Pages

Powered by Blogger.
Showing posts with label 2008 Alternate Best Actor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Alternate Best Actor. Show all posts

Alternate Best Actor 2008: Results

Saturday, July 7, 2012

5. Leonardo DiCaprio in Revolutionary Road- DiCaprio certainly tries as hard as he possibly can in the role, but unfortunately his performance never quite comes together in the way the film wants it to.
4. Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino- Eastwood shows his usual strong presence here, and uses his unique individualistic screen persona brilliantly here.
3. Michael Fassbender in Hunger- Fassbender gives a strong performance showing the incredible unshakable drive in his character.
2. Colin Farrell in In Bruges- Farrell proves himself an extremely capable actor here as he creates both a energetically hilarious performance as well as quite a moving portrait of guilt.
1. Brendan Gleeson in In Bruges- This year is quite a terrible year for the academy missing out on such strong work for the over the top mannerisms of Penn and Langella as well as just the extreme blandness of Pitt. They in particular missed out on this great performance by Brendan Gleeson that is a unique very moving portrait of a career killer who is anything but cold blooded, and also to his credit Gleeson is simply hilarious particularly due to his chemistry with his co-stars of Farrell and Ralph Fiennes.
Overall Rank:
  1. Brendan Gleeson in In Bruges
  2. Colin Farrell in In Bruges
  3. Michael Fassbender in Hunger
  4. Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler
  5. Jeremy Renner in The Hurt Locker
  6. Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino
  7. Philip Seymour Hoffman in Doubt
  8. Richard Jenkins in The Visitor
  9. Daniel Craig in Quantum of Solace
  10. Leonardo DiCaprio in Revolutionary Road
  11. Michael Sheen in Frost/Nixon
  12. Jason Statham in The Bank Job
  13. Ed Harris in Appaloosa
  14. Leonardo DiCaprio in Body of Lies 
  15. Daniel Craig in Defiance
  16. Ben Stiller in Tropic Thunder
  17. Sylvester Stallone in Rambo
  18. Liam Neeson in Taken
  19. Ed Norton in The Incredible Hulk
  20. Tom Cruise in Valkyrie
  21. Dev Patel in Slumdog Millionaire
  22. Ricky Gervais in Ghost Town
  23. Javier Bardem in Vicky Cristina Barcelona
  24. Harrison Ford in The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
  25. Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon
  26. Sean Penn in Milk
  27. Brad Pitt in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Next Year: 1947

Alternate Best Actor 2008: Brendan Gleeson in In Bruges

Friday, July 6, 2012

Brendan Gleeson did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Ken in In Bruges.

Brendan Gleeson did not get an Oscar nomination for this film although I imagine he might have come close to the nomination as he did receive a Bafta nomination for this performance. He might have made it in if In Bruges came out at the end of the year rather than the beginning. I imagine he probably was some in the sixth through eighth range who were trying to get that fifth spot eventually given to Michael Shannon. For the record it would have been category fraud for Gleeson to have been placed in the Supporting category which is where he was nominated for the Bafta, but Philip Seymour Hoffman was already doing as much with his performance in Doubt it certainly would not have been out of the question.

Gleeson performance and character of Ken though is in reality just as important as Colin Farrell's Ray is to In Bruges. Ken is the older of the two hit men as well as the more experienced who has successfully in the past completed many jobs. Gleeson performance is quite the opposite of Farrell far more manic performance, since Gleeson takes a very low key sort of approach for Ken. One of the biggest differences between the two men is where Ray can barely contain his discontent over being in Bruges, Ken on the other hand seems to look forward to enjoying the various art and architecture found in Bruges and does not have any problem spending time in such a place.

Brendan Gleeson does not portray Ken as any sort of mean bitter assassin, but instead Gleeson makes Ken an extremely likable character. He just about one big teddy bear in his portrayal that plays off Colin Farrell far more hostile performance perfectly. Gleeson is quite good in showing just the simple joy Ken does get out of seeing the various sights in Bruges. Brendan Gleeson has a very unique charm as an actor that is most certainly on fully display here as Ken, and it works perfectly for the film. Gleeson makes Ken just a fun character to have around from the very beginning, and his very pleasant portrayal creates a great dynamic with Farrell's Ray.

Gleeson just like Farrell gives a very funny comedic performance. Gleeson though brings the humor far differently than Farrell's more wild reactions. Gleeson is very simple in his approach and much of it does in fact come from his own reactions to Farrell's performance. Gleeson is very quiet and he always makes it quite clear that Ken takes Ray's antics in stride. He never suggests being annoyed, but rather Gleeson shows that Ken rather enjoys Ray's company. This is not to say Ken does not take some issue with Ray's almost constant complaints, and he tends to deal with them with a look or a just a quick verbal remainder. Gleeson is always spot on with his timing and gives a very amusing performance.

As was with Farrell's performance Gleeson is as effective with his dramatic moments as he is with his comedic ones. Gleeson again though very much stays calm with his performance even in the more emotional scenes with Farrell. In their earliest discussion of both their professions and what seems like their fate from what they have done Gleeson shows Ken to be the straight thinking of the two. Although in many ways Gleeson creates an interesting relationship between the two as he is trying his very best to try to comfort Ray over his actions. There is a warmth in Gleeson performance that always manages to shine through showing that Ken does care for Ray.

He though not only supports Ray in the philosophical moments but Gleeson lets us in on Ken's own past as well. Ken has not failed a job ever, and there is only one person he has killed that he even some what regrets, although still does not feel wholly guilty over. Gleeson very carefully portrays Ken's feelings towards the people he has killed. He does not make Ken seem like a cold blooded killer, even though Ken does not seem to truly hate himself over what he done. Gleeson naturally shows instead that Ken has come to accept his life as it is, he is not seriously torn. Gleeson makes it that Ken knows what he has done is nothing great, bur still Ken can live with himself for it.

Eventually though Ken has his own serious problem when he learns that the reason he has gone with Bruges with Ray by his boss and friend Harry (Ralph Fiennes) is so Ray can have one joyful time before Ken is suppose to kill Ray for having killed the young boy in his hit. After Ken is told this over the phone Gleeson is excellent as he shows a whole different guilt in him the prevails through him in the scenes that lead up to the point Ken is suppose to kill Ray. Gleeson is quite effective in showing the loss of that joy in his performance, and in his scenes with Ray Gleeson shows that the thought of killing his friend won't stop weighing on his mind.

Ken does not go through with the order from Harry, and instead decides to face off with his old rather ill tempered friend. Just like his scenes with Farrell, Gleeson just has a great chemistry with Fiennes. Fiennes' performance which is just one big ball of intensity, is brilliantly played off by Gleeson who calmly deals with him. Together the two actors are extremely entertaining as the two work off each other brilliantly. What is so fascinating about the relationship between this two is underlying both of the strong opposition each other show to one another is a history of friendship and respect the two have for one another.

Here Gleeson is terrific because he honestly shows Ken's strong belief that Ray can improve himself. Gleeson actually makes this more than friendship really, but rather his own sense that Ray could turn out a better man than himself. There is an unshakable belief Gleeson portrays in Ken that creates his drive to protect Ray from Harry. It is an interesting tragic portrait of complete selflessness that Gleeson portrays. His final scene is made truly heartbreaking by Gleeson as he convincingly brings to life Ken's complete devotion to trying to save the life of his friend. This is a great performance by Gleeson filled with humor, but as well is a very moving portrayal of this killer who probably knows more than one should in his line of work.

Alternate Best Actor 2008: Colin Farrell in In Bruges

Colin Farrell did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Ray in In Bruges.

In Bruges is a great film that is both very funny and quite moving. The fact that it lost Best Original Screenplay to Milk is one of the biggest mistakes by the academy. The film tells the story of two London hit men who must lay low in Bruges after one of them severely botches a job.

Colin Farrell although before this film had a string of leading men parts many times rather dull leading performances, but here he showed a very different side to his ability as a performer. Farrell plays Ray the younger of the two hit men and the one who messed up the hit, that was in fact his very first kill as a professional assassin. He also of the two is far less encouraged by his trip to Bruges which he considers to be quite a crummy place to say the least. Even though he is quite clear and quite concise about his distaste for Bruges he does face the past event that has brought both of the men to the city.

The different side of himself that Farrell shows here actually almost seems like a completely different actor than some of his performances like Hart's War for example. Here Farrell is almost an endless ball of energy as Ray, which works perfectly for the part. He always seems like he wants to move a little bit more than he is allowed, or if he is moving as much as he can he certainly becomes rather flamboyant. This all works for Ray who is basically pent up inside over his detest for where he is, as well as his pain that is involved with his rather difficult situation caused by his very poorly handled hit.

Farrell has quite a difficult task here in finding the right tone for his character of Ray, as it is both a very comedic performance, but as well a very dramatic one as well considering his character of Ray is almost suicidal and not in a comedic way either. Amazingly Farrell pulls it off actually in what is really a fearless performance that constantly treads through the lines of great humor and heavy drama in just about equal measure. Farrell due to his lack of hesitation in his performance effectively manages to meet the challenges of this task. He never stays too long with any side of Ray and naturally progresses from the funny to the sad.

In his more comedic scenes Farrell certainly goes out on a limb with his very wild performance as Ray who is constantly trying to do much of anything to get a thrill out of the seemingly simple place known as Bruges. Every one of his despondent reactions to being in such a place he finds no interest in whatsoever, or his unpredictable moments of humor when he reacts a little more extremely to certain individuals is always quite enjoyably handled by Farrell. With all of the almost insane moments in his performance it is incredible that he never loses his timing for a single moment with his performance.

Farrell though is equally effective in his more dramatic moments as he shows just how horribly torn apart inside Ray is over his first job. He did in fact kill the man he was paid to kill but accidentally he also shot and killed a young child. Farrell portrayal of Ray's guilt is heart wrenching as there are moments where he shows the weight of this horrendous act is ripping his soul apart. Interestingly what works so well about Farrell performance is how he combines these terrible very emotional moments, with his crazy but very funny antics in the other scene. Farrell though actually shows that his more entertaining moments are really the way Ray is dealing with his pain.

Farrell shows with his performance that it is that Ray is trying his very best to try to forget his past, and even attempts to even joke about what he has done. Farrell though shows that in a way this works to some degree in that he can go without breaking down, but the image of the boy's death never truly leaves his mind. This is best shown when he does tell the joke about his exploits and even when he has a smile on his face Farrell conveys the deep regret that Ray cannot shake no matter how hard he tries. The transitions are seamless as well as very powerful, there never is a disconnect and the comedy and the drama are all part of Ray's journey in the film.

I should of course mention what aids greatly in making this performance work as well as it does is Farrell considerable chemistry with Brendan Gleeson as Ray's fellow older hit man Ken. The two have just a terrific dynamic between each other that is both hilarious and moving. Farrell as Ray acts as the far less level headed side who is more emotional, faster to quick judgments and foolish actions. Everything Farrell does is perfectly foiled by Gleeson's performance which I will get to soon. They are simply great fun together, but as well both express the more philosophical side of the film equally well. Together that are a great very memorable duo that succeed in making the film work as well as it does. Alone though I should still say that Farrell gives a terrific performance which never fails to meet the challenges of his complex character.

Alternate Best Actor 2008: Michael Fassbender in Hunger

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Michael Fassbender did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Bobby Sands in Hunger.

Hunger is an interesting film about the harsh treatment of IRA prisoners by the British, and their attempts to rebel in prison for better treatment.

Michael Fassbender here actually takes quite a bit of time to actually even first appear in this film, and when he first does appear he seems to be just part of the crowd of other men who are brutally treated by the guards. It is not until quite a great deal of time into the film when Fassbender finally takes over the film. Nevertheless early in the film Fassbender is just one of the faces of the men who are facing the cruelty of the prison, and in that he along with the others realistically portrays the pain the men are going through. It is an intense visceral pain they bring to life extremely well, and they make the scenes very difficult to watch.

I will say that in these early scenes Fassbender does not exactly stand as the only man in the crowd. This is not a negative though, as it is the group showing he prevailing horror the men face in the prison as well as their united anger of protest for their treatment as well. Again Fassbender early on does not especially stand on his own, but he is part of the cohesive whole of the men who express their frustrations as one of the brutality they have suffered. This actually is completely fitting for the film as a whole since it is very much about how all of the men who are all IRA prisoners come together to work almost as one against the British forces.

It would almost seem that Fassbender is not even lead, only part of ensemble, until well into the film when it exclusively focuses on Bobby Sands who intends to be the first of an organized many to hunger strike to move for reform of their treatment by the prison staff. This all starts though with a very long scene that includes an almost seventeen minute long single take where an Irish sympathetic priest (Liam Cunningham) who attempts to talk Sands out of his most likely to be fatal hunger strike. Although Fassbender was appropriately part of the group of men before this scene once this scene starts Fassbender leaves no question to who is the lead of the film.

An almost seventeen minute shot is certainly a risky undertaking, but it hardly matters as Fassbender, and Cunnigham as well make the scene truly compelling. Michael Fassbender is an actor who has a distinct natural charisma that is not only about his charm, but as well a raw virility. He is just a fascinating actor to watch, and keeping this very long scene interesting never seems to take any effort at all from Fassbender. He is just incredible as Sands, and it is quite difficult to take your eyes off this scene because of Fassbender. He creates a remarkable force and presence within Bobby Sands that cannot be ignored, and is quite overpowering at times.

Fassbender in this scene makes Sands a force of will his will to no matter what make a statement that cannot be ignored even if it means his own death. Fassbender avoids any pretension with his performance, when Sands is talking it is the absolute truth that comes from the very depth of his soul. There is not a hint of hesitation in Fassbender's performance as Sands. Fassbender makes it always clear that the sentiment of Sands is never a lark but an unshakable drive to stand up and be taken notice no matter what the cost. Fassbender is outstanding in the way he brings this incredible passion so vividly to life.

Interestingly enough Fassbender only becomes more engrossing as he tells a tale of Sands' youth where he puts down a wounded animal showing his strength as well gaining the respect of others. In this moment he shows exactly where Sands whole concept of power really comes from, and Fassbender realizes this marvelously. Fassbender has a determination in his eyes which in his eyes that is unforgettable. Fassbender shows us through this story just how forceful this man's will truly is. Fassbender makes it clear that this hunger strike is not just some afterthought or last ditch effort but rather the realization of Sands's whole moral outlook.

After this scene though Sands goes deep down into his hunger strike, and Fassbender's performance almost becomes silent as he quickly goes through an extreme physical decay. Michael Fassbender still is absolutely compelling as Sands slowly dies from his hunger. Fassbender firstly is almost all too real in showing both the degradation of Sands physically, and mentally as well. He shows the absolutely horrendous strain on Sands, but interestingly he never loses that spirit in his performance. Even when he is at the very end suffering from a horrible amount of ailments, there is still that same force of will in his eyes. This is not exactly an easy performance to watch at times particularly at the of the film but it is a perpetually gripping. This is a great performance by Fassbender that creates a memorable moving portrait of this man who is completely devoted to his cause.

Alternate Best Actor 2008: Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Clint Eastwood did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Walt Kowalski in Gran Torino.

Gran Torino is enjoyable film even if weakened a bit by the very rough acting by most of the supporting cast about an elderly war veteran who must deal with the Hmong immigrants who live all around him.

Clint Eastwood announced his role here being his last acting role on screen, just as Million Dollar Baby had been before, well it turns out he is performing again this year on screen, so Eastwood might have made a bit of an exaggeration. Although it certainly has the marks of a farewell performance as it has many things similar to John Wayne's performance in the Shootist. They both portrayed aged men who are dying who take it upon themselves to do something as a final action of their life. Although one performance takes place in the old west, and one in modern times they both seem to be a closing statement on their archetypal characters they once portrayed.

Eastwood portrays a character of tough individualist that certainly can be taken as a sort of variation on Dirty Harry, some in fact thought that this might be the sixth Dirty Harry film. It was not and to be fair Walt Kowalski in many ways is not Harry Callahan. Dirty Harry for example was a cop, not a industrial worker, also Harry was always a tough man, but a tough man with a good sense of humor, Walt on the other hand has a harder time seeing the funny things in life. They are similar in that they are both portrayed by Clint Eastwood who really does not have the greatest range of any actor, but there is no one who do what Eastwood does better than Eastwood himself.

Clint Eastwood here actually though does something quite interesting in the role of the crusty old Walt Kowalski is that in some ways this is a humorous performance by Clint Eastwood. Now as I said before old Walt really does not crack too many jokes himself, but Eastwood uses his crustiness for comedic purposes early on in the film as he grunts and angrily stares down anything he hates about his relative or just society in general. Eastwood actually is quite good in his timing of his growls he makes particularly in just his opening scene where he is constantly being annoyed by his bizarre grandchildren who bother to go to the church and do the sign of the cross and kneel yet dress in what must be considered deranged fashion if they bother to do the rest.

Although one could try to argue that Eastwood's portrayal is repetitive, I would say it is not because of his ability to both portray the character seriously as well poke at him at the same time seamlessly. More importantly though Eastwood is almost always watchable and that is most certainly true even for the very rough Walt. Yes Walt is a usually angry man who is liked by very few people, and insults others constantly he still is quite likable. The main reason being once again due to Eastwood's unique charisma that as solely found within Eastwood. Really these mean old men type performances are by nature difficult to make likable in that they are mean old men, but there is just something about Eastwood that overrides these potential problems with seemingly no effort.

Eastwood interestingly despite being in his late seventies is still the same commanding presence he had always been. When he stares down and fights with various street thugs he has that same old Eastwood intensity that makes these scenes believable. Eastwood here shows that even at his older age still can truly dominate a scene more than actors half his age. He makes every one of the scenes where Walt efficiently deals with the thugs believable, because Eastwood is always on the mark, and in control. He even still has the silent cool that Eastwood uses so effectively in these scenes, and naturally makes Walt a force to be reckoned with.

The arc of Walt of a character comes in with his eventual acceptance of his neighbors as well as coming to the point in which he identifies with them far more than he does with his relatives. Eastwood actually plays this very well avoiding really the cliches of the gruff individual learning to open up. As Eastwood never lets up on his roughness in any way, and handles his whole acceptance in a perfectly Walt Kowalski fashion. Eastwood shows a little resistance in Walt, but at the same time he takes a cut through the crap approach that is perfectly fitting for Walt. Once he sees that they are indeed worth his time he just goes into no reason to waste time in accepting them in his own way.

This no nonsense approach Eastwood uses as well in his portrayal of Walt's past where he is haunted by the people he killed in the Korean war. This again is really the only way Walt would deal with such a thing. Eastwood shows the pain is there, but Walt is just not the sort of man to allow something like that to be anything but what lies internally within himself. When he does expresses his pain more outwardly it is fast and sharp and of course to the point. This is a strong performance by Eastwood because he never compromises Walt as a character. Even when he is randomly doing things he has never done before it is the same up front style, Eastwood always shows that no matter what Walt will do things his way as that is who Walt is. This may not be Eastwood's greatest work, but it is strong performance that really only Clint Eastwood could have brought to life.

Alternate Best Actor 2008: Leonardo DiCaprio in Revolutionary Road

Monday, July 2, 2012

Leonardo DiCaprio did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Frank Wheeler in Revolutionary Road.

Revolutionary Road is rather stale telling of the old soulless suburbanites tale that takes place in the 50's. 

Revolutionary Road seemed set up to be an Oscar film considering it is about a very dysfunctional relationship, and with beautiful people acting very ugly. The film failed to find success when the film only received three nominations two of them for technical achievement and one for Michael Shannon's over the top portrayal of a mentally disturbed man. I must say though many of the performances in this film seem off the mark and overly ACTING, yet do not seem to dive deeper into their characters. I did like Shannon to some degree because at least he is entertaining if over the top, but most of the performances are just dull even though they are portrayed in such an obvious fashion. 

Watching the film again I unfortunately find that this performance problem even finds itself in the leads as well. Kate Winslet as April Wheeler actually never really comes into her role, and frankly never knows exactly how to play her part, leaving a serious problem when it comes to Leonardo DiCaprio's performance who I have to say actually tries his best and does his best to avoid being overly obvious in his performance. Another problem though against DiCaprio though is that Frank Wheeler probably would have been better played by someone much more average looking than DiCaprio, and seeming to be more from the 50's. A great deal of the time DiCaprio never quite seems a fit for all those nice suits.

I will get through all the negatives first, but I will say before this that I do not think this is a bad performance. Another problem though with DiCaprio's performance involves the scripts own weaknesses. A major plot point is that Frank although hates his job, and being in the soulless environment is too afraid apparently to ever get out of it. The film never really finds this fear, and neither does DiCaprio. He never makes it something that is constantly weighing on Frank that keeps him in place. It just never is made vivid enough to really explain why exactly that Frank sits still in his place, and through his own actions stays there.

One other problem comes from the film's failure really to establish these characters as we come into them. Frank is suppose to be already apparently in his firm place within the company and has found his place within the repetitiveness of it all. DiCaprio never quite gets the idea of the history of Frank through well enough in his performance. He shows a bit boredom, but there is never an overarching emotion of just how much this existence pains him. DiCaprio of course does indeed show frustrations, but perhaps too casual of ones that just seem of the moment rather than something larger that has been going on for years. I will say that the film really does not give him enough time to really establish effectively though.

The other problem comes in his relationship with Winslet's character primarily in the scene where they are not at other's throats. The few scenes where their relationship seems like it might be working are severely lacking, and the two actors surprisingly, despite having it in Titanic, lack the necessary chemistry to make it work. Neither of the two actors really show why they would have every come together in the first place other than the fact they look like Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. The two are emotionally stagnate even in these scenes, and it really fails to make their relationship any more than one based purely on their hate. Although it should be something more than there is, again there are too few scenes to establish again, but still with the time given the actors are unable to bring appropriate truth to their relationship.

Even with all these problems though I still don't dislike this performance, because even though he never is amazing he still is fine actually. For example, I said he really does not show the history of the man's pain in regard to being in such a job and such a life, he still adequately shows the pain of his current predicament to some degree. There is not the fear in his performance to suggest what the film wants to suggest that is keeping Frank in place. But DiCaprio actually does suggest more of a general comfort Frank does actually have in his office setting, and DiCaprio shows that this feeling grows within him once he finds that he is being recognized at his job quite naturally. DiCaprio handles this very well, but the film itself wants something out of him that he does not convey.

Although Winslet and DiCaprio's "happy" scenes are thoroughly unimpressive, their fighting scenes are better handled, by DiCaprio anyway. Winslet I feel actually doesn't transition particularly well to her extreme coldness since she comes from her somewhat awkward excitement earlier. DiCaprio though plays it straight and frankly more realistically shows Frank's frustrations. DiCaprio is actually quite good in his portrayal of his increasing anger that slowly builds up fight after fight, and is quite effective in showing just how distraught he becomes in their final bout with one another. DiCaprio though also does suggest that Frank does love her through all of this which is why he shows Frank to be as heartbroken as he is when she says she hates him.

In the end really DiCaprio is the best part of the film because he earnestly tries his best with the part of Frank. I do honestly believe though that DiCaprio was perhaps a bit miscast in the role, as never quite fits the role as well as he should. At the same time though he does fairly well in the role considering everything that is against him whether it is his overacting co-stars or the script that demands frankly more from his character than the film itself allowed for. DiCaprio still consistently tries his very best with the role, and does succeed to some degree. This is not a great performance by any means, but I still would say it is a descent performance by Dicaprio.

Alternate Best Actor 2008

Saturday, June 30, 2012

And the Nominees Were Not:

Brendan Gleeson in In Bruges

Colin Farrell in In Bruges


Michael Fassbender in Hunger

Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino

Leonardo DiCaprio in Revolutionary Road
 

Blogger news

Blogroll

Most Reading