's Benjamin Button is a similar sort of conundrum. His character also feels so unknowable, and it's hard to see why he doesn't fight harder for things in his life-his character is so passive when everyone around him seems so frantic to create something real in their existence. Frequently the film has so many wonderful attributes, but it doesn't know what to do with its story and with Benjamin-is he forced to have a half life because of his weird age affliction? It seems that way, but we never really know why, and there's too little experimentation with his age and his experiences as he gets "younger," so we don't get to see Pitt stretch those muscles. Pitt is probably my favorite working actor (male or female), but even he can't totally elevate the script, though he acts with enough grace that we know he wants to find something more.
Frank Langella is in many ways similar to Mickey Rourke in that he has been trying for decades to have a role like this one, the one that takes him out of the "recognizable, but missed potential" category and into that of the vaunted actor who makes a play at the Oscar. Langella certainly went after it with gusto, recreating the role that won him a Tony, and there's no doubt that he gives a great surface-level performance of Nixon-the swagger in his voice, the way that he recreates that sort of untouchable aspect of a president (my friend Tory once said, while we were discussing the 2016 contenders, that it felt weird because they felt so small and yet one of them would become "immortal"-it's true that there's sort of a living history aspect whenever glimpsing a president). However, I never felt like I got inside of Nixon in a personal way-we occasionally got a glimpse of the madness, but Howard's direction is too focused on the interviews themselves and not what made this giant so paranoid and daunted by his demons. As a result, Langella isn't able to elevate the film in the same way that some of his competitors do, though he's very good in this role.
Sean Penn, despite five Oscar nominations has yet to be discussed in the OVP since they all happened prior to 2009, so this is my first shot for him at an Oscar. Penn's work here is extremely-polished. He finds the tenor of Harvey's voice perfectly, and he also makes him a deeply knowable person. There's a moment toward the end of the film, when Harvey is listening to Tosca at the San Francisco Opera House where a flood of emotions wash over his face, and we realize the turmoil and the pressure that Harvey and the community have placed on him, and how he gets so little reprieve. We also see it in the way he clearly feels lonely in his relationships, trying desperately to find a piece of himself that doesn't seem to be there. It's a fascinating take from Penn-this isn't a saint when he so easily could have been one, but instead a man of fire and personality-he's not bad, but he's also authentic. I loved that about Penn's work in this picture, and am glad he's found so many roles that distinguish him in this way.
Mickey Rourke, on the other hand, had taken what was a promising start in films (winning quick prizes for Diner and Barfly) and turned it into such a bloated nightmare of a career that he briefly quit acting to just box. For this reason I suspected that Rourke would win the Oscar in 2008 at the time, but I wasn't sold entirely on the idea he should. There are moments in the film that are absolutely spellbinding, such as the final monologue before he leaps to his potential doom, but I felt that Rourke's scenes with his daughter didn't have the same sort of interesting heart that the rest of the film (it felt too cliched and too traditional for a man of his distinct personality). Still, even if he can't quite sell those moments and if he's essentially playing himself, there's something mammoth about watching such a wasted talent finally having his moment, and when Rourke is on in the film it's hard not to see the excellence.
Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes of course distinguish between Comedy/Musical and Drama and since this was in the days when they at least attempted to give the Musical/Comedy awards to films that fit those descriptions, it's worth noting they get a more eclectic bunch. The entire Oscar category sans Richard Jenkins (Leo DiCaprio for Revolutionary Road made it instead) were repeated in Drama, with Mickey Rourke taking the trophy, while Colin Farrell in In Bruges emerged victorious in Best Actor, coming in over Javier Bardem (Vicky Cristina Barcelona), James Franco (Pineapple Express), Dustin Hoffman (Last Chance Harvey), and Brendan Gleeson (In Bruges). The SAG Awards were less adventurous, going with an exact replica of Oscar's lineup and picking Sean Penn as the victor. BAFTA named Dev Patel over Richard Jenkins, and gave their trophy to Mickey Rourke. The one name that shockingly didn't make it on any list, and which I suspect was in fact in sixth place battling it out with Richard Jenkins was Clint Eastwood, who won huge plaudits for Gran Torino and unexpectedly was snubbed both in Best Actor and Director. The fact that Eastwood was so close without any sort of real battle from someone already cited shows how weirdly weak the Best Actor race was that year-in a normal year Jenkins in particular wouldn't have been able to compete against movie stars.
Actors I Would Have Nominated: I smell the prestige on this lineup, and so I am not going to call it bad, but it feels a little boring, I will admit. While I haven't seen Clint's work (the biggest film that I'm missing from 2008-I'll eventually rectify this situation), I do think that perhaps the inner repression of Leonardo DiCaprio in Revolutionary Road would have made a strong edition, as would have Colin Farrell's perfect portrayal of a hitman in In Bruges. Considering the film scored a screenplay nod and Farrell nabbed a Globe for it, it would have been great if AMPAS had at least nominated the best performance of the year.
Oscar’s Choice: In a true nailbiter that I predicted wrong, the Academy went with the more "appropriate" choice of Sean Penn in a Best Picture biopic rather than long-haired, bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you Mickey Rourke in the character study about pro wrestling.
My Choice: I'm going with the same, though I suspect that the Academy's decision had more to do with subject matter (admittedly, though, I still feel like this was damn close to a tie). Rourke follows, with Pitt, Langella, and Jenkins behind them.
Those are my thoughts-what are yours? In one of the most contended match-ups in recent Oscar history, were you Team Sean or Team Mickey? Or is there someone out there who would want to vouch for one of the other contenders? And how exactly did Richard Jenkins knock out Clint Eastwood for what seemed like a sure-bet nomination? Share your thoughts in the comments!
No comments:
Post a Comment