OVP: The Horse Whisperer (1998)

Film: The Horse Whisperer (1998)

Stars: Robert Redford, Kristin Scott Thomas, Sam Neill, Dianne Wiest, Scarlett Johnasson, Chris Cooper

Director: Robert Redford

Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Song-"A Soft Place to Fall")

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2023 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the Golden Age western, and the stars who made it one of the most enduring legacies of Classical Hollywood.  This month, our focus is on Robert Redford: click here to learn more about Mr. Redford (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Last week we talked a little bit about how Robert Redford was getting beyond his pretty boy roots, and beyond acting all-together by founding the Sundance Film Festival, today the most important film festival in the United States.  But Redford quickly went from highlighting the films of others to making his own in 1980, with the premiere of Ordinary People, his landmark debut which won the Best Picture & Director actors, making Redford one of the only directors to win for his film debut.  Redford would continue acting in the decades that followed, but many of his most remembered films from this time period were movies he directed like A River Runs Through It (which I love) and Quiz Show.  Because he didn't star in these movies, this is not my opportunity to watch Ordinary People for the first time (somehow, it is one of the only Best Picture winners I've never seen, and the most critically-acclaimed gap in my viewings), but instead we will talk today about the first time that Redford directed himself, in 1998's romantic western The Horse Whisperer.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie starts with tragedy, as Grace MacLean (Johansson), the teenager daughter of a posh Manhattan couple Annie (Thomas) & Robert (Neill), is in a shocking accident with her horse, where she loses her leg, and her best friend & her horse are killed.  Annie, though an Anna Wintour-style magazine editor at the beginning of the film, starts to believe that saving Grace's horse Pilgrim is somehow connected with her daughter finding a zeal for life again, and so she goes to Montana to meet with a "horse whisperer" named Tom Booker (Redford), who runs a ranch and while initially hesitant, also sees that Pilgrim & Grace are connected.  He begins to train Pilgrim, but in the process he starts to win over not just a recuperating Grace, but also a smitten Annie, with whom he begins to have an affair.  Their love from two worlds is pretty clearly not going to last, but it is a moment where Annie begins to ponder her responsibilities to herself, her identity, and her family...and the man she is falling in love with.

In 1998, romantic dramas like The Horse Whisperer were not uncommon (see also Hope Floats, Meet Joe Black, and City of Angels), and so it isn't noted as a success in the way it would be today (a straight drama grossing almost $200 million in 2023 would be a guaranteed Best Picture nomination).  But looking back on it, it's so refreshing to watch the film from a modern lens, knowing this type of film would go out-of-fashion just a few years later as studios lost their minds over the X-Men and Spider-Man box office receipts.  The movie doesn't apologize for being complicated, giving us a woman who shouldn't be falling in love (she's married), but she is, and it doesn't give us easy answers.  In the end, it's not clear Redford-the-director knows if Redford-the-actor should end up with Annie or not, and that's kind of the point.  Love doesn't always have right answers, and to see that in a movie without any winking, comedic relief, or need to infantilize adults by pretending this is the first time either has fallen in love would read as bold today, and it's expertly handled by Redford as a director.

I will say that I don't think the movie succeeds in terms of chemistry between the two leads.  This is a weird situation as I think both Redford & Thomas give strong performances (both are very good actors) in their own lanes.  Redford's Tom is played as a romantic who clearly was too burned to end up with another woman after he lost his last wife, and Thomas gives Annie a three-dimensional look at motherhood, and being willing to sign up for more adventures as you age.  But the two don't have romantic inclinations to each other.  This isn't the age gap (though it's hard not to think about that since it's the only thing Gen Z audiences are capable of talking about in romances), but more so their acting styles.  Redford is such a naturalistic, California boy against Thomas stage-trained British beauty, and they don't really jive even as an opposites-attract pairing.  Good movie, good performances...weirdly not a compelling romance (though the Oscar-nominated song definitely tries on that front, giving us a lovely, lonely country ballad that they dance to at a critical moment in the picture).

With that, we're going to retire Robert Redford, who at 87 is still acting semi-regularly acts.  After the combined star wattage of Redford & Clint Eastwood, two of the great living movie stars of the 1970's, we're going to move next month into the work of a man who got his career start doing some of the independent westerns of the 1970's, before eventually moving into character actor roles in Hollywood films starting in the 1980's, including a turn in one of the most noted westerns of the 1990's. 

OVP: The English Patient (1996)

Film: The English Patient (1996)
Stars: Ralph Fiennes, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe, Kristin Scott Thomas, Naveen Andrews, Colin Firth
Director: Anthony Minghella
Oscar History: 12 nods/9 wins (Best Picture*, Director*, Actor-Ralph Fiennes, Actress-Kristin Scott Thomas, Supporting Actress-Juliette Binoche*, Art Direction*, Cinematography*, Adapted Screenplay, Costume*, Sound*, Film Editing*, Original Score*)
(Not So) Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

Stating a favorite movie has gotten harder as I've gotten older.  For years, it was a de facto answer (Casablanca), as sure as I could tell you my name is John or that I would definitely have sex with Colin Farrell if given the option.  But recently I've started to poke holes in that facade, realizing that as I've seen more movies than the average person will see in their entire lifetime at this point that it's okay to bring up Chinatown or Call Me By Your Name or Once Upon a Time in the West as potentially my favorite film ever made.  One of the movies that most strongly comes up when I decide to stray away from Casablanca as the Grand Teton of movies is The English Patient, a movie I was blessed enough to see at a "secret movie night" recently.  The English Patient is so ingrained in me that not only did I know it from literally the opening chord of the score (I literally squealed to my mom, sitting next to me, "it's my favorite movie!"), but also I have seen this film so often that I could literally mouth along to the words, as if I was at a rock concert and suddenly a favorite anthem began to play.  Since the film is arguably the movie I have the most arched eyebrows for when I mention it as potentially my favorite movie ever (even my mom who has known of my obsession with the film since I used to watch it alone in my bedroom every two months or so in high school, didn't quite get it after watching it with me for the second time), I figured I should rescue it today from the annals of being a Seinfeld punchline and talk about my English Patient.

(Spoilers Ahead) Okay, so the plot of The English Patient is somewhat hard to summarize as it's essentially two stories told chronologically and concurrently, so you're getting back story to one tale (about our present-day "English Patient" who has suffered terrible burns in a plane crash, and what happened to him before he was burned), and our current-state tale of Hana the Nurse (Binoche) who keeps losing everyone that she loves in horrible accidents toward the end of World War II.  The first half follows Almasy (Fiennes), the "English Patient," as he has a torrid affair with Katherine Clifton (Scott Thomas) who is married to Geoffrey (Firth).  All of them are helping to create maps of Northern Africa, which initially just feels like a past-time for bored and wealthy Europeans, but becomes crucially important as World War II breaks out, and increasingly battles are being fought between the Allies and the Axis powers in Africa.  Meanwhile, we learn seemingly contradictory things about Almasy in present-day, with him claiming to have been married to Katherine, and having him be accused of betraying the Allies (and his team, including the Cliftons) to the Germans, and in the process causing a thief named Caravaggio (Dafoe) who has traced down Almasy to come seeking his revenge, as Caravaggio blames Almasy for him being maimed (he had his thumbs cut off during illegal torture) during the war.  The film even has time for a second romance in the modern-day, between Hana and a young Sikh named Kip (Andrews), who disarms bombs and mines for a living.

The movie functions at once as a melodrama, a pair of doomed romances, and a mystery.  The first time you see it, it's not entirely clear what to do with our misleading narrator, who lies frequently in the present, so you don't know until the end that he's been telling the truth in the past.  The film kind of has something for everyone in this regard-if you don't really love the romances, you can always latch onto the "war is hell" portion of the story, as well as the central mystery, and of course there's two romances to point you toward, both of which feel fully-fleshed out (that's not a nudity joke, though there is ample nudity in the picture).

What I love about The English Patient (and this could honestly be a book, so for your own eyes I'll try to keep this relatively brief) is the way that it feels like a complete, epic story.  Frequently when a director like Minghella were to shoot for a big-picture sweeping tale there would be sluggish, potentially even ancillary aspects to the movie that don't keep it going; look at Minghella's impressive but less successful Cold Mountain for an example of a movie that can occasionally be spellbinding but gets lost along the way, never quite justifying its run-time.  The English Patient doesn't do that-it leaves layers for future viewings (it's impossible to get the depth of Binoche's Hana, and her misery the first time you see it, realizing what she has to go through while still maintaining a relatively caring-and-cheerful demeanor), but it's also a complete story all on its own.  It's not an epic that is long for the sake of being grand-it's long because the story demands it, and there isn't a lot of "spare" in the picture.  Unless you truly hate, say, the romance between Hana/Kip (and how could you do such a thing?), The English Patient is that rare movie that justifies heading into 3-hour territory without ever being dull.

The performances are brilliant.  All three of the Oscar-nominated leads are giving their best work here, and considering we're talking about Ralph Fiennes, Juliette Binoche, & Kristin Scott Thomas, that's saying something.  I can never quite decide my favorite performance in the picture, though I'd probably lean toward Fiennes on most days; he finds a thoroughly caddish rogue, someone we shouldn't sympathize with, and makes him a Heathcliff of the 20th Century.  Almasy is a brute, and probably not worthy of Katherine (or Hana, for that matter), but you understand the attraction here, and why he'd be the great love of her life.  Binoche finds an openness in Hana that is her trademark, but I love the quieter moments in her performance, the way that she is genuinely curious about the man she's caring for (always falling in love again), upon reflection.  Scott Thomas is in full-on glamour mode, never looking lovelier, but also is a woman who understands how to toe the line between being in a man's world, where she's frequently dismissed because of her gender and beauty, and someone who still manages to get things she wants, the way she wants them.  Along with sensitive portrayals from Dafoe & Andrews, the film's acting is just as good as the costumes, cinematography, and scoring, something you can't claim for a lot of romantic epics.

All-in-all, this is a movie I will always love, and that pretty much every age (even as I am now the age of the characters onscreen falling madly in love, rather than just someone imagining being so) of my existence will latch onto.  I am self-aware enough to know this isn't a picture for everyone-the dialogue is highly-stylized ("the heart is an organ of fire," "find that plant-cut out its heart,") but watching it in a packed theater, where the sparing jokes still land and the tender walk up to the Cave of Swimmers still had a number of wet eyes, I am reminded of why I love the movies-the very best ones unite us and captivate us in their stories.  The English Patient is a melodrama, one brimming with romantic tragedy, but it's also the very best of what the cinema can encapsulate-it's an escapist but all-too-human look at the lives of ordinary people put into extraordinary circumstances.

OVP: Darkest Hour (2017)

Film: Darkest Hour (2017)
Stars: Gary Oldman, Ben Mendelsohn, Kristin Scott Thomas, Lily James, Ronald Pickup, Stephen Dillane
Director: Joe Wright
Oscar History: 6 nominations/2 wins (Picture, Actor-Gary Oldman*, Costume Design, Production Design, Makeup & Hairstyling*, Cinematography)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I always feel strange when I like a film that is pretty much the textbook definition of Oscar-bait.  Traditional films, ones that are in the Academy's wheelhouse are oftentimes criticized for being too staid, too "old, white, traditional," and because I watch so many Oscar-nominated movies, they tend to grow stale in my memory.  After all, you can only watch the same thing so many times before it becomes a bore (this is why the Marvel Cinematic Universe has started to tire me, and why I'm a bit apprehensive about my inevitable screening of Black Panther even with the raves).  That said, I am a firm believer that every genre can produce great or compelling cinema, and that includes even the most worn-out of Oscar films, the war biopic.  While by no means a masterpiece, Darkest Hour is still a worthwhile picture, with a brisk pace & two central performances that lend itself well to the film's ambience.

(If you need a spoiler alert, read a history book) It says something about how the movie industry may be tired, but is clearly not a monopoly (yet...give Disney time) in that we have two films about the Dunkirk invasion in the same year, nominated for Best Picture, but it does save me on telling you too much about the plot.  Suffice it to say Winston Churchill (Oldman) is about to enter the annals of history with a great speech & by saving Britain from Hitler.  The film ends just as World War II begins, with Churchill giving his iconic "We shall fight on the beaches" speech before Parliament, so we are saved a miniseries' worth of time with Churchill (this would have become overtired on HBO), but along-the-way we've had several interesting crisis-of-fate meetings, particularly between Churchill and King George VI (Mendelsohn).

If you think this is a story that you know by heart, you're probably right  Few personalities of the 20th Century loom larger than Churchill, and few give actors more ability to swing wildly for the rafters, landing bon mots and enjoying a taste of immortality for a few hours.  Just last year we had a memorable experience with John Lithgow playing Churchill in the final throes of his career in The Crown, so it's interesting to see what Oldman does and doesn't do in the lead role.  A brilliant if controversial actor, Oldman is too good to not add some flourishes on Churchill, but I like that he finds a nice balance between Churchill the man and Churchill the icon, leading with the icon instead of waiting for it during the moments where history made him one of the great beacons of the mid-century.  We slowly get to know Churchill the man through a series of confrontations he has with his new secretary Elizabeth Layton (James...whom I always confuse with Lily Collins until they start acting & I remember that James is the one with talent) and then as he starts to invade the upper-ranks of Parliament.  I loved some of the scenes where clearly Parliament hasn't realized that "the people" want something different than what we're expecting of them (but Churchill is more than aware of this), and the ways that Oldman slyly, mechanically, calculates in the moment.  It's hard to add something to a character so many people have played, and indeed Oldman doesn't make this the "definitive" Churchill (a consummate performer in real-life, the "definitive" Churchill took a curtain call 53 years ago), but it's very watchable and compelling and though this isn't his best role, I've made my peace with it since Gary Oldman deserves to win an Oscar at some point and he's very good here (this is hardly Al Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman, even if I expect people to cattily say that on Sunday).

Joe Wright's direction, though, is probably the best part about Darkest Hour.  I loved the underground bunker moments, and how he uses the film's structure to have big, Classical Hollywood-style moments with the added benefit of a modern camera.  Look at the way that we see a humanized King George VI (Mendelsohn, who is excellent in the film and I'm surprised didn't get more awards consideration...perhaps the memory of Colin Firth in this role is too soon?), something we couldn't possibly have watched in the 1950's, combined with patriotic speeches toward Churchill about nerve (something we surely would have seen in the 1950's).  I also (and I know others HATED this scene), got quite misty-eyed during the train sequence even if it's realism was absurd.  I go to the movies to be entertained, and in an era of Trump it's nice to imagine for a brief moment someone who actually listens to the people, and not just the voices in his head.  Plus, Oldman's clearly having a blast in that scene, and that reverberates.  Wright's use of populism in the film (while never veering toward propaganda) and a tight, focused camera lens adds another interesting chapter to his impressive (save Pan) filmography.  I just wish the man who created Briony Tallis and a marvelously modern Anna Karenina had had more for his female characters to do.  James is good in her role, but is meant so clearly to be an audience surrogate that it's hard to relate to her as a person herself, while Kristin Scott Thomas is doing light-lifting with a sharp but surface-level performance as Clementine Churchill.  This could have been a remarkable film if occasionally we'd learned a bit more about these women's lives.  As it is, though, it's far better than critics, perhaps chagrined about having to write about yet another war film in the Best Picture lineup in a year where AMPAS took some big risks in that category, were willing to admit.

No Globe, No SAG...No Problem?

Michael Shannon is once again precursor-
deficient, but still in the hunt for Oscar

As per usual, the December hustle-and-bustle got away from me a bit there, and I haven't really talked too much about this year's Globe and SAG nominations, and at this point they feel a bit like old hat (I'll be on vacation during the Oscar announcements, but I'll try and stay more on-top of that when it comes around).  That said, we cannot skip one of my favorite annual traditions-our annual "No Globes, No SAG...No Problem?" piece.

With 2006 more than ten years away, we are now in a position where every single year for the past decade, we have had at least one person each year where they missed for the two most reliable televised American precursors, but broke through when it came to the Oscar lineup:

2016: Michael Shannon
2015: Charlotte Rampling, Tom Hardy, and Mark Ruffalo
2014: Bradley Cooper, Marion Cotillard, and Laura Dern

2013: Jonah Hill

2012: Quvenzhane Wallis, Emannuelle Riva, and Jacki Weaver

2011: Gary Oldman and Max von Sydow

2010: Javier Bardem

2009: Maggie Gyllenhaal

2008: Michael Shannon

2007: Laura Linney and Tommy Lee Jones

The last year that didn't duplicate this feat was 2006, due almost entirely to a truly bizarre Best Supporting Actor race (where the Globes/SAG Awards nominated nine different contenders, basically unheard of since).  Part of me wonders, though, if this is likely to repeat in 2017.  While the year has ended relatively strongly, it's not a standout filmic year overall, and as a result awards bodies are more prone to group-think, and quite frankly in some categories (particularly the male acting fields), there's not a deep bench of competition other than what's already been cited.  Plucking someone out of obscurity is going to be harder than in recent years.  However, one could have said the same thing last year, or in 2009, and yet they managed to find a contender, so without further adieu, here are the ten people I think are most likely to make it on this list in a few weeks despite missing with HFPA/SAG:

(Editor's Note: You'll notice I didn't include a single contender for Best Actress which is a first for this series, and that's on-purpose.  The field seems relatively locked up with Hawkins/McDormand/Robbie/Streep/Ronan all seeming pretty safe, and if one falls Globe-nominated trio Chastain/Dench/Williams will represent the one who picks up the open spot.  Annette Bening & Gal Gadot are both theoretically possible, but honestly, the former is in a film too obscure to pop up with such a late release date and the latter really needed the Globes.  All-in-all, I would be truly stunned if the "No Globe/SAG" nomination were to come in Lead Actress)

10. Patrick Stewart (Logan)

For Him: He's a longtime British actor, perhaps more character when it comes to film than his leading man status in television or theater, but he's a trouper who has been working as a thespian for 50+ years without notice from Oscar.  His surprise BFCA nomination (we don't speak of that awards show on this blog as a rule, because they simply serve as an "Oscar predictions" site at this point, but it's worth noting here as they are particularly good at calling Oscar nominees), surely helps.  Plus, Logan had very good reviews early on in the year.
Against Him: Does anyone remember those reviews?  Logan could be a stealth candidate for Oscar, but Jackman's minimal heat will probably go to The Greatest Showman, and it's near impossible to be nominated for acting in a superhero movie.  Stewart would be a strange inclusion, one almost without precedent, considering he missed major precursors.

9. Catherine Keener (Get Out)

For Her: When you're guessing the "No Globe/SAG" nominees, you want to remember to bet on overlooked players in Best Picture contenders and people that have been nominated for Oscar before (but generally those who haven't won yet).  Two-time nominee Catherine Keener, who is starring in what I consider to be the Best Picture frontrunner, fits that bill to a tee.  She's got a showy part in the film, which has been doing better with acting trophies than one would suspect (note that SAG Cast nomination), and in a lot of ways this pulls a page out of the "Jacki Weaver in Silver Linings Playbook" strategy.
Against Her: Will internal competition from Allison Williams (who I thought about for this list, but category confusion probably will hurt her thin chances as it is) be too much?  Williams and Betty Gabriel both get showy parts as well, arguably more impressive than Keener's, and she hasn't been out working the crowds with this part.  Can she be noticed from nowhere?

8. Lesley Manville (Phantom Thread)

For Her: Late-breaking word on this film is that it's good, and that Manville is a major attraction.  That could help-Day-Lewis has assisted supporting ladies in the past (Fricker, Ryder, Field), and British character actors tend to be well-liked when it comes to Oscar.  Another Year showed that she has the goods to land a part if it's written well, and they do get enthused for PTA.
Against Her: Is she famous enough to get a nomination out of nowhere?  Note that most of the people on the above lists were movie stars when they landed the plane.  Manville's going to probably get seen, but she's in the most-crowded field of the year, and will people know her well-enough to write down her name against more traditional options like Octavia Spencer or Holly Hunter?

7. Kristin Scott Thomas (Darkest Hour)

For Her: Considering her role, this is the sort of nomination that feels tailor-made for Oscar.  Quippy, transformed by makeup, and a long-suffering/supporting wife, KST is a former Oscar nominee in a film I think is still going to land for Best Picture citations (after watching it, I find it hard to believe that a film so in AMPAS' wheelhouse doesn't get cited for multiple categories).  She deserves to have more than one nomination to her name, and she's famous enough for a sneak attack.
Against Her: The role is prominent, but not a stretch.  She doesn't really have a "scene" in the way that Oldman or even Mendelsohn do.  Could it be that in a year this competitive for Supporting Actress, old tropes just won't work for Oscar?

6. Ben Mendelsohn (Darkest Hour)

For Him: Unlike KST, Mendelsohn does get a showy scene (toward the end of the picture), and is playing royalty, always a winner with the Oscars.  This isn't a particularly deep bench of contenders (unlike Supporting Actress), so a nomination could be easier to come by, and while he's newer than some of these figures to film success, I have to assume that he's on Oscar's "to honor" list when it comes to character actors.
Against Him: He's not as famous as KST (give her fame to his role and I think we'd have the #1 spot on this list), and Darkest Hour isn't quite hitting the home runs I'd suspect from precursors.  They just honored this role a few years ago with Colin Firth-might it feel too repetitive?

5. Julia Roberts (Wonder)

For Her: She's an Oscar favorite in a crowd-pleasing hit that is actually better than it had any right to be.  AMPAS loves Julia, and has nominated her four times already (lest we forget, it's not just Erin Brockovich), and this feels like the sort of movie that would get watched at the holidays when it comes to screeners.  Could she be a surprise nominee ala Tommy Lee Jones a few years back, scoring her film's sole nomination despite little precursors?
Against Her: It's hard to imagine Julia Roberts getting in with Oscar when she missed at the Globes. This isn't a traditional Oscar movie, as it's very teenage/high school, and she's not campaigning that hard for it.  If there's a lot of vote-splitting, it could happen, but I think it needed precursor love to land.

4. Michael Shannon (The Shape of Water)

For Him: He's done this before, twice.  Shannon is that rare actor who has two Oscar-nominated roles that weren't cited by the Globes (weirdly, the one time he did score at the Globes, AMPAS skipped him).  That proves that they like him, even in non-traditional parts, and his role in The Shape of Water is very showy.  If they really like it (very possible), might this get the double nomination rather than Three Billboards or CMBYN?
Against Him: It feels weird to think he could do this a third time, and Richard Jenkins is getting the lion's share of the credit here for a reason-he has more "Oscar Bait" scenes and doesn't play an odious villain.  Shannon will have others-they may want to share the wealth in a year that really focuses on giving character actors their due.

3. Jake Gyllenhaal (Stronger)

For Him: Gyllenhaal is arguably the best male American actor of his generation, and this is a very showy, good role.  It's also well-acted and quite frankly it's a crime that someone who is so consistently terrific doesn't have a second Oscar nomination by now.  They tend to like uplifting real-life stories, and Stronger is surely that.
Against Him: I don't think people remember this movie anymore.  I do feel like Best Actor is rife for an upset, which is why he's in the Top 3 (Kaaluya would be a very unusual Oscar nominee considering the nature of his role (same for James Franco), and Day-Lewis/Hanks/Washington feels both vote split-prone as well as a bit uninspired for Oscar as all have been more celebrated, and recently), but no one is talking about Gyllenhaal despite that Critics Choice nomination.  Do they just not like him?

2. Tiffany Haddish (Girls Trip)

For Her: Melissa McCarthy also was hit-and-miss with the precursor awards and still made it, and it's hard to deny that Haddish has a star-making role in one of the year's most surprising hits.  Her SNL hosting gig proved that she's out there wanting this, and the combination of the NYFCC Award & the Critics Choice nomination prove that she's in the hunt here.  Hong Chau in particular feels like a weak fifth slot nomination, particularly considering the poor reviews her film is getting, and could be vulnerable to someone like Haddish.
Against Her: It's a bawdy role for a conservative AMPAS, and it's worth noting that McCarthy did score the SAG nomination even if she missed at the Globes (which should have been a much easier sell for Haddish).  Chau is still formidable even if she's an odd frontrunner for the final nomination, and even if she falls, that's no guarantee that Haddish can best Octavia Spencer, Kristin Scott Thomas, and Julia Roberts.

1. Michael Stuhlbarg (Call Me by Your Name)

For Him: He's in three Best Picture frontrunners this year, and he's a long-time character actor who has never gotten his due from Oscar.  Stuhlbarg seems popular and has worked with everyone, so this could be a nice way to acknowledge him.  Plus, he's really good in Call Me by Your Name, and it's difficult to imagine viewers not being moved by his big scene toward the end of the picture.
Against Him: Internal competition from Hammer, and perhaps as the weak box office is indicating, not enough affection for CMBYN.  Honestly, though, if one of these nominations happens I think it'll be Haddish or Stuhlbarg, with the latter getting the top position because A) I don't think Christopher Plummer can sustain momentum through voting, and Woody Harrelson's role is so inconsequential to the back half of his movie and B) it's a really good performance from a man they're going to see everywhere on screeners.  I wouldn't bet on it quite yet (I have him in sixth, though in a near tie with Hammer), but it wouldn't shock me.

OVP: The Invisible Woman (2013)

Film: The Invisible Woman (2013)
Stars: Ralph Fiennes, Felicity Jones, Kristin Scott Thomas, Tom Hollander, Joanna Scanlan
Director: Ralph Fiennes
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Costume Design)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Ralph Fiennes frequently finds himself working with the same actresses.  Rachel Weisz, Juliette Binoche, and Vanessa Redgrave have all costarred with him more than once.  Most exhilarating for me, though, is when he finds himself in the company of one Kristin Scott Thomas.  Their chemistry in The English Patient (a personal favorite of mine) was absolutely electric, and this is their third film together.

Imagine, though, my disappointment when I found out that the two, both brilliantly sexy as lovers in the 1996 Best Picture winners, had a bit of a role reversal.  Though Scott Thomas is just two years older than Fiennes, apparently she is deemed too old to play his lover here, and instead we go with the 21 years Fiennes's junior Felicity Jones as his movie-appropriate romantic conquest.  Yes, I'm aware that this is based on actual history, but doesn't anyone find this a tad bit, well, sexist?  I mean, would it be so horribly wrong for Fiennes to date a woman his actual age on-screen?  Or to at least tell that story?  I spent most of this movie wishing that were the case, but sadly it was not, and that was one of many bits of unpleasantness I experienced while viewing The Invisible Woman.

The story is of Charles Dickens affair with the young Ellen Ternan late in his life.  Dickens, one of the greatest novelists to ever live, is presented by Fiennes as a bit of a rapscallion and quite immature.  It may be implied that his brilliance in writing about young men is that he still believes himself to be one-the film focuses quite a bit on his youthful behavior, despite long ago abandoning such chronological excuses for wild shenanigans.

The film follows their affair, and occasionally has quite interesting things to say.  Every focus that Fiennes took on the two older women in the film (Scott Thomas and Joanna Scanlan’s portrayal of Dickens’ listless wife) pays off, and you sort of wish they, and not the actual main characters, were the principle focus.  The way that Scott Thomas knows that her daughter’s best chance for survival may in fact be as the mistress of a wealthy man is heart-breaking, and she spares no moment pointing out such in her troubled eyes and constant worry.  Even better is Scanlan, who as Dickens’ wife, is the object of our pity even though Scanlan doesn’t always emote.  She frequently is willing to blend into the background, and we see why Dickens has tired of her, as she is far more concerned about observing, but not speaking.  And yet, when he abandons her not through telling her, but through a letter in the paper, we get to see her breakdown.  Her entire life, shattered by no actions of her own but everything related to her husband-these sorts of commentaries about the incredibly painful waters of the 19^th century woman, even a very privileged one, are territory not tread enough in cinema and well worth the investigation.

The film falls apart when put into the hands of Felicity Jones, though.  Jones, whom most people will recognize from her work in Like Crazy, is an actress of great beauty, but as I have found time and again, very little skill.  She cannot emote or connect with her characters in any real way, and I find her extremely flat on-screen.  This is now the third film that I've seen her in (there was also Julie Taymor's awful The Tempest), and I have been either underwhelmed or in this case, thinking she was completely wrong for the part.  Clearly casting directors see something in her, but it's not coming across on-screen, and with her rising star, I find that to be wildly disappointing, since I'm going to continue to see more of her at the movies.

Considering she's the lead character, it's hard to celebrate the rest of the film with such a blase work in the center.  Scanlan and Scott Thomas are the reasons to go (Fiennes, perhaps my favorite working actor, is good but cannot get enough chemistry with Jones to make his performance something to talk about), as well as the Oscar-nominated costumes (stuffy, heavy, and a great combination of aged and expensive, this is a beautifully outfitted film and I'm glad the costuming branch discovered it to make it part of the OVP), but for a film that featured my English Patient actors, I left totally unfazed and a bit bored.

What did you think of The Invisible Woman?  Did you, like me, think Felicity Jones was all-wrong for the part or are you like crazy over this actress?  Where was the Oscar heat for Joanna Scanlan?  And where would you rank this film in the Best Costume category from last year?  Share in the comments!

Everybody's Linking for the Weekend

Who needed a Friday?  I know I sure did-here's what you may have missed this week.

In Entertainment...

Kristin Scott Thomas

The Guardian: In a deeply reflective and excellent interview (seriously-why can we not get interviews like this stateside from interesting artists?), Kristin Scott Thomas discusses everything from anti-semitism in France to aging to her impending retirement from film.  Hopefully this doesn't stick, as Scott Thomas is one of the greatest actors in the world, but maybe a break for a while will help her recharge on the stage.  A permanent retirement would be a tragedy, though.

Film Experience: Nathaniel takes a very level-headed approach to the entire Woody/Mia/Dylan debate raging in the tabloid press.  Definitely worth a read, and I echo him on almost every point.

Vidiocy: A truly great article about the complicated relationship between Pauline Kael and one of her nemeses Meryl Streep.  I have never once read Meryl give a remark that cutting about anyone (she's one of the most polished celebrities around), so it's worth it just for the calculated shade.

Los Angeles Times: I'm sure everyone's had a thought on this, but J.K. Rowling has declared that Ron and Hermione was a pairing she regretted in hindsight.  While I love that Rowling continues the conversation about this world, part of me wonders if she should have just done the recommendations.  This is particularly directed toward the Dumbledore outing, which would have been monumental if she'd had someone say something in the actual books.  Here, I'm a fan of this coupling (opposites attract), though if you want to splash a the cold water of reality on the pairing, she's right-this wasn't meant for paradise.  In real life, opposites end up in couples therapy.

In Politics...

Second Lady Joan Mondale

CNN: In one of the nastiest moves so far of the election season, the NRCC has launched a series of fake websites meant to mimic their opponents, such as Montana Democrat John Lewis.

Also from CNN: Congress so rarely passes anything anymore, it's kind of stunning when they do.  While there's a lot of things to not like about the farm bill (I probably would have supported it, but with a heavy heart), here's some of things you should know about it.

New York Times: Former Second Lady Joan Mondale passed away this week at the age of 83.  Interesting fact: I met Mrs. Mondale once.  I was nineteen, and was attending a law school event on my campus.  The Vice President was speaking, and afterwards, I went up to former Minnesota Attorney General Miles Lord to introduce myself.  We chatted a bit, and he said he was going to go and speak with the Vice President.  I shook his hand, and he asked if I wanted to go meet the vice president.  I got waved through security and chatted for several minutes with both Mondales.  Definitely one of the most surreal moments of my life, and she was delightful.

Ambassador Max Baucus

CBS News: The U.S. Senate approved Sen. Max Baucus to be the next Ambassador to China.  Aside from this being a large post for Baucus and in general (before Baucus, two governors held the post), this could cause a major trickle down effect that could impact the 2014 elections.  Baucus's departure means that Ron Wyden will take over at Finance, and that Mary Landrieu, vulnerable in 2014, will become the head of the Senate Energy committee, a powerful tool for her reelection in Louisiana, a state which greatly relies on energy for its economy.  Additionally, Baucus's departure means that Gov. Steve Bullock (D) will be able to appoint a replacement, and the smart money is on Lt. Governor John Walsh, who is already running.  With incumbency, Walsh will be able to start building a voting record and have more access to donors, franking privileges, and just name recognition in general.  In fact, this is such a good idea I really wish that President Obama would give some post quickly to Jay Rockefeller so that we could start a similar push with Natalie Tennant in West Virginia.

New York Daily News: I love Joe Biden more than life itself, and his comments regarding LaGuardia are dead-on.  Considering New York City is the greatest city in the world, why is it that their major airport LaGuardia looks like a strip mall?  The only reason that anyone prefers JFK (which looks like a slightly higher-end strip mall) is because LaGuardia is the uglier guy making it look good.

RT: Fracking is one of my greatest pet peeves because of the truly horrible things it does to our environment and water supply, and this is just another log for the fire-some of the areas suffering from the worst droughts in the United States are also having some of their precious water supply being used up by this dangerous practice.

Just One More...

Bleacher Report: Chris Kluwe, whom I've discussed before on the blog, is potentially looking at legal action against the Minnesota Vikings over his controversial firing and the retention of a coach who made homophobic comments (allegedly).  Kluwe can do no wrong in my book, so I'm behind this, and we'll probably continue to cover this story as it unfolds, even though football is not in my regular forte.

OVP: Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)

Film: Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
Stars: Hugh Grant, Andie MacDowell, Charlotte Coleman, James Fleet, Simon Callow, John Hannah, Kristin Scott Thomas, David Bower
Director: Mike Newell
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Once upon a time, there were Oscar races where only five films would be nominated for Best Picture.  In this rare and magical land, genres like biopics, adult dramas, and epics reigned supreme in the Best Picture race.  So, when a genre like romantic comedy managed to get into the race, it was a cause worth celebrating regardless of your feelings of the film.  Thankfully, this particular movie managed to both defy convention and be superb, so I now give you the latest installment in our Wedding Week reviews, Four Weddings and a Funeral.

(Spoilers Ahead) Proving that it's a good idea not to false advertise in your own title, the film does indeed include four weddings and a funeral, and since that's enough life events to fill any film, there is little in-between in that regard (there's basically only one scene that doesn't include one of these five life events).  The film revolves around a motley group of friends that keep getting invited to the same weddings (something that we're all familiar with at some time in our lives), led by Charles (Grant).  The opening wedding confuses a bit, when we assume that Grant is in a relationship with Charlotte Coleman's Scarlett (I feel like they may have been just roommates or cousins...I missed that one before I sealed the Netflix envelope).  Slowly, though, we find that the handsome and bumbling Charles (Grant's been doing this schtick for decades now, but it's easy to see why we wanted him to with this charming take) is single, and is totally taken with an American woman named Carrie (MacDowell).  Throughout the night, when he succeeds in going to bed with her, and subsequent weddings, we see that they are destined to be together, but like any strong romantic comedy, fate keeps pulling them apart.

The film's format works well with the story, as we're constantly surrounded by the pressures that both Charles and Carrie are facing.  The group of friends, sans two gay characters, are all single, but can see quite readily that their lives are about to change, one way or another.  A lot of romantic comedies show the pressures of one person to fall in love and find "the one."  Richard Curtis's (while Newell directed the film, Curtis wrote it and you can feel him effervescing from the movie) films typically take a different approach.  He frequently will fill his movies with a series of lovable friends, constantly devoted to each other but watching at least a few of the others in the group with a bit of worry-will they end up the spinster/eternal bachelor?  You can feel that pressure in particular from MacDowell's Carrie. She seems like a relatively independent woman, but the way that she quickly jumps into the third marriage (one that of course has to break up for us to get our happy ending) and how she bends her personality to fit this marriage give us an idea of how sick she is of being called "always the bridesmaid."

It's these darker, more complicated tones that makes Curtis's romantic comedies so rewatchable and true.  Films like Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill, and Love Actually all have their chief following because they're gooey and delicious (and Curtis is one of those rare directors who can still make a quality romantic comedy), but there's also a nugget of truth and bitterness in them.  I keep remembering the Keira Knightley card scene in Love Actually (another woman who is being pursued while married), and how bitter that scene truly is, where Andrew Lincoln has to confess his love to move on with his life, knowing that he won't get the girl.  Or the Anna Scott dinner table scene, where we get the less sunny version of a movie star's life.  Curtis's screenplay here isn't afraid to give us the bitter with the sweet, and as a result, we get a more satisfying conclusion-these two lovers have had to struggle, and won't have a perfect life, but they will have one that is complete.

The movie is littered with fun and over-the-map in terms of quality performances.  My favorite by far (Grant took second) was Kristin Scott Thomas's snarky, bitter Fiona.  Every line that comes out of her mouth is pure acid, and the way that she hides her secret love for Charles (finally confessing it in a scene that was both awkward and pin-drop watchable), you get a sense of the woman that has existed in his life for years, ever knowing that she wouldn't be his.  Though she wouldn't have her major star turn until a few years later in The English Patient, I'm still surprised that in a relatively odd field (Jennifer Tilly got that Oscar nomination, still one of the most surprising slots of the 90's) that Scott Thomas couldn't translate a BAFTA win into something with Oscar.  Then again, the women's acting races of those years are bizarre because of the lack of contenders, and I am really looking forward to us tackling them in the OVP.

Andie MacDowell is the other big name in this movie, though it's hard to quite remember just how big of a star she was at the time.  I wasn't old enough to really understand movies and star-power in 1994, but doesn't it feel odd that no one talks about MacDowell anymore?  She received three Globe nominations in the span of five years (without any translating to Oscar, which we know is exceedingly rare), was in an enormous hit with Four Weddings, and even won an Honorary Cesar at a very young age, but her career has vanished since then.  People at least still talk about Meg Ryan, but MacDowell people pretend never happened.  She's now in Cedar Cove as main character Olivia Lockhart, but doesn't it feel like she should have had a longer career in the spotlight?

Or perhaps not, because that only makes sense on paper.  In this film, my first major foray into her acting ability, I was incredibly underwhelmed.  While she's gorgeous, that's about all she adds to this film-her line readings lack any sort of spark, and you are left wondering whether Charles is terribly shallow and stupid for picking Carrie over the vivacious (and also beautiful) Fiona.  I know myself personally I would have easily headed over to Kristin Scott Thomas (this might not be a fair comparison though, as KST trumps almost everyone in my world), and the film doesn't quite know what to do with MacDowell's American Venus, but MacDowell's dull performance isn't helping matters.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Where do you land on this now nearly twenty-year-old film, and for those old enough, were you surprised that it made the Best Picture race?  Anyone prefer it to Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump?  And what Andie MacDowell performance will make me fall in love with her?  Share in the comments!