OVP: Actor (2005)

OVP: Best Actor (2005)

The Nominees Were...

Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
Terrence Howard, Hustle & Flow
Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain
Joaquin Phoenix, Walk the Line
David Strathairn, Good Night, and Good Luck

My Thoughts: It's pretty rare to have a Best Actor field with no former winners, and even rarer to have one with only one previous nominee, but that's what we get in 2005.  The average age of these actors was only 37.6 at the time, making this possibly the youngest average field of this millennium (I've never done the full math, though that does sound like something I'll probably do at some point, but an average under 40 is spritely for lead actor). The tragedy, of course, is that two of these men are already gone, including the youngest of the bunch, Heath Ledger, who is where we'll start this writeup.

Ledger always had a charm in his films, especially in earlier work like 10 Things I Hate About You or A Knight's Tale, but while I think some might have suspected Jake Gyllenhaal would turn a triumph at some point, assuming Heath Ledger would was at one point a question mark.  Ledger's work in Brokeback, though, is seismic and one of the great film performances, for my money.  He brings a danger & passion to Ennis that feels worn, rough, and tender.  The way he handles that last scene of the movie, where all of the bitterness that he's shown turns into tenderness, knowing what he once had...it's gut-wrenching.  Brokeback would fall on its ass if the Ennis character didn't stick in your gut, but with Ledger, even 15 years later, his work still feels raw and challenging.

Ledger lost the Oscar to Philip Seymour Hoffman (three years later, Hoffman would lose the Oscar to Ledger, but we've already discussed that), and at the time this made total sense since Hoffman, while he'd never been nominated, felt like the sort of guy who'd been born to win an Oscar considering the plethora of high-prestige movies he'd been in to that point.  His Truman is a feat, though it's one I wasn't impressed by.  I don't love transformation performances (into famous people), unless they feel like authentic creations onscreen, and this always veers into mimicry for me.  Hoffman is a good actor (I've seen him give a great performance in The Master and a legendary one onstage in Death of a Salesman), but he falls into overacting so easily, especially early in his career, and this is a part rife with overacting.  Capote is cold & scant in its best moments, but it juxtaposes poorly against Hoffman's Capote, unfeeling & hammy in what he brings to the screen.

Joaquin Phoenix also has a bit of the mimicry going on in Walk the Line, but it doesn't feel at odds with his film.  For starters, Walk the Line isn't as stylistic as Capote, so there's less room to not match with the movie itself, and secondly, Phoenix brings a life to his Cash that never feels like it's simply an imitation.  Phoenix's performance occasionally goes so deep that you don't get the sense of enjoyment from the character that you do Witherspoon's June (Witherspoon seems more intent on giving a great show than imitating her famous counterpart, something that you can't claim for Phoenix), but after the histrionics of Gladiator, this was a nod to the peak duo of The Master/Her that was soon to come from this actor.

David Strathairn rounds out our trio of real-life figures, but while he has countless hours of television to study Edward R. Murrow from, he's the least known to modern audiences so while his vocal pacing is immaculate, it's also unnecessary.  Strathairn's got one of the more challenging roles-how do you create an arch for a man who is famous for sticking to his principles?  He does so with subtle movements, his slow indication that he won't stand injustice, and the ways in which he underlines the risks he's taking with the network by becoming more reserved as the film goes on; it's not the sort of performance you expect Oscar to love, but it's thrilling to see when he does.

The final nominee has had arguably the strangest post-Oscar career of these actors (if obviously not the most heartbreaking).  Howard went from superhero sidekick to getting out-shined in his broadcast TV show relatively quickly after this was released (and is also famous for bizarre offscreen behavior, though that's true of every one of these guys save for Strathairn), but in 2005 was the big new star of the year.  He likely won this nomination for both Crash and Hustle & Flow, but that's not how the OVP works (I only judge the nominated perf, not what else led to a nomination), and Howard is only okay in Hustle & Flow.  This is the least of the actual movies up in this category, so the arch isn't atypical (musician wanting to strike it big is not breaking ground), and while Howard is raw & felt, especially his scenes with his future Empire costar Taraji P. Henson, it feels routine against some of these turns.

Other Precursor Contenders: We start with the Globes, which distinguish between Drama and "Comedy/Musical," and as a result have ten men on our ballot.  For Drama we have Hoffman besting Russell Crowe (Cinderella Man), Howard, Ledger, and Strathairn, while in Musical/Comedy it's Phoenix on top over Jeff Daniels (The Squid and the Whale), Johnny Depp (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), Nathan Lane (The Producers), and Cillian Murphy (Breakfast on Pluto).  SAG skipped Howard in favor of Crowe, but kept the rest of the Oscar lineup (including the winner), while Hoffman also won the BAFTA, this time over Strathairn, Ledger, Phoenix, and Ralph Fiennes (The Constant Gardener).  Weirdly considering my comment about some of these men's offscreen behavior, the only reason Howard was able to get in was because Crowe spent most of 2005 earning headlines for throwing a phone at a hotel clerk-he was surely in sixth place, and probably a close sixth.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I'd get rid of three of these guys, but this isn't a bad lineup (2005 in general Oscar didn't get dealt a great hand by the film industry from what I'm finding, and thus made the most of a lousy deck).  That said, I'd keep Fiennes, who is awesome opposite Rachel Weisz's Oscar-winning turn in one of many great performances AMPAS has skipped since The English Patient.  I'd also keep Daniel Auteil's intricate work as a TV host in Cache, and in a little-remembered turn, Bill Murray as a man looking through the women of his past in Broken Flowers.

Oscar’s Choice: History might remember this as closer than it was at the time considering the longitude achieved by Brokeback Mountain, but this was Hoffman in a walk.

My Choice: Heath Ledger gives what might be the best performance of this century on film-it's just that good.  There's no way I wouldn't give him the trophy, or even say that he's close even if David Strathairn would've been a worthy winner in different circumstances.  Behind the two of them is Phoenix, Howard, and Hoffman.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you with me over in Team Ennis, or does Capote still have its share of fans?  Do you think Terence Howard ever gets back in with an Oscar nomination or has that portion of his career ended?  And if Crowe doesn't pick up that telephone, would he have gotten his fourth nomination (a nod that I bet never materializes now that he's past his movie star years)?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2005: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Original Score, Original Song, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2005

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

OVP: Supporting Actor (2007)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2007)

The Nominees Were...

Casey Affleck, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson, Michael Clayton

My Thoughts: As we've learned throughout our 2007 dissection, film really had a remarkable year in terms of the Oscars, as AMPAS dismissed some obvious prestige plays and went with a series of dark, powerful films.  And yet, the real shocker may be that looking at the Best Supporting Actor lineup they didn't somehow screw this lineup up.  Even in the best of years, the Best Supporting Actor list is almost always filled with duds.  Respected character actors, semi-lead performances, and scene stealers in Best Pictures are the standard line in this category, and again in 2007 they stick to these cliches, but in a surprise most of these performances are not dull, but instead are quite exceptional and career bests in a couple of cases.  So, given that refreshing bit of prelude, let's start with the worst of these performances.

I was never a big fan of Philip Seymour Hoffman's acting style in movies.  People loved his deeply method approach, the way that he managed to be a movie star that looked like a character actor (a trick not many people get the opportunity to portray, but Paul Thomas Anderson and Bennett Miller saw to his having it), but I always felt his performances were too harried and theatrical.  In fact, the most impressive moment I ever saw from in his career was when he played Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman, a towering achievement and one of the best performances I've ever seen on the New York stage.  But that was the theater, where he could get away with some of his more indulgent acting tics.  As a result other than The Master I've never been particularly struck by anything Hoffman did as a film actor, and that includes Charlie Wilson's War.  Here he plays a bombastic CIA operative, whose only temperatures are loud and louder when it comes to the way that Hoffman portrayed him.  There's technical skill here, but honestly even by the low bar I set for Hoffman, this is the least of his Oscar nominated roles, and feels more like an afterglow citation by people still enamored with his work in Capote.

Much better is Casey Affleck, a fine actor who occasionally gets in his own way in terms of technical skill.  This is the film that pushed him out of the way of his brother's shadow, likely leading to him eventually taking the Oscar for Manchester by the Sea.  Though he's never as good as Pitt, who has the more understated and challenging role, Affleck brings a mannered approach to Robert Ford that makes you constantly guessing about him and his motives, perhaps because as Ford is written his motives seem to always be changing.  Is he in love with James, or is he simply trying to become him?  It's not clear, but Affleck doesn't shy away from the Celluloid Closet angles of this part, and though his speaking pattern is sometimes frustrating, it's never out-of-character and well-considered.  My biggest problem with this nomination is that Affleck is the main character, hardly supporting at all-he has more screen-time than even Pitt himself, and was only relegated to supporting because he was not yet a matinee idol.  I dock quite a few points for what is one of the most egregious cases of category fraud I've seen in a long time.

Tom Wilkinson arguably has some category fraud in his corner as well, though at least his work in Michael Clayton could convincingly be called supporting (there's no question that George Clooney's titular character is the main point of focus).  Wilkinson, like Hoffman, plays this part so bombastically it's hard to take it seriously.  Honestly-that whole scene where he proclaims "I am Sheva the God of Death" is so manically over-the-top that you almost wonder if Tony Gilroy is playing this part for comedy.  Unlike the very specific decisions made by his costar Tilda Swinton, this feels more muddled and all-over-the-place, and very different from Wilkinson's fine work in In the Bedroom.  A disappointment, but he's aided by Michael Clayton being quite a fine film.

The last two performances are from actors giving, in my opinion, the best performances of their careers.  Javier Bardem managed to turn his Anton Chigurh into a movie star-career, getting him spots in major cinematic franchises like James Bond and Pirates of the Caribbean, and overall becoming a household name.  His Chigurh is pitch-perfect, and still lives up to the hype.  He keeps the character foreboding, dangerous, and unknowable.  There's no need for back story here, which the Coen Brothers smartly avoid, as he's simply a demon that is intent on winning at all costs.  The film lives and dies on this performance, and Bardem knows it, keeping his part restrained when other actors (including, quite frankly, Bardem himself in later years) would have over-played their hands with such a plum part.  That he keeps such an iconic villain subdued is a miraculous feat, and shows why he became an acting icon after this movie.

Finally, we have Hal Holbrook playing the annual part of an aging character actor who finally gets his due from the Academy.  The only thing that upsets this cliche is that Holbrook is marvelous in Into the Wild, playing a lonely man drawn in by the youth and kindness of a wayward stranger.  Holbrook gets scenes that could play to the rafters, but he keeps them back, eventually bringing out a difficult vulnerability that shatters against the emotionally-stunted Chris McCandless (played by Emile Hirsch) when he asks him to adopt him.  The pain on Holbrook's face, finally taking a chance after a long life of playing by the book, and then realizing that he was rejected, is marvelous-it honestly haunted me for months after seeing the picture, and made me think the movie itself is better than it is.  That's what great supporting actors do, and I'm so glad that Holbrook got to be included in Oscar's pantheon after a long career as a bit player in entertainment.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes were largely similar to the Oscars despite them getting a bit more creative in other categories, with only Holbrook missing (the HFPA, as is their style, went with the movie star in a crowd-pleaser: John Travolta in Hairspray).  The SAG Awards skipped Hoffman instead, a bit of a surprise considering he seemed like a sure thing with Oscar at the time, picking Tommy Lee Jones for No Country for Old Men.  Finally, the BAFTA Awards also went with Jones, as well as Paul Dano in There Will Be Blood, skipping over the more America-centric Holbrook & Affleck.  The only thing all lineups had in common was an easy win for Bardem, who was giving one of those performances that couldn't be ignored.  For me, it's hard to tell whether it was Travolta or Jones in sixth place, but considering Jones's shock Best Actor nomination part of me thinks Travolta's major comeback in 2007 was the sort of crowd-pleasing hit that just missed with AMPAS.

Performances I Would Have Nominated: I've never been as smitten by Tommy Lee Jones as some other filmgoers, but honestly-his work as Ed Tom Bell is the best performance of his career, and deserved a nomination.  I also would have found time for Max von Sydow's tortured father in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, as well as one of the many outstanding supporting performances in Zodiac, with Mark Ruffalo likely being my favorite of the bunch.

Oscar’s Choice: An easy win for Bardem, though second place is harder to call-would they have gone with the sentimental favorite of Holbrook or would a quick second win for Hoffman have been in the cards?  I could make a case for either, but I'm guessing Hoffman would have had an edge.

My Choice: I also can't stop what's coming, and will pick Bardem over Holbrook.  In third place is Affleck, who would have been a threat for going higher were it not for the category fraud, followed by Wilkinson and finally Hoffman.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you with the consensus choice of Bardem, or does someone want to make an argument that another man deserved this trophy?  Who was second place, Hoffman or Holbrook?  Who was sixth place-Jones or Travolta?  And which Zodiac supporting player was the most snubbed?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2007: 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, Previously in 2007

Past Best Supporting Actor Contests: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

OVP: Supporting Actor (2008)

OVP: Best Supporting Actor (2008)

The Nominees Were...

Josh Brolin, Milk
Robert Downey, Jr., Tropic Thunder
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt
Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
Michael Shannon, Revolutionary Road

My Thoughts: We have finally arrived-the Big 6.  The categories where even if you haven't seen the films, it's more-than-likely that you'll have an opinion on the actors that are nominated.  And why shouldn't you?  In many ways this category represents best the five men you were most likely to have seen on big screens in the past decade or so.  There's the highest-paid actor in Hollywood (at least it feels like it), there's an omnipresent character actor, another omnipresent character actor, and then two actors who were considered amongst the best of their generation until they tragically died.  Yes, this is one of two times that Philip Seymour Hoffman and Heath Ledger strangely competed against each other for an Oscar (they emerged 1-1 from the battles), and yet both died tragically from drug use before they could break the tie.  Since they're clearly the focus as we start discussing, let's start with them.

Hoffman's Father Flynn is, let's be honest here, a leading character in Doubt.  In the same way that Ledger's Joker is questionably in this category, Hoffman probably has a bit too much screen-time to qualify as a "supporting actor" (you might remember that that didn't stop me from giving him the OVP in 2012, though).  I also have to admit that in general I wasn't wild about Hoffman in this role.  PSH is a great stage actor (I had the incredible honor of seeing him in Death of a Salesman, which I found spellbinding), but that rarely translates well onscreen which is why I've only once been a huge fan of him in a movie role (again, click that link).  There's too much over-the-top with Father Flynn when I feel like he could have been quieter and taken better, more cautious choices.  This is my opinion in general with Doubt, which doesn't really know that it's stopped being a play and gain from a little subtlety, but it's Hoffman's work as Father Flynn that takes the biggest heat-his yelling over Streep makes both of them a little careless with their impressive acting instruments, and the film suffers as a result.

Ledger, on the other hand, finds a way to bring an oversized character to life in The Dark Knight.  So much has been written about this role, both how it became larger when Ledger died prior to the film's release, as well as how fanboys flocked to its instant iconography, but who can blame them?  There's really no false notes here-Ledger creates a ruthless, menacing villain who steals the film from out from under the rest of the cast, but yet doesn't seem to be committing highway robbery with the film.  The movie simmers with electricity both when he's onstage, constantly creating a character that is unknowable yet instantly feared, and when he's offstage you are always waiting for if the Joker might arrive and create a moment of tragedy.  All-in-all, it's the sort of performance that cannot be denied the title of great, and one that weirdly lives up to the almost insurmountable hype.

Robert Downey, Jr. completes this trio of over-the-top performances, and I have to say that I love Tropic Thunder more every time that I see it, particularly due to Downey's work.  The film borders frequently on the distasteful, but Downey knows how to milk the comedy out of every single line, and I adore the way that he consistently finds ways to mock both the character that he's playing as a real-person and the character he's playing as the fake actor onscreen.  There's so many wonderful layers of comedy here you might expect you're in a Mel Brooks film.  In the years since I've felt like Downey was slouching, and some might say this nomination was in part due to Iron Man, but that doesn't mean it wasn't wholly worthy of a citation, and I like that this strange little comedy (starring Ben Stiller and Jack Black of all people) managed such an unusual Oscar nomination for acting.

Josh Brolin by this point in 2008 was bound to be getting an Oscar nomination (he had been in SO many Oscar-nominated films in the three years prior), and thankfully it was for arguably his best work, bringing Dan White to the screen.  I think the best part about what Brolin does here is not just that he creates yet another villain for this category, but that he makes Dan White confused as to why he is the villain.  You see that in the looks on his face and his reactions to Harvey-he's the one who the institution should favor-the straight, white man with the family, and yet it's the gay man from the Castro who is getting all of the glory.  I like that Brolin comes at the prejudice from a point of privilege and confusion rather than just hate as it makes Dan White a far more interesting and complicated foil.

I distinctly remember the shock on everyone's (figurative) face that Michael Shannon scored an Oscar nomination for Revolutionary Road when Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes both were skipped over; James Franco or Dev Patel had seemed more likely scenarios for the fifth slot.  I particularly remember being floored as I wasn't particularly taken with Shannon in this role.  The entire concept of his John in the film seems wholly unnecessary-the story is Frank and April's, and his angry "crazy" man next door isn't really conducive to the plot and feels added-on and occasionally distracting.  It doesn't help, though, that Shannon is frequently milking the scenes and chewing on them-the performance is over-the-top.  I like what it did for Shannon's career (he would go on to much better work, like Boardwalk Empire), and I'm always rooting for a shock nomination, but this wasn't really a worthy one.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes couldn't help but do a little bit of movie star plucking, skipping character actors Josh Brolin and Michael Shannon and instead going with Ralph Fiennes in The Duchess and Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder (another performance under a whole lot of makeup-remember when Les Grossman was a thing?).  The SAG Awards ,which don't have a choice over which category you submit yourself for, picked the clearly lead Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire) in place of Michael Shannon, while the BAFTA Awards skipped both Brolin and Shannon to go with Brendan Gleeson in In Bruges and Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading.  While Heath Ledger won all three trophies, I'm curious over who was in sixth-for years now I've thought Dev Patel, but considering Shannon probably got in with minimal support, there's a chance that one of the Best Picture contenders (Michael Sheen, Ralph Fiennes, James Franco) may have also been able to slide in for a nomination.  Fiennes, in particular seems likely, but for which of his three film contenders?

Performances I Would Have Nominated: This was a solid year for this category, which makes me a little bummed at some of the category fraud and that Michael Shannon managed the surprise.  Ralph Fiennes was doing brilliantly funny work in In Bruges, James Franco was wonderfully sexual in Milk, and Brad Pitt was comically inept and over-the-top in the underseen Burn After Reading.  I would have preferred any of these contenders (all of whom were at least in the conversation) over Hoffman or Shannon.

Oscar’s Choice: Heath Ledger became only the second actor to win an Oscar posthumously, likely taking out Hoffman and Brolin, in that order.

My Choice: There's just no denying Ledger.  For second place, I'm going to go with Brolin in a slight nod over Downey (they're close, though), as I think Dan White is a harder stand-out.  Hoffman and Shannon finish out the five.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Does anyone out there want to make a case for Heath Ledger to lose?  Are you with me that Michael Shannon's nomination seems strange not just for the surprise but also because the performance just isn't that good?  And who do you have in second place here?  Share in the comments!

Also in 2008: Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2008

Past Best Supporting Actor Contests: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

A Most Wanted Man (2014)

Film: A Most Wanted Man (2014)
Stars: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Rachel McAdams, Willem Dafoe, Robin Wright, Grigoriy Dobrygin, Daniel Bruhl
Director: Anton Corbijn
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

There are occasionally festival titles that slip quietly into the dark.  They have that aura of important but not quite going to score at the Oscars or other awards ceremonies.  Therefore, they would normally be relegated to On Demand and randomly show up in your Netflix "we recommend" list but only the most loyal of theater patrons would catch it (the retired people who see a matinee four times a week and the like...the people I hope to be when I retire).

However, on occasion something happens to make a particular film noteworthy, which is what happened when Philip Seymour Hoffman passed away earlier this year, making A Most Wanted Man not some random John le Carre adaptation with strong reviews but little buzz, but instead the final leading role of one of the most celebrated actors of his generation.  Hoffman's presence in this film gives it an interesting anecdotal footnote, and while he has the final Hunger Games films left, this is likely his last significant acting contribution.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film takes a while to get off the ground.  Like John Le Carre's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, this is a film for the mind, not just for the senses, and unlike your average spy and espionage thriller, you're left with very few action sequences (which makes the final scene a bit jarring, but in a good way because it's the only truly quick moment in the movie).  However, unlike Tinker, I don't feel like this film quite joins the great pantheon of spy thrillers.

The problem may lie in the casting, to be honest.  Hoffman is brilliant as a man shut off from society for decades, spending his lifetime trying to track terrorists and devoting all of himself to a job that will eventually spit out his soul after chewing on it for a few decades.  Rachel McAdams, though, is fatally miscast.  Of all of the bad German accents in the film, hers is the worst (Daniel Bruhl, I feel, should have done a bit more coaching with the cast).  I personally feel like McAdams has made a career of bad decisions onscreen, frequently going dramatic when her chops are comedic, and quite frankly, I don't think I've ever seen a film where she was actually any good except for Mean Girls.  That continues with this particular film, where she's out of her element against Dafoe and Hoffman, both of whom are able to be subdued without becoming washed out (something McAdams seems incapable of doing).

It's also worth noting that the setup to the film isn't as strong as Tinker (which is admittedly a bit unfair-Tinker being Le Carre's magnum opus novel), as the first thirty minutes the film seems to have started almost fifteen minutes into the movie.  This sometimes happens when the audience (read: me) isn't as familiar with what is going on onscreen, but I have a feeling that this was also a bit in the delivery as there is little to no character introduction in the opening scenes except with McAdams' character, and Hoffman's character is operating entirely in his world of shadows, so he doesn't quite need the unknowable aspect of his Bachmann that we get to start the movie.

Still, though, the last thirty minutes are an extremely intense ride, and makes you re-evaluate the way that you handle the nameless faces that appear in front of you on CNN and in the papers.  We spend an entire film with a man who has been arrested and tortured and appears innocent, and then slips quietly into the night at the end of the film in an act of extraordinary rendition.  It is haunting in the way that someone can slip quietly into the night, little to no justice, forever gone.  It's a truly memorable ending, particularly the final moments with Hoffman's Bachmann returning to work, realizing that what he does can never change the course of history in a real way, and that he has resigned himself to potentially being one of the bad guys.

Those were my thoughts on this interesting, though not quite marvelous movie.  What were yours?  Do you also feel that the film improved as it went along?  Do you think this is a strong final note for Hoffman's career (even if we all would have preferred it happening much later)?  And what are your general thoughts on Rachel McAdams and her bizarrely sporadic career?  Share in the comments!

Philip Seymour Hoffman (1967-2014)

Philip Seymour Hoffman and I did not get off on the right foot.  I grew up in a small town in Minnesota, as I've mentioned before, and so unlike those NY/LA raised cinephiles who can claim him since Scent of a Woman or Nobody's Fool, I didn't become aware of Phil until a USA airing of Boogie Nights (a film that no one should really see on anything other than premium cable, as it decidedly loses something), and I admit that I wasn't impressed.  This was clearly a man of skill, but not of a talent that I wanted.  The animosity deepened when he took Heath Ledger's Oscar in 2005 and somehow got an Oscar nomination in 2007 instead of Tommy Lee Jones or Max von Sydow.

That all changed, though, the first time that I saw Hoffman on the boards.  It was fairly recently (2012) and he was taking one of those quintessential stage roles and making it his own: Willy Loman.  One of the greatest plays ever written for the American stage, Hoffman found the deep anguish in Loman's forgotten dreams and anger at how he felt cheated by the promises of his youth.  Electric, magnetic, and absolutely marvelous.  I want to say it was my friend Pat who told me once (or at least he heard it somewhere, so he's getting the credit), "Philip Seymour Hoffman is a movie star trapped in the body of a character actor."  When I saw him on that stage, commanding the presence of everyone in the room with the thunder of his voice and the sheer awe that he expressed in every soliloquy, I understood what he meant.  Philip Seymour Hoffman was born to lead, not to follow.

That thought process pushed him to his greatest film role, which was released later that year.  As Lancaster Dodd in The Master, Hoffman finally found a role that combined his great stage presence with a character well-suited for such volcanoes of emotion and grandeur.  From the very moment he meets Joaquin Phoenix's Freddie to his weakness in the eyes of his wife to attacking poor Laura Dern in a dynamite moment of truth meeting a character's plans, Hoffman owned the screen.  He was nominated for an Oscar that year, and was heads-and-tails above all of his competitors even though he didn't win.

His moments on the earth and in the cinema were too brief, and no matter your opinions on the man, everyone had a favorite performance to admire about this titan of acting.  I will always remember sitting in the darkened Landmark Uptown, in awe of the presence he brought to The Master, and even more so, sitting next to my dad at the Ethel Barrymore Theatre watching him bring the house down.  When Philip Seymour Hoffman was on the stage, attention was sure to be paid.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

Film: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
Stars: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Lenny Kravitz, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Sam Claflin, Jena Malone
Director: Francis Lawrence
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Reviewing one of the biggest films of the year always takes a bit of planning, and so I knew going into Catching Fire, the latest installment in the Adventure of Katniss Everdeen, that I had to pay attention.  For starters, I needed to pay attention because, like Harry Potter and Twilight before them, this film is brimming with ancillary characters that the film pays lip service to and that I’m expected to remember from the previous film (you can’t miss out on the chance to have a famous face play a character for twenty seconds, after all).  Secondly, unlike those previous two films, I haven’t really finished this series-I read Catching Fire when it came out in stores, but I’ll admit that it didn’t really bite me like the first book, which was a delicious, cruel delight.  This book has always seemed like a pale, cheap imitation-too repetitive, too focused on a love triangle (does every film series need one of these?), too tunnel-visioned on one specific character (who, notably, suffers from some intense tunnel vision).  But I wanted to see how they approached some of the characters and like all of America, I like to see how sequels take things even if I didn’t 100% care for the first installment.  Film series are my crack, and I indulged in an opening weekend hit.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film, for the seven of you that have either never read the book or missed the movie this weekend, picks up almost exactly where we had left off-Katniss (Lawrence), after co-winning the Hunger Games with her new love interest Peeta (Hutcherson), is still hunting, flashing back to her time in the games, and is moodily angry at basically everyone.  After a showdown of sorts with President Snow (Sutherland), she is chosen to serve once again with Peeta in a special version of the Hunger Games, where all of the past winners are forced to compete against each other.  Unlike other seasons of the games, this year's event riles up both the districts and the Capitol, who have come to love their victors as the victors have been a part of their lives.  Once inside the games, the victors start their own plan, with Katniss, Peeta, and a cavalcade of former winners (including Sam Claflin’s Finnick and Jena Malone’s Johanna, the biggest highlights of the film), they manage to escape from the Hunger Games, most of them relatively intact, with only Peeta stuck behind.

Perhaps it’s because I’ve gotten some distance from the bad role model that Bella Swann was, but I spent most of this movie alternating between really loving Jennifer Lawrence and really hating Katniss Everdeen, something I don’t particularly remember from the books, though I will admit that I lost decided interest part way through the second book (Confession Time: I have never finished the third book, though I plan on doing so this weekend just so that I don’t get spoilered before I inevitably latch onto the next two films).  I think what bothered me so much about Katniss is that she’s too impetuous and too stupid for her own good.  Perhaps it’s because every guy around her is planning every move, but for a film with a strong-willed female character, there’s not much that she does except look pretty and shoot arrows.  Honestly-she’s not the most skilled player in the games (Johanna and Finnick both could best her on this front), she’s not the savviest person outside the games (both Harrelson’s Haymitch and Hoffman’s Plutarch are the puppetmasters here), and aside from occasional moments of faked charm, she’s not really our hero, but just a figurehead.  I loved the moment when Peeta challenges her about her family and friends-there are other people that she affects too, and the way that she constantly, foolishly yells through the woods of the games, giving away her location-it makes little to no sense.  Even at his moodiest Harry Potter was never this foolish, and Bella Swann’s actions rarely impacted others-Katniss, though, she’s a girl that doesn’t care if others catch on fire.

The film is really stunted by a couple of its casting decisions and cast members.  Lawrence’s Katniss may not be a likeable or even a strong character, but Lawrence is too good of an actress to not pull her off with solidity.  I loved the lighter moments (Lawrence was born for screwball comedy, despite that genre not really existing anymore)-the scene where Johanna strips in the elevator was a triumph not just for Malone (who really is terrific after floundering a bit on the road from child star to adult actress, sinking her teeth into the scenery-chewing like no other actor so far in this series), but also for Lawrence’s reaction shots.  When Lawrence is forced to opine for Prim, Peeta, and Gael, she doesn’t sell her nearly as well-you can see the anguish in her face, but perhaps because these other characters are so unknown to us, we don’t really connect as an audience with them.

One of the key problems with the series, particularly when they decided to make it a series, is that the books never really stop focusing on Katniss.  Rowling’s Harry Potter and to a lesser extent Meyer’s Twilight (everyone else compares them, why can’t I?) had a host of additional characters that got fleshed out in some fashion throughout the books, but Collins only wants to know her main character.  While I have admitted to not knowing what happens in the third book (again, I’ll fix it this weekend), so far we’ve seen this flaw rather handily in the movies.  Peeta, for example, is a complete blank slate-all we know about him is essentially what the Capitol knows about him.  We know him as sweet, kind, in love with Katniss, and willing to sacrifice himself at the drop of a hat.  That’s basically the image that is being projected by the Capitol.  I’d say this was a massive inside joke on Collins/the director’s behalf except it clearly isn’t-he just isn’t well-drawn.  Hutcherson doesn’t help by taking advantage of his relaxed moments like Lawrence does-he does what the script calls for, but doesn’t add anything additional to what’s on the page, and his portrayal comes across as flat.  He frequently gains comparisons to a young Tom Hanks, but Hanks would have never disappeared so fully into the background as Hutcherson does, and while he's a nice enough chap, I have yet to see much promise from him as an actor.  This is the same for Liam Hemsworth’s Gael, but he doesn’t get near the screentime that Hutcherson does, so he’s less at fault.  Also, on the note of Team Gael/Team Peeta-how is this a contest?  I mean, Peeta is sweet and Hutcherson is cute, but Hemsworth is a Greek god-it’s not really a fair fight.

Aside from Johanna, the only other new character worth mentioning is Sam Claflin’s Finnick.  Unlike Malone, who is clearly doing the biggest lifting with that character, Finnick starts out so interesting (what are his motives, whose side is he on) that Claflin gets a leg up on the fascinating front.  I love the way that he plays him ambiguously, and since the books always felt a bit like Finnick was bisexual, I wish the film had had the guts to pull a ParaNorman and change his Annie into an Andy.  Just saying, but unless you’re a hardcore shipper for that couple, you know I’m right.

One last note before I leave-the costumes are all intriguing, but did anyone else feel the film still had cinematography problems?  This could have just been the theater I was in, but I felt this way in the first film too-if they are trying to make the film appear darker and grimmer, there are a lot better ways to shoot the movie than in light-depleted shots.  I asked my friend Kate after this film, and she agreed (so it’s not a sign I need to visit the optometrist)-why not do more light and do some contrast with shadow?  It would have made the same impression without the eye strain.

Those are my thoughts, anyway-what are yours?  Did you enjoy this installment better than the first (I’m roughly equal)?  Do you also have an increasing annoyance with Katniss, or are you shouting the odds shouldn’t be in my favor?  And are you Team Gael or Team Peeta?  Share in the comments!

Who Doesn't Have an Oscar?

With Piero Tosi’s recent Honorary Oscar, it got me thinking about a certain record no one at the Oscars probably wants (though from the outside-in, it’s probably still better than nothing): most Academy Award nominations without a win.  Tosi is currently the living person with the most Costume Design award nominations without actually winning a competitive Oscar.  I thought it would be fun to check in with the living people with the most nominations without a win and see what the odds are that they’ll ever win a competitive Oscar.

(Notes: These totals are from Wikipedia, which is sometimes as reliable as a Republican Tea Party congressman, so if you notice any mistakes, I won’t be offended-share in the comments and I’ll correct and give you credit!  Also, unless otherwise noted, this is the record most nominations for a living person, not just in general)

Best Picture

Most Nominated Without a Win: Kathleen Kennedy

How Many Nominations? Eight

Does She Hold the All-Time Loss Record in the Category? Yes, and she’s tied as the most nominated producer, period.

Most Recent Nomination: Lincoln, in 2012

Best Shot at Winning: Hard to say.  She’s arguably in second place at least twice, potentially three times (for E.T., The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and arguably for Lincoln). 

Will She Ever Win? If Steven Spielberg ever wins Best Picture again she’s certain to take it.  Either way she’ll receive the Thalberg at some point.

Best Director

Most Nominated Without a Win: Peter Weir

How Many Nominations? Four

Does She Hold the All-Time Loss Record in the Category? No-Robert Altman, Clarence Brown, Alfred Hitchcock, and King Vidor all outdo him with five apiece.

Most Recent Nomination: Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, in 2003

Best Shot at Winning: I honestly don’t feel like he was ever truly close.  His best shot was probably in a different category (he’s been nominated for screenwriting and producing as well, but never won in any category)-1990’s Original Screenplay.  If I had to pick one, I’d say Witness in 1985, where he was possibly second and third at the worst.

Will She Ever Win? Doubtful-he’s only been on Oscar’s radar once in the past ten years (a Makeup nod for The Way Back) and as he’ll soon be in his seventies, he seems to be in the twilight of his career.

Best Actor

Most Nominated Without a Win: Peter O’Toole

How Many Nominations? Eight

Does He Hold the All-Time Loss Record in the Category? Yes

Most Recent Nomination: Venus, in 2006

Best Shot at Winning: O’Toole got put in one of those rare circumstances in 1962 where he would have won in almost any other year but Gregory Peck managed to take the trophy for To Kill a Mockingbird.  It’s very possible that he was in second place for The Lion in Winter in 1968 (I get the sense that Cliff Robertson won a close race over O’Toole and Alan Bates).  O'Toole also was nominated for The Stunt Man and My Favorite Year in the early eighties, and may have been in second or third place those years, but I doubt he could have overtaken Robert de Niro or Ben Kingsley.

Will He Ever Win? Though he does have an Oscar (an Honorary one in 2003, and O’Toole correctly protested that his career wasn’t over yet since he got another nomination three years later), he’s retired so the competitive trophy is off the table at this point.

Best Actress

Most Nominated Without a Win: Judi Dench, Marsha Mason, and Vanessa Redgrave all tie

How Many Nominations? Four

Does She Hold the All-Time Loss Record in the Category? No-Deborah Kerr had six before she died.

Most Recent Nomination: For Dench it was 2006’s Notes on a Scandal, for Mason it was 1981’s Only When I Laugh, and for Redgrave it was 1984’s The Bostonians

Best Shot at Winning: Dench surely came the closest in 1997’s Mrs. Brown, where she won the Drama Golden Globe and was in a close race with Helen Hunt (her film’s Best Picture nomination surely helped her across the finish line).  Mason won Globes for her 1973 and 1977 nominations (Cinderella Liberty and The Goodbye Girl, respectively), though I suspect the strangeness of the 1973 field probably made her closest that year.  Redgrave has never really been close to winning-all four of her years she would have been lucky to have gotten third place. 

Will They Ever Win? To be fair, Redgrave and Dench both have Supporting Actress Oscars, which surely helps the sting here.  Of the three, though, Dench is the only one who still works in the “right” kind of pictures to get nominated or win again, and may well break the tie with this year’s Philomena.

Best Supporting Actor

Most Nominated Without a Win: Jeff Bridges, Robert Duvall, Ed Harris, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Al Pacino

How Many Nominations? Three

Does He Hold the All-Time Loss Record in the Category? No-Claude Rains and Arthur Kennedy both have four a pop.

Most Recent Nomination: This is a laundry list, but they are: 2000’s The Contender (Bridges), 1998’s A Civil Action (Duvall), 2002’s The Hours (Harris), 2012’s The Master (Hoffman), and 1992’s Glengarry Glen Ross (Pacino)

Best Shot at Winning: I don’t feel like any of Bridges’ nominations came close to winning-all three had fairly well-established frontrunners.  Harris was considered the frontrunner by many in 1995 and 1998 for Apollo 13 and The Truman Show, respectively.  Duvall was surely in the conversation for Apocalypse Now! (though Melvyn Douglas had a solid lead that year) and was second to Harris from predictions in 1998 (James Coburn's surprise win was one of the biggest upsets of that decade).  Hoffman was in second place in 2008 for Doubt and probably was in the running for last year’s The Master.  And finally Pacino was surely in second place for his lead work in The Godfather, which was put in supporting to ensure Brando had a clear path to victory (and we all saw how that turned out).

Will They Ever Win? All but Harris have won an Oscar in the leading categories, and while I do feel Hoffman will get a second trophy at some point, I just don’t feel the same way about Harris.  He still works regularly and won great praise for Game Change, but he doesn’t campaign, which hurts when you want an old-age honor.

Best Supporting Actress

Most Nominated Without a Win: Amy Adams

How Many Nominations? Four

Does She Hold the All-Time Loss Record in the Category? No-Thelma Ritter does with six (she’s also the most nominated period in the category)

Most Recent Nomination: 2012’s The Master

Best Shot at Winning: I once made the comment that Amy Adams was likely in fourth place in all four of her Oscar-nominated years, and I stand by that assessment.  The tightest race was probably 2010’s The Fighter, but fourth place is not close to winning. 

Will She Ever Win? She’s got a good shot this year, but in Best Actress.  The Academy clearly adores her, but if she can’t stick the landing in a few years, she’s going to be in tough shape.

Best Original Screenplay

Most Nominated Without a Win: Mike Leigh

How Many Nominations? Five

Does He Hold the All-Time Loss Record in the Category? No-Federico Fellini won six nominations but no trophies

Most Recent Nomination: 2010’s Another Year

Best Shot at Winning: Secrets & Lies (1996) resulted in Leigh getting a Best Director nomination (one of only two in his career) and had it not been for the Coen Brothers’ Fargo, he surely would have won.

Will He Ever Win? Doubtful.  Leigh’s approach with screenplays is largely toward having his actors improvise, which can’t sit well with the writers’ branch.  But the Academy surely likes his films, so he could very well overtake Fellini’s record and has an outside shot at an Honorary Award at some point.

Best Foreign Film

Most Nominated Without a Win: Israel

How Many Nominations? Ten

Does It Hold the All-Time Loss Record in the Category? Yes

Most Recent Nomination: 2011’s Footnote

Best Shot at Winning: No idea-trying to predict the winner in this category is generally impossible-the also-rans would be a fool’s errand.

Will It Ever Win? Certainly-Israeli cinema is on the rise (four of these nominations came in the past six years), and will likely win pretty soon.

Best Cinematography

Most Nominated Without a Win: Roger Deakins

How Many Nominations? Ten

Does He Hold the All-Time Loss Record in the Category? No-George Folsey hit thirteen without a win.

Most Recent Nomination: Last year’s Skyfall

Best Shot at Winning: 2007-he received two nominations for Best Cinematography that year, and had to be a close second to Robert Elswit’s There Will Be Blood (Deakins did the Best Picture-winning No Country for Old Men).

Will He Ever Win? I’m starting to lean toward no.  He’s not terribly old (he’s 64) and works regularly (he’s had three nominations in the past five years, and has a decent shot at an eleventh this year for Prisoners), but he doesn’t lens a lot of visual effects-laden films, which seems to be the trend of this category.  He’s a genius though (I’ve given him two OVP awards already) and could be a great candidate for an Honorary Award.

Best Costume Design

Most Nominated Without a Win: Piero Tosi and Patricia Norris both tie

How Many Nominations? Five

Does He Hold the All-Time Loss Record in the Category? Yes, though the late Howard Shoup also has five.

Most Recent Nomination: Neither work frequently anymore.  Norris’s last one was 1988’s Sunset (I’d never heard of it either) and Tosi’s was 1982’s La traviata.

Best Shot at Winning: I honestly don’t feel like Tosi ever really came close, though it’s hard to say whether his earlier foreign language films had a higher rate of people seeing them (foreign films being more readily honored by the Academy in those days).  I’m going to assume that both came the closest  in 1982, when Gandhi inexplicably won this category.

Will They Ever Win? Tosi is winning an Honorary Award this year, and while Norris probably deserves to be mentioned for one as well, I doubt she’ll take it (it’ll be a while before they pick another costume designer, and she’s 82).

Best Original Score

Most Nominated Without a Win: Thomas Newman

How Many Nominations? Ten

Does He Hold the All-Time Loss Record in the Category? No-Alex North has it with fourteen nominations before his death.

Best Shot at Winning: My gut says that 1999’s American Beauty is probably the closest he came.  The Red Violin from that year was something of a surprise, and if I recall correctly, Newman was the frontrunner to beat it.

Will He Ever Win? Yes.  Newman has had an incredible bad luck streak, but he’s so regularly nominated in a field that favors default nominees that loves to re-nominate and is only 57, so he’ll time will come.  I wouldn’t be stunned if he made it an eleventh nomination in this category with the upcoming Saving Mr. Banks, for starters.

Best Sound Mixing

Most Nominated Without a Win: Kevin O’Connell

How Many Nominations? Twenty (that is not a typo)

Does He Hold the All-Time Loss Record in the Category? Yes-he’s also the most nominated person in Academy history to never win an Oscar.

Best Shot at Winning: For all the fanfare about O’Connell’s many, many snubs (it’s ridiculous), he hasn’t been close to winning very often.  I’d say he was within striking distance for 1983’s Terms of Endearment, 1996’s Twister, and 2007’s Transformers, but that’s probably it.

Will He Ever Win? Possibly, though he hasn’t gotten one in a while by his standards (for some reason he dropped out of the Transformers franchise, otherwise he’d be at 22 losses), and he typically makes the sort of films that get you nominated but don’t let you win.  He still works like crazy, though, so it could happen.  If nothing else, this is a clear case of AMPAS owing the man an Honorary Oscar.

And those are it for now.  If anyone knows who the Film Editing, Adapted Screenplay, Original Song, Art Direction, Sound Editing, Visual Effects, and Makeup leaders are let me know and I’ll add them to the list (I couldn’t find them).  And what are your thoughts-do you think any of these men or women will end their losing streaks (or at least continue them to break the all-time records?)  Share your thoughts on when they should have won, if they’ll win, or why they shouldn’t have this many nominations to begin with in the comments!