OVP: Supporting Actor (2006)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2006)

The Nominees Were...

Alan Arkin, Little Miss Sunshine

Jackie Earle Haley, Little Children

Djimon Hounsou, Blood Diamond

Eddie Murphy, Dreamgirls

Mark Wahlberg, The Departed

My Thoughts: We have three weeks left of 2006, after which we'll head into a new year (I'll hold off for now which year we're going to walk into, but know that I've got our next contest all queued up & ready to go in terms of viewings!).  First, though, we'll do our acting races, and here we have one of the weirdest Supporting Actor contests in eons.  As you'll see when we discuss the precursor awards, there was very little collective thought on this race.  2006 is the last year where Oscar picked only Globe & SAG nominees for its acting lineups, and most of that can be attributed to this race, since simply so many names were listed in the contenders.  Before we get into all of the also-rans, though, let's talk about the nominees themselves.

Eddie Murphy is, to date, one of only six Saturday Night Live cast members who have been nominated for an Oscar (the others, for the curious are Kristin Wiig, Dan Ackroyd, Joan Cusack, Bill Murray, & Robert Downey, Jr.), and was surely the closest to actually winning the trophy.  At the time, Murphy was the frontrunner until the late-breaking Norbit reminded Academy members of all of the dreck he'd made in his career, stopping his momentum & giving them room to pick the more conventional Alan Arkin (a similar scenario happened a decade later with Sylvester Stallone/Mark Rylance where the Academy wasn't willing to overlook a career filled with a lot of garbage).

Murphy, though, is pretty good in Dreamgirls.  I like the ease he brings to Jimmy, a man with his own personal demons which are also exacerbated by a racist music industry who wants to put an unconventional man into his own trappings.  Murphy totally sells this with his late number "Jimmy's Got Soul" as he breaks into a number that will totally throw apart his career (but is true to who he is).  I don't know if he totally sells the first-half of the movie well enough, particularly his romance with Anika Noni Rose, and he doesn't have the vocals of a Jennifer Hudson, but this is a good performance-Murphy brings a unique perspective as a then-fading global superstar that fits this character.

The same can be said for Alan Arkin, his Oscar rival, that he's giving a good performance.  Arkin's curmudgeonly ways run throughout his career, even before he was really old enough to be a "curmudgeon," and like Murphy, feels a bit typecast in this role, and like Murphy, there are times when it feels somewhat phoned in, waiting for the big moments.  But that doesn't mean that the big moments aren't there, particularly giving a wonderful chemistry to then-newcomer Abigail Breslin (they both owe a lot to each other when it comes to collecting these nominations).  He is a solid glue on this film.

Jackie Earle Haley was, like Murphy, in desperate need of a comeback with Little Children, though he'd never really been the star that Murphy was in his prime.  Haley has the trickiest role in this lineup, playing a pedophile who has been released from jail, and is trying to acclimate to society.  Haley does an excellent job of bringing layers to a character that would easy to play either as a straight-up monster or to sentimentalize too severely.  His late scenes, particularly when his most aggressive taunter causes Haley's mother (the only character he really cares about) to have a heart attack, are excellent work.  The ending doesn't quite work for me, perhaps because Haley's character hasn't been woven well enough into the actual story itself, but Haley earns this Oscar nod.

I've learned from Film Twitter that Mark Wahlberg's performance in The Departed and his sole nomination are divisive, and not just because the actor has a history of problematic (particularly when it comes to race) public comments.  While Wahlberg is not the most visible actor in the film, I think he's great here.  There's not a lot of depth to this character, but there honestly doesn't need to be-he needs to be on the sides, presenting a humorous counterpoint to Martin Sheen's tenured cop, and Wahlberg plays him like a live wire.  Plus, this role is littered with great one-liners that feel authentic to a Boston cop's daily dialogue.  I honestly think he's great in this role-it's an unusual role for Oscar, and certainly if Scorsese made it today the character might not be celebrated in the same way (romanticizing police officers in general is a problem in 2021), but I think this is Wahlberg's best performance, give or take Boogie Nights.

Djimon Hounsou, on the other hand, is not living up to his potential here.  This is, for my money, one of the worst performances we've profiled for an acting race so far.  There is nothing given to him by the writers to flesh out this character, whose sole purpose seems to be to yell at/around/with his costars, and Hounsou doesn't give us more than what the script is hinting at, some sort of inner life that this character possesses.  I have a lot of problems with Blood Diamond, but it's weird that from a movie with three relatively decent stars the biggest issue I have is with the acting-Hounsou doesn't register within the film, and this feels like a "famous name in a big movie" nomination more than anything else as it's certainly not based on performance.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes picked Eddie Murphy as their victor, beating out Wahlberg, Jack Nicholson (The Departed), Ben Affleck (Hollywoodland), & Brad Pitt (Babel).  SAG also went with Murphy, here over Arkin, Haley, Hounsou, and Leonardo DiCaprio (The Departed), one of the bigger cases of category fraud I've seen in a long while.  And the BAFTA's went with Arkin, beating out Nicholson, James McAvoy (The Last King of Scotland), Leslie Phillips (Venus), & Michael Sheen (The Queen).  As you can see, between the three precursors a total of twelve names here, so sixth place is a challenge.  I would assume it's Jack Nicholson, whose lack of a nomination is genuinely shocking given he's an Academy favorite and is giving the best performance in The Departed, but Sheen or Pitt aren't totally out of reason given that they managed to hit the Best Picture race & their costars were cited.

Performances I Would Have Nominated: Well, for starters, I'd throw Jack into this race.  It also feels a pity that Stanley Tucci (The Devil Wears Prada) didn't get this nomination, as then the Academy wouldn't have felt guilty over skipping him & years later give him a career nod for one of his worst performances in The Lovely Bones.

Oscar’s Choice: Norbit cost Murphy the Oscar-in what had to have been a very close race, Alan Arkin & the sentiment behind his Best Picture nominee beat Murphy (and his lack of a Best Picture nominee) in one of the bigger upsets of the 2000's.

My Choice: I think the best performance of this bunch was Mark Wahlberg, followed by Haley, Murphy, Arkin, & Hounsou, in that order.  If I'd had an actual ballot, I likely would have voted for Haley given Wahlberg's past comments about race (I wouldn't have been comfortable voting for him in a real world setting), and because I genuinely think Arkin/Murphy, for how different their performances are, are neck-and-neck in terms of who should've won (and voting for Haley would've meant I wouldn't have had to decide...also I do genuinely like his work better than the two men who were clearly actually in the running for the trophy).  But in terms of the OVP, which is solely supposed to be based on performance within the given field and not overall career or an artist's personal life, Wahlberg gets the title.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you with the Academy in sticking with Arkin or you waffling over with me between Wahlberg & Haley?  If Norbit had waited just a few more months would Eddie Murphy have won (and then would Alan Arkin have taken the trophy for Argo six years later...cause that's what I think would've happened)?  And how did Jack miss in this race, which will almost certainly be the final race that he ever had a shot at?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2006: Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2006

Past Best Supporting Actor Contests: 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019 

OVP: Supporting Actor (2012)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2012)

The Nominees Were...

Alan Arkin, Argo

Robert de Niro, Silver Linings Playbook

Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master

Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln

Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained

My Thoughts: Part of the reason that I write "Snap" Judgment on my reviews is that on occasion (and let's be honest, with some regularity), my opinions of a film will shift over time.  Granted, films that I give great reviews to I generally remain on the positive side of, but after time passes, the things that I judge about a movie on the critical side or that I really enjoy start to weigh against each other.

So it's a little weird to write this after writing all five of my reviews on this blog, as some of the performances have lost quite a bit of their gusto.  This is perhaps appropriate (we have the most positive experiences with a film immediately after we view them, as the film is vivid in our mind, and we're also running off of the endorphins of going to the movies, something that, regardless of how terrible a film may be, is always an enjoyable time), and it's also worth noting that when it comes to giving out an Oscar, arguably the highest honor that a filmmaker can receive, the stakes are appropriately higher.  So, with apologies to some of the most accomplished actors of their generations (this is the first Academy acting lineup to have all previous winners in it), here we go.

I should start right off with Robert de Niro, who is goofily staring me in the face right now (I love that picture).  De Niro has been one of those great filmic conundrums for the past twenty years or so.  Ever since his critically-acclaimed turns in GoodFellas and Cape Fear, the man who redefined acting in the 1970's (he is probably my favorite actor of that era) has been coasting off of goodwill he got from decades of fine acting.  Granted, some actors do tend to sluff off in their old age, when the parts aren't as plum, and it's impossible for almost any actor to duplicate the Scorsese-fueled run that de Niro enjoyed in his heyday.

So I was excited to see Bob actually get rid of the Taxi Driver impersonations and try to create a unique character.  On occasion, that greatness showed through, and I standby that this is his best performance in the past decade, possibly the past twenty years (I've missed a couple of his more critically-recognized films of the 1990's, including Analyze This and Heat, both of which just got added to the Netflix queue out of shame).

That being said, I can't help but feel that if this were "Random Character Actor" we wouldn't have seen de Niro here (or maybe we would have-Harvey was behind this film, after all).  The performance, while strong, never has that key moment that locks you in for the rest of the movie.  De Niro, clearly suffering from OCD, gets a more respectful ending to his story arch than Lawrence or Cooper, but he never quite hits the same heights those two actors (particularly Lawrence) hit, and while this is good, it's not Oscar-worthy.

I also feel, a bit more controversially, the same about Tommy Lee Jones work in Lincoln.  Jones is a good actor (not quite the actor that de Niro is, but let's not quibble).  His work in, say, last year's Hope Springs was really remarkable and still actually sits more with me than this particular piece.  The film allows him some wonderful "actorly" work, but his role never grabbed me in the way that Day-Lewis's did (a high bar, to be sure, but a bar nonetheless).  His story also seems a bit cheapened, in my opinion, by the stunt toward the end of the film (the twist where the love of his life is a black woman, thus providing the catalyst for his wanting freedom for all)-I think that it would have been better had they either left that out, or even better, driven that as a major part of his plot line, as it would have added another human story behind the bigotry that was on display in the congress.  This is not, of course, Jones's fault (he doesn't have unilateral control over the script), but I feel that it hurts his performance as it leaves too many questions and not enough answers from his work.

Christoph Waltz is one of two men on this list who really have no business on this list, regardless of performance quality.  I know that category fraud is a hot topic amongst awards aficionados and the Academy rarely seems to care about such things, but Waltz is in almost every scene of this movie.  There is absolutely nothing "supporting" about his work, and I have to imagine that people like Leo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson, both of whom had supporting roles in the film that got some press, were royally pissed that Waltz got to be a supporting with twice the screen time.

Waltz's work and one-liners are admittedly fun, but it's hard to see this as anything but a shadow of Hans Landa, his previous Oscar-winning role.  Here, though, we have an even murkier set of background morals (I know this is somewhat explained with the plot and his stories of his younger years, but his character never quite compromises what he's doing with his sense of right, and that is a fault of both the writers and Waltz).  The best parts of his performance have already been done before, in an oddly similar film.  I know I'm not supposed to judge outside factors within the OVP, but on occasion I do that (think of Visual Effects of sequels) because it has such an impact on the work, and Waltz's performance here is borrowing a lot of Landa's mannerisms and quips without actually having them apply to the character in the same way. Landa's craziness and evil makes sense within the confines of his performance; Dr. King Schultz's character needs a different set of tools, and Waltz doesn't give him any.

I remember after people initially saw Argo they thought that Alan Arkin was a shoo-in for the Oscar (this was pretty deafening, so let's not pretend this didn't happen).  Some complained about how Eddie Murphy must be pissed that Arkin got an "old age" Oscar a few years back and suddenly he'll win a second one just six years later.  I saw the film, and the thing that stood out to me was how small and overrated the performance was.  Arkin gets some good one-liners, admittedly (and he gets the "Argo fuck yourself" line, which was clever and well-timed), but his story arch goes nowhere.  There's no great scene in this film with Arkin, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about the film.  If Arkin had never won an Oscar nomination in the past, I could see this as an appropriate, even if unearned, way of acknowledging his work as a character actor for the past fifty years or so, but he's an Oscar-winner already, and has two other nominations from his heyday.  This wasn't necessary, and he wasn't even better than his costar John Goodman (who also didn't deserve a nomination, but had a banner year at the movies and would have been easier to forgive).  All-in-all, perhaps the most throwaway nomination of the bunch, and even in an admittedly weak year for the category, Oscar nominations should never be thrown away as there's always something worth noting out there.

Finally, we have the other category fraud contender, Philip Seymour Hoffman.  Forget that he is possibly the title character (I know some say it's Adams or even Phoenix that is in that position, but I've always sided with the obvious here).  He's also in most of the film, and along with Phoenix, is the main character (a film can have two leads of the same gender, despite what Oscar may say).

So while I discount some points for the category fraud (if there were an equally good performance, that would break the tie), this is far-and-away the best performance of the bunch.  Hoffman is an actor that I generally have no patience for, with his scenery-chewing and hammery, particularly in past work with Paul Thomas Anderson.  The best way to describe his work, and why he does better in the lead than in supporting is, to quote someone I frequently cite about Hoffman but can never remember who it was (if you know, please tell me as I would love to give them credit), "Hoffman is a movie star trapped in a character actor's body."  This is why he works so much better on the stage-he can be the center, drawing the audience in, rather than having to sit on the sidelines, wanting to project when he should hold back.

As Lancaster Dodd, though, he gets to be the center-of-attention, he gets to be the man who controls and is loud and the energy onscreen.  Think of how well he chastises poor Laura Dern when she matter-of-factly points out inconsistencies in his work, despite being one of his most fervent admirers.  The film is a great acting duet between Phoenix and Hoffman, and while I will admit that Phoenix, with the showier role, is the better of the two, that's like comparing two great Baroque masters-who wants to judge amidst all the flourishes?

Other Precursor Contenders: If you'll recall correctly, there was actually a bit of talk in this race of competition, and thanks to Christoph Waltz missing at the SAG Awards, this resulted in some variety amongst the nominees in all of the precursors.  At the Globes, while Waltz was victorious, we skipped de Niro and instead got Leo DiCaprio (my hunch for sixth place, and since Waltz may well have been in fifth place amongst the nominations, he might have won the award had he been nominated).  The SAG Awards skipped Waltz, with Javier Bardem in Skyfall actually making the cut (another legit contender for the sixth place, and wouldn't a James Bond film getting an acting nomination have been a hoot?), and Jones pulled off the trophy.  And finally, there were the BAFTA Awards, where Waltz was also victorious, but they found room for Bardem over de Niro.

Films I Would Have Nominated: Since I would have put Hoffman as a lead (I would have nominated him, though), none of these men (or DiCaprio or Bardem) would have made my cut.  Amongst my nominees would be Matthew McConaughey, who did a gangbusters job in Magic Mike, a film that gets better on repeat viewing.  I also would have included Ezra Miller, who gets beautifully inside the mind of an early 1990's gay teenager, and adds his own spin on a stock character.  And finally, I would have given the trophy to the brilliant work that Garrett Hedlund did in On the Road, a performance so much better than any of the work here (save, perhaps, Hoffman) that I'm stunned he didn't get more critical support.  I blame an idiotic release schedule for this lack of support (it stars a major box office draw in Kristen Stewart-why didn't it go wider, sooner?), and am still wondering why no one is noticing that Hedlund is turning into a surprisingly fine actor.

Oscar’s Choice: Despite what was clearly a close race, the frontrunner won (I remember hoping for almost anyone else on Oscar night, not because of quality, but because I wanted a surprise), with Waltz taking out Jones and de Niro, in roughly that order, for the trophy.

My Choice: You throw Miller, McConaughey, or Hedlund into this race, and they easily win it, as I don't like giving this trophy to lead work.  But I can't in good faith skip Hoffman when there's nothing in the same league as him down the ballot.  I'd follow him with de Niro, Jones, Waltz, and Arkin.

There's the first of our four acting races-we'll head into the supporting ladies later today, but first, what do you think of these gentlemen?  Did you like the five winners race, or were you hoping for a little more wealth to be spread?  And did you appreciate Waltz as the victor of the five (getting a second trophy three years after his first), or were you hoping for a different actor?  Share in the comments!

Also in 2012: Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Animated Short, Live Action Short, Previously in 2012

Past Best Supporting Actor Contests: 2010, 2011

OVP: Argo (2012)

Film: Argo (2012)
Stars: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman, Victor Garber, Tate Donovan, Clea DuVall
Director: Ben Affleck
Oscar History: 7 nominations/3 wins (Best Picture*, Supporting Actor-Alan Arkin, Adapted Screenplay*, Editing*, Original Score, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

The Academy and I clearly don't agree on everything (otherwise the OVP would be pointless), but there are occasions that we are in full agreement, and I suspect Argo is going to be one of them.  While we still have Les Miserables, Zero Dark Thirty, and Life of Pi to come, it'd be foolish to not call Argo the Best Picture frontrunner.  It has a spectacular and compelling story arch, a taut script, and some great performances to crow about in trade ads.  All-in-all, Ben Affleck's film is a home run, and while it may not make it to the top of my personal list (I have a lot of movies to see still), four months out, it seems highly improbable that it won't get the top prize at the Kodak.

I may be getting ahead of myself, though, since we haven't even had a chance to discuss the actual film at-hand, so let's rectify that situation.  The movie, for those unfamiliar, tells the tale of what is popularly known as the Canadian Caper, a moment in 1980 when six Americans, through the help of both the CIA and the Canadian embassy, were able to sneak out of Iran and back to the United States.  The six were not part of the original hostage count in Iran, and instead had left the embassy before the hostages were taken.  The CIA, in a mission led in the film by Agent Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) create a cover for the six-that they are scouting a location for a cheesy science-fiction movie, and gives them all fake identities to get them through customs.

The first half of the film focuses on establishing Affleck's character, one of the "good guys" constantly in need of correcting his family life, rough around the edges, but his heart is in the right place.  It's the sort of role that used to be played by Gene Hackman.  The first half also gets all of the great, Hollywood-insider type lines.  Since this is based on a true story, we get a real-life Oscar-winner (makeup maestro John Chambers) to show up in the form of John Goodman.  Goodman's makeup artist, as well as Alan Arkin's mega-producer Lester Siegel (don't believe that one's a real person, but you can correct me in the comments if you'd like, or say who it's based upon), help Mendez to set up a movie, complete with a script, a producer's office, and fake press.  It's an incredible part of the film, not just because you get to see some of the ridiculousness that goes into greenlighting a movie (gotta love that cheesy script read), but also because you get some terrific onscreen chemistry between Arkin and Goodman.  I know that a lot has been said about Arkin's strong chances with the Academy, and I can see it (Supporting Actor loves nothing better than a cranky but smart old man), but I have to say that if they're going with Arkin, it seems unfair to skip Goodman as well; Goodman's career has not had as many great highs as it should have (probably because he's not the "leading man" type), but he's an excellent actor, and is clearly having a strong year in Hollywood.  Perhaps a twofer would be a way to honor a superb and obviously well-liked character actor?

Anyway, back to the movie, and the even better second half of the film (also-gotta throw in the spoiler alert here).  The second half is focused almost entirely on the caper of trying to get these six hostages out of Iran, with Mendez showing up for the six men and women and giving them their backstories to memorize, as well as trying to sell them on the idea that they need to leave the embassy.  This is also when Affleck's acting instincts come fully into play.  What we know, and seemingly the six hostages don't, is that the clock is running out whether or not the hostages are going forward with the plan or not-their identities are being discovered, and the pressure on the Canadians is growing exponentially to leave the country as well.  However, Affleck's Mendez never indicates the impending doom, keeping an already agitated bunch of clearly intelligent, but frayed, people from completely losing their cool and then blowing the cover (which would mean execution for all six).

This entire act leads up to a nerve-wracking (in the best possible sense) series of scenes in the airport, where you hold your breath the entire time, waiting and hoping for the six to get through each customs point.  Throughout the act, you are seeing alternating scenes with the great Bryan Cranston (seriously, the casting director on this film deserves some sort of nomination just for putting together this fine, era-appropriate ensemble), desperately trying to push everyone in the State Department all the way up to the White House to approve the mission, which in true Hollywood fashion had been called off the night before.  The great part about this series of scenes is that, if you take a breath to think about it, there should be little to no drama for the audience.  Even if you're not familiar with the Canadian Caper (being born years after the Iranian Hostage situation, I must admit that I was not), you have to assume that if they're making a movie on the subject, the people don't randomly die at the airport-what studio would possibly approve that sort of an ending?  And yet, thanks to some terrific editing and sharp performances by Affleck and Cranston throughout those scenes, you are so immersed in the film that you don't have time to get outside the movie and think rationally.  When the six men and women get out of Iranian airspace, I could see tears flowing not just onscreen, but all around my theater.  Maybe even in my own glasses.

Affleck as a director, as you may remember, is a subject we have visited before.  This is obviously a better movie than even the solid The Town, and perhaps Affleck's casual reference to Warren Beatty in the middle of the film is meant as wish fulfillment-though it's not quite up to the epic scale of Reds, this is equal to it in terms of quality, and a major stepping stone for Affleck as a director.  Both men were dismissed as pretty boys in their early career, and while Beatty is the better actor of the two, both men made a strong transition over to director.  Affleck's problem now is to not do what Warren did after Reds-essentially fall completely off the face of the earth for six years, and then make Ishtar.  Getting a script from Elaine May could sound like a good idea Ben, but I'd avoid it for the time being.

I've gone through the plot, and particularly called out Affleck, the Goodman/Arkin chemistry, and the swell casting director, but I do want to highlight a couple more great points in the film.  Rodrigo Prieto, who does the cinematography, does a spectacular job of creating that classic 1970's vibe (the film that most comes to mind is Z, which admittedly was from the tale-end of the 1960's, but it profoundly influenced film of the 1970's).  Not only does he get that great "FYC" ad during the end credits, but the entire movie has that gravelly brown and burgundy sort of look that instantly recalls the more evenly paced films of the 1970's.

The other callout I want to make is to Clea DuVall.  If there is a slight miss on Affleck's part (there are no perfect movies except Chinatown and Casablanca) it's that some of the characters don't quite get the full story arch as others, and a lot of the hostages are more blank slate than actual person.  This may be intentional to better have the audience identify with these people, but that doesn't mean it's not a bit of a miss when we're further on into the film.  DuVall, though, does what great actors do with vague parts-she gives it a personality and a soul.  If you've seen the film, you recall her first amongst the hostages, and not because she's the biggest name amongst them (she's not-Tate Donovan is almost assuredly the most recognizable of the six), but because her character is not a background character-you can see in her eyes that her nerves are shot, that she's largely given up on getting home, and that she's pleading with herself that there's hope in this plan, even when the others are doubting.  DuVall, filled with such passion in her acting and a terrific angular beauty, has always been able to fill her sideline characters with a lot of passion.  Remember her one scene in Zodiac? If you've seen the film, you almost certainly do, and yes, it's just one late in the movie scene that she rides high.  This is not the showy sort of acting that gets Oscar nominations, but it is the sort that should be considered for it, or at the very least, should get casting directors to give DuVall larger and more substantial roles.

Finally, I do want to address the obvious political implications of the film.  Affleck is a noted liberal in Hollywood, and it's worth noting that President Jimmy Carter plays a crucial offscreen role throughout the film.  In a world of political opportunism, it's refreshing to realize that a President Carter did not politically capitalize on this daring feat of national ability.  It's quite possible (at least in the confines of the film and within the confines of common sense) that Carter would have gained greatly from revealing the CIA's involvement in this particular incident, rather than putting the credit solely on Canada.  It may have even gotten him reelected in 1980, when the Iranian Hostage Crisis almost assuredly cost the President the White House.  Carter himself does a voiceover at the end of the film (it's not entirely clear whether or not the president was doing this specifically for the movie or not, but it seems that way) essentially pointing out this exact same thing.  It's an interesting study of history, and in a film that's dominated by one man's (Mendez's) actions in what he knows to be right, you also see Affleck reminding us that there was another man (Carter) moving heaven and earth to try to do what he thought to be right.

And that's all for me on Argo for now, but with a great movie, there's lots more conversation to be had, so what say you of this fine film?  Do you think that Affleck is best behind the camera, or do you like him taking the dual roles?  How do you think that the film blended its politics with its story?  And, in the obvious vein of this blog, what are its Oscar chances?