In Contention

Tag: Best Supporting Actor

  • James Franco profiled by Gus Van Sant in Interview Mag

    Cover of October 2008 issue of Interview MagazineI’ve been meaning to cancel my subscription to Interview Magazine for months upon months, probably years at this point.  I always forget until I get a new issue, then it gets tossed onto a stack on the shelf and I forget again.  But there’s always an interesting one-on-one and the closer we get the the awards season each year, the more pertinent the interviews become.

    Case in point, this month’s issue features the cover story: “James Franco by Gus Van Sant.”  It’s a solid Q&A between the star and director of “Milk” respectively, but I particularly liked the lede:

    Seven years ago he played James Dean in a television biopic, tinting his hair and squinting his eyes to Rebel Without a Cause-like perfection.  Ever since, the temptation has been to peg him as a good-looking young man felled by the moody blues.  While it’s a fact of life that no one can ever really know what lies beneath the surface of another, the Internet can help narrow the field of possibilities.  Lo and behold, Generalissimo James Edward Franco: a merry prankster, and the latest on-screen love interest of Sean Penn.

    The Oscar campaign begins.

    There are also interviews with Oliver Stone and Anna Paquin, by the way.  More at Interview’s website.

  • Breakthrough for Hawkins and Franco

    As regular readers may know, I’ve been yammering on about a Best Actress nomination for “Happy-Go-Lucky”‘s delightful Sally Hawkins since I reviewed the film back in April. So I’m pleased to see that Hawkins will receive the Breakthrough Actress award at next month’s Hollywood Film Awards.

    As I said when they named their crafts honorees earlier this month, I’m a bit mystified by these awards, which appear to honour as-yet-unseen films rather frequently. Still, it’s difficult to argue with this selection: in a crowded field of Best Actress contenders, Hawkins is the freshest face out there. It’s a good omen for her Oscar chances — last year’s honoree was Ellen Page.

    “Happy-Go-Lucky” didn’t emerge from the festival circuit with quite the amount of heat I hoped it might, but Hawkins remains a solid contender for awards consideration. As we know now, the performance has a major Marmite factor — people either love or hate Hawkins’ character — but it’s sure to stick in people’s minds.

    Elsewhere, the Breakthrough Actor award went to James Franco — another obvious choice, and a move that gives credence to the Best Supporting Actor buzz for his performance in “Milk,” something Kris just discussed.

    “Milk” scored twice with the awards, with newbie (not that you’d know it from the marketing) scripter Dustin Lance Black named Breakthrough Screenwriter. Meanwhile, “Doubt” helmer John Patrick Shanley picked up Breakthrough Director. The latter strikes me as something of a safe choice in a year that has given us stellar debuts from such talents as Martin McDonagh and Philippe Claudel, but we only have the trailer to go on.

    Finally, pointing to two Oscar inevitabilities, the Animation award will go to Andrew Stanton for “WALL-E” (well, duh), while “Iron Man” will be recognised for its visual effects.

  • OFF THE CARPET: Indies on the march

    (from left) Evan Rachel Wood and Mickey Rourke in The WrestlerMaybe mid-way through the Toronto Film Festival, two things are strikingly clear: Darren Aronofsky has the goods with “The Wrestler” and Danny Boyle’s streak of successful versatility at the helm continues with “Slumdog Millionaire.”

    Both films, which enjoy pre-Toronto success at Venice and Telluride respectfully, are also evidence that surprises will happen this time of year.  And with an uncharacteriztically level playing field in Toronto this year, we should be thankful they are getting a fair shake.

    One of them is set for distribution, however, while the other is waiting out a buyer.  But will “The Wrestler” find a home and see a release in 2008 or will an awards-heavy distributor pick it up and save it for a rainy day in 2009’s awards season?

    Both options are on the table, it’s just a matter of who bites first, and what they bring to the table.

    On the horizon, everyone is awaiting their post-Toronto peeks at films like “Australia,” “Revolutionary Road,” “Milk” (landing a trailer this week) and “The Soloist.”  David Fincher’s 20 minutes of footage from “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” may have been caught off guard by over-zealous bloggers in Telluride, but the damage may not have been as considerable as some may have thought.

    Speaking of “The Soloist,” chatter is making its way out of the Paramount camp that Robert Downey Jr. is outstanding as LA Times columnist Steve Lopez and hopes are high for a Best Actor nomination.  And as far as “Milk” is concerned, prognosticators may have the wrong idea going in as to which supporting performance has the awards-worthy chops.  More on that at a later date.

    (more…)

  • Handicapping the race so far at The Film Experience

    Heath Ledger in The Dark KnightIn the middle of Toronto’s tiny buzz wave, Nathaniel Rogers has come back with a new “Naked Gold Man” Oscar column at The Film Experience.

    I particularly love this aside when charting the acting races:

    Only 19 actors and actress need apply for the 20 spots.  Heath Ledger’s Joker performance in The Dark Knight is still monumentally creepy to think about or be reminded of, isn’t it? Eight weeks of ubiquity, often a great inoculation for hysterically praised work, haven’t managed to dilute its feverish pull. That’s an impressive feat and a performance that once seemed like a worthy “likely contender” is now a “lock”. But we still don’t know what this means for the larger Oscar picture. And it’s all about the larger picture. “Supporting” is where Ledger’s buzz first happened. But many voices are starting to shout for “Lead” status. The Joker’s ghostly presence and penchant for chaos will affect future candidates and the Oscar race… but which one.

    Read the rest here.

  • TORONTO: Ed Harris on ‘Appaloosa,’ acting and film crticism

    Ed HarrisWalking into to interview with any actor/director can be a tad intimidating, even after 20 years of doing it.  They have a tendency to be…difficult.  But 30 minutes into my interview with Ed Harris, he pays me a compliment that could keep wind in my sails for the duration of the fest: “Thank you for your integrity, intelligence and dedication to your job.  This has been a pleasure.”  He smiled as we shook hands and he walked me to the door

    Harris has been an actor I have admired since first seeing him as squeaky clean John Glenn in “The Right Stuff” back in 1983, which he followed with a chilling turn as a mercenary in “Under Fire,” his bright blue eyes windows into hell’s furnace. His career has moved along an interesting trajectory, shifting between supporting roles and leads with ease, often dominating whatever film he takes on with powerhouse acting.

    Oddly enough, he did not receive his first Oscar nomination until 1995 when he gave a sterling performance as Gene Kranz in “Apollo 13,” followed by another brilliant turn in “The Truman Show” as a God-like TV producer. He nurtured his dream project, “Pollock,” through its funding, before taking up the reins as director and grabbing another Oscar nod in front of the camera. And in 2002 he was nominated for a fourth time for his AIDS-afflicted writer in “The Hours,” a critically acclaimed ensemble piece from director Stephen Daldry.

    It is doubtful that “Appaloosa” will see any Oscar attention.  Though it is beautifully shot and the art direction is sublime, the film was something of a letdown, despite strong work from Harris and co-stars Viggo Mortensen and Jeremy Irons.

    “I gave the book to Viggo here at this festival in 2005,” Harris said, “when we were here for ‘A History of Violence.’ There was no one else I really wanted to do the film with, and I certainly never considered anyone else. I just thought he and I would make a strong partnership on screen. We don’t hang out, I mean we’re friends, but we don’t see much of each other. He agreed to do it, and Viggo’s the sort of guy where his word is his bond, so that gave me the start to keep moving on the film. It didn’t really occur to me that the film was a western, what struck me was the relationship between these two men in 1882, that’s what really grabbed me about the film. That it happened to be a western was incidental.”

    (more…)

  • Is there room for the old(er) guys?

    With the acting races getting more crowded by the day, it seems new contenders will need to make quite some impact to stay afloat in awards season. Nonetheless, David Poland and Tom O’Neil are beating their respective drums for a couple of veteran actors in decidedly low-key projects that have just bowed at Toronto.

    David Poland is excited about “Lovely, Still,” a small-scale holiday pic charting the December-to-December romance between Ellen Burstyn and Martin Landau. I thought the film sounded fairly ghastly when I first heard about it, but Poland is won over, citing “home run performances” from the leads:

    All of those “Boynton Beach Club” movies that get distribution… this is going to be the king of them. Maybe it’s just $10 million in theatrical, but given the Academy composition and the very real love of these two actors, don’t be shocked to hear award buzz around this one all season.

    Cinema Blend has also come over all warm and fuzzy on the film, and describes the performances as “dazzling.” The stars are obviously Academy stalwarts — and I’m always happy to see recognition for Burstyn, one of America’s greatest living actors — but I need more convincing.

    Meanwhile, over at Gold Derby, O’Neil is hoping the Academy might finally give in to poor Peter O’Toole, the man who now holds the record for most losses (eight) without winning. Two years ago, everything seemed set for O’Toole to finally collect for “Venus” — and he might well have, had the film not been so feeble.

    (more…)

  • Robert Downey Jr. to join the lead actor race in ‘The Soloist?’

    Robert Downey Jr. in The SoloistI’m hearing (not altogether surprising) rumblings that Robert Downey Jr.’s role in Joe Wright’s “The Soloist” is larger than Jamie Foxx’s homeless violinist Nathaniel Ayers and that he’ll be pushed as a leading actor contender by the good folks at Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks SKG.  Apparently this is coming from a place of beaming confidence from the studio and Downey Jr. is said to be fantastic in the film.

    “The Soloist” is, of course, largely Steve Lopez’s story.  It is told from his perspective and is about, as the title of the book lets us know, “the redemptive power of music.”  That would be Lopez’s redemption as much as Ayers’, seeing as the LA Times columnist has picked up his guitar again as a result of his relationship with the man.  (Listen to Lopez discuss his interaction with Ayers and the process of committing that story to print here).

    Of course, actors with star power have a say in these things.  I can’t imagine Paramount would want to put both of these guys in the same category, but I’m starting to get more of a “Resurrecting the Champ” vibe out of Foxx’s role than before.  Perhaps he’d be better suited in the supporting arena, but again, these are decisions that have yet to be finalized.

    It goes without saying that Downey Jr. is having a hell of a come-back year.  I’m still having conversations with industry folks that think he has a shot at Oscar gold for his work in “Iron Man,” but perhaps Paramount can spin that goodwill into the Best Actor group think for “The Soloist.”

    Downey Jr., DiCaprio, Rourke, Jenkins, Langella, Penn, Mortensen, Eastwood, Pitt, Sheen……it’s gettin’ crowded in here.  And Heath Ledger may have just seized the supporting prize.

    More as it develops…

  • Walking away with it

    Tom Cruise in MagnoliaI remember slipping into a small theater in 1987 to see something called “Street Smart,” the new Christopher Reeve film that I had no particular interest in, to be quite honest. Two hours later I emerged knowing two things: Morgan Freeman was a brilliant actor, and he would be nominated for an Academy Award.

    In a rather lacking movie, Freeman was terrifying as Fast Black, a vicious pimp who sees in a young reporter the chance to get off of a murder rap. At one point in the film he holds a pair of scissors to the eye of one of his hookers and invites her to choose which eye she is going to lose. It was an astounding performance that launched the actor’s career, earning him awards from the Los Angeles critics, New York critics and National Society of Film Critics…as well as that Oscar nod I predicted.

    Supporting performances can often be the heart and soul of a film, anchoring the picture and actually elevating the work of the lead actor. Can you imagine what “The Wizard of Oz” would be without the perfection of the cast surrounding Judy Garland, or “The Godfather” without the magnificence supporting Marlon Brando and Al Pacino? Nor can I, and in fact, through the years, supporting performances have become more and more important, certainly earning more press, with lead actors once unwilling to be promoted for an Oscar in these “lesser” categories now only to be happy to do so.

    Tom Cruise, arguably the biggest actor on the planet in 1999, gave his finest performance in a supporting role in “Magnolia” and somehow — SOMEHOW — lost the Oscar to Michael Caine. Jack Nicholson has gone the supporting route many times, winning an Oscar for his work in “Terms of Endearment” and earning nods for “Easy Rider,” “Reds” and “A Few Good Men,” though he was criminally snubbed for “The Departed.”

    Meryl Streep has become no stranger to supporting roles, earning an Oscar nod for “Adaptation” in 2002 (she too should have won) and certainly turning heads for a should’ve-been-nominated turn in “The Manchurian Candidate.”

    Sometimes an actor in a supporting role can dominate the film, as we saw this summer with Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight.” In “Apocalypse Now” the film actually peaks with Robert Duvall’s napalm-loving surfer, not Brando’s deranged Colonel. Like Javier Bardem in “No Country for Old Men,” Duvall so dominated the screen when he was on it. In just a few scant scenes…we could never forget him.

    The work of the supporting actor, the “job,” so to speak, may seem to be support of the lead actors, secondary figures in the canvas of other artists. But what we see more often than not is their support of the story, and in many cases, their rise to infamy as a result.

    Have your say. What are some of the most sensational supporting performances in film history?

  • The Brits feeling ‘Burn’

    You’ve surely heard by now that the US trade papers aren’t exactly crazy for the Coen Brothers’ latest, “Burn After Reading,” which bowed in Venice last night. “Arch and ungainly” was one of the less damning descriptions in Todd McCarthy’s review, while Kirk Honeycutt was moderately kinder in calling the film “a minor piece of silliness.”

    Which makes the reaction of the frequently grouchy Limey press all the more surprising. They like it, they really like it. The film has gone four-for-four with the major British papers, all of them seemingly welcoming the brothers’ fleet-footed change of pace. The Independent’s venerable Geoffrey Macnab calls it “dark, convoluted, chaotic – and extremely funny,” arguing that the film goes deeper than has been advertised:

    The Coens suggest this is simply a story about knuckleheads. But the film offers a damning portrait of a society in which the knuckleheads continue to hold the levers of power. The Coens introduce plenty of familiar, noirish elements. On one level, this is a dark thriller in which paranoia, avarice and sexual jealousy rule. But thanks to the increasingly absurd behaviour of the protagonists,it is also very funny.

    (more…)

  • ‘Rachel’ not just about the women?

    In his autumn preview, Noah Forrest at Movie City News briefly kinda-reviews Jonathan Demme’s “Rachel Getting Married,” which will make its official bow at Venice next week. Having seen an unfinished cut, he gives it the thumbs-up, citing “beautiful music, excellent performances and a few surprises I didn’t see coming.”

    Most excitingly, he compares it to Demme’s loosier, funkier output from the 1980’s, which is fine by me. If the film has anything approaching the wit and danger of “Something Wild,” I’m there.

    Forrest also throws a new, relatively unheralded name into the Oscar cauldron. Much has been made of the awards potential the film offers for Anne Hathaway and Debra Winger – though in the latter case, the buzz seems to be built more on industry goodwill towards the actress than on anything else. As Kris has pointed out, Rosemarie DeWitt (best known as Jon Hamm’s boho mistress in “Mad Men”) appears to have the meatier supporting role, and could well make an awards run. Forrest, meanwhile, has someone else in mind:

    While Anne Hathaway and Rosemarie DeWitt (are) excellent in it, I want to start beating the Best Supporting Actor drum for Bill Irwin. He plays the patriarch of the fractured clan and he is so damn good that I couldn’t stop shaking my head, awed by how effortlessly he brings both pathos and humour to the role.

    A respected Tony-winning stage actor whose screen work ranges from “Sesame Street” to Ron Howard’s ill-fated “Grinch” film, Irwin hasn’t had a breakthrough film role yet – this could be it.

    So far, “Rachel” is looking more like a contender for acting (and possibly writing) nominations than the big prize, but the Academy can occasionally give a lot of acting slots to an otherwise low-profile pic (“Iris” being a good example). This film seems to have a lot of balls in the air.

  • T.L. Stanley calls for a stop to the ‘Thunder’ madness

    I hadn’t checked in with T.L. Stanley’s ever-entertaining blog for a while, partly because she hasn’t been dealing with that much film-related content lately. But here she offers an amusing take on the breathless awards prognostications floating round the blogosphere for decidedly non-prestige titles:

    Not sure what’s more off-the-wall these days: Web-fueled discussions that try to advance some non-Oscar performances for the major award, or blog chatter handicapping the race based on movies that no one has seen. It could be a draw.

    Well, we’re all guilty of the latter – otherwise there’d be precious little to write about for half the year. But she has a point on the former, and it comes into focus when she addresses the Best Supporting Actor rumblings around Robert Downey Jr.’s performance in “Tropic Thunder.” Stanley, for one, ain’t buying:

    The latest to catch our eye has been the meta-moment call for a best supporting actor nod for Robert Downey Jr. for his blackface actor/soldier in “Tropic Thunder.” Not that we didn’t love him — not that we don’t always love him — but we can come to no other conclusion than that the awards drive itself is satire, as in, you guys must be kidding … In no way is that an Oscar performance, zeitgeist-catching and guffaw-inducing though it was.

    (more…)

  • Ahem…Oscar possibilities for ‘Vicky’ OUTSIDE of Cruz?

    Rebecca Hall in Vicky Cristina BarcelonaI’m not the first to grant accolades to Woody Allen for his immensely pleasurable and beautiful new film, “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.” It’s every bit Mr. Allen: funny, pretentious, absurd, cynical, honest, witty and fair.

    We have debated in this space a few times the merits of Mr. Allen’s recent work. He was hailed by critics for “Match Point,” a brutal and deceptive tale of adultery and murder in London. It earned him his 14th screenplay nomination and his 21st nomination overall, which ties him with Billy Wilder if I’m remembering my Oscar history accurately.

    He followed that up with “Scoop,” a not-so-funny film that reminded me, unfortunately, of “Small Time Crooks,” and “Cassandra’s Dream,” a better yet still modest film that did illustrate Colin Farrell’s true potential as an actor. It didn’t go anywhere with critics and was given an early 2008 release date: Siberia for the Oscar-driven. But he’s rebounded, again, with his most recent film for which he smartly cast Penélope Cruz and recent Oscar winner Javier Bardem. Their efforts and talents match perfectly; they are a dynamic on-screen force.

    As most people know by now, the film takes place in Barcelona and involves a circular love affair between two American girls, Vicky and Cristina, played by Rebecca Hall and Scarlett Johansson (whom also starred in “Match Point” and “Scoop”) and Mr. Bardem, an artist, and Ms. Cruz, a crazy artist.

    The film should be a lock for Best Original Screenplay. It’s as good as “Match Point,” if not better (for different reasons), and reminded me, perhaps because of the voice-over narration, of “Husbands and Wives,” which also received a screenplay nod (it lost to “The Crying Game”).

    (more…)

  • Patrick Goldstein falls for ‘Happy-Go-Lucky’

    With “Happy-Go-Lucky” out on DVD today in my corner of the world, it’s odd to think that America has yet to discover its charms. Early Stateside rumblings, however, suggest that’s just what might happen, as Miramax’s marketing campaign goes out of its way to portray Mike Leigh’s unruly, bittersweet comedy as the cutest thing since newborn kittens.

    Meanwhile, advance press, like this preview from the LA Times’ Patrick Goldstein, plays right into their hands. Goldstein likes the film a great deal, going so far as to portray it as a lone ray of hope in a “calamitous year for specialty films.” Right off the bat, he dismisses the comic competition from the indie sector (“Synecdoche, New York” is “murky,” while “Hamlet 2” runs into into comic “dead ends,” apparently), before singing the praises of Leigh’s film:

    So now for the good news. After a four-year layoff since “Vera Drake,” which earned three Oscar nominations, Mike Leigh is back with “Happy-Go-Lucky,” a film about an irrepressible free spirit named Poppy (played by Sally Hawkins) who manages to giddily bounce around London, full of life-affirming good cheer, but without an ounce of cloying or mawkish sentimentality. (After all, it’s still a Mike Leigh movie.)

    So far, so familiar. Anyone who hasn’t seen the film (and indeed, many who have) must be sick to death by now of hearing umpteen variations of the term “life-affirming” in connection with it. Refreshingly, however, Goldstein sees in the film the emotional depth and complexity which is so far escaping the general blogosphere, not to mention the Miramax marketing department (though that’s deliberate on their part):

    It being a Leigh film, the story is chock-full of oddball characters, from a high-strung flamenco instructor to a troubled child in the kindergarten class Polly teaches. But the best part of the film is the way it so casually allows us to grasp how intertwined each relationship can be. No one is easily stereotyped. Mike Leigh’s world, even a world dominated by a character who appears full of way-too-much unquenchable optimism, is always a world full of surprises.

    (more…)

  • Ledger drew inspiration from the work of Grant Morrison

    Cover of Batman #663So it turns out, as a way of uber-preparation for his performance in “The Dark Knight,” actor Heath Ledger kept a “Joker diary” during the month leading up to production. And some of its contents seem to have given Bat-scribe Grant Morrison the willies.

    The writer recently sat down with MTV’s Jennifer Vineyard to discuss the parallels between Ledger’s performance and the Joker he’s envisioned in works such as “Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth” and “The Clown at Midnight” (“Batman” #663). Here’s a taste:

    In [the diary], there’s a list of what would make the Joker laugh – including AIDS, landmines, geniuses suffering irreversible brain damage, brunch, and sombreros. “It gave me this chill,” Grant Morrison said, because it was word-for-word what Morrison had written in one of his Batman stories…

    …As a response to his own “Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth,” Morrison had continued his themes of the duality of Joker and the Batman in “The Clown at Midnight.” Having established with “Arkham” that the Joker had a sort of “super-sanity” and that he shifted between personalities,” Morrison explored the idea further in “The Clown at Midnight,” by showing that each time the Joker escaped, one of those new personalities would emerge.

    “It’s a really good story,” Morrison said, “but because it was prose, people didn’t want to read it.”

    Except, apparently, Heath, who saw Morrison’s list and put it in his Joker diary. “He actually had a whole list — blind babies, doctors, accidents — really horrible stuff,” Morrison said. “Heath wrote it all down. So yeah, I can see there’s a lot of [‘Arkham’ and ‘Midnight’] in his Joker.”

    Very cool and savvy move on Ledger’s part. I’m one of the readers who doesn’t engage too well with Morrison’s work, but on a purely conceptual, off-the-page level, I’ve always felt his vision of the character was something of a definitive.

    Furthermore, I think Ledger hammered it out on the big screen in a big, exciting way. He carried across that “super-sanity” with striking clarity. In my review, I noted that Ledger’s “inflections, maniacal throughout the film until…fade into the background as he spews sincere, borderline reasonable philosophy.” You recall the mob meeting: “You’re insane.” “No I’m not. I’m not.”

    It just goes to show that this is a performance working on more levels than even the most triumphant reviews seemed to suggest. And with every record-breaking dollar it seems the Oscar moves closer to his posthumous grasp.

  • A mark against Robert Downey Jr. in ‘Thunder’

    Paramount Pictures' Tropic ThunderI missed David Poland’s review of “Tropic Thunder,” which was published on Monday. Predictably, it’s a negative assessment. Poland hasn’t liked anything this summer beyond “Speed Racer” and “hancock” (which might say it all right there), but as usual, he goes to great lengths to make his point.

    The only real awards possibilities for the film have seemingly been for Robert Downey Jr., who gets the most laughs out of the trailers we’ve seen and has even earned some “O” word whispers in some quarters. But Poland seems to think the opportunity was wasted:

    Even Downey, who is so game and always looking for subtle touches, is stuck playing one note for much of the film. You know the note… it’s in every ad. He’s a white guy in black face. Okay… funny idea. But is it really funny for more than two acts of a movie? Isn’t the idea of writing such an inherently flawed character to push that character’s buttons in different and interesting ways through the entire film? Isn’t having an actor of Downey’s quality an opportunity to do something really interesting? Or are you, as an audience, satisfied by that same joke told 10 different ways?

    This, of course, flies in the face of Jeffrey Wells’s recent praise for the film and the performance, declaring Downey “amazing” and the performance an “Oscar-level thing.”

    I’ll make up my own mind when I see the film tomorrow night. I think it could go either way and has plenty to do with Ben Stiller’s handling of the material. I’ve found myself a fan of his work behind the camera more often than his work in front of it, but anything with Robert Downey Jr. in it seems to be gold this year, so we’ll see.

    Read the rest of Poland’s “Tropic Thunder” review here.

    In a separate take, John Campea of The Movie Blog had this to say on Downey’s portrayal out of Comic-Con:

    We all expected Robert Downey Jr. would knock it out of the park, and he doesn’t disappoint. He’s always working the character so much that even the most mundane lines that come out of his mouth make you smile. When he switches from “black” to Australian it’s pure gold.

    Perhaps Poland will be in the minority on this.

  • Peter Finch and the posthumous Oscar

    Peter Finch in NetworkPeter Finch’es wide-eyed, frantic performance as newsman Howard Beale in Sidney Lumet’s “Network” became a touchstone for North America in 1976 because we too were “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.”

    Vietnam was over, though the vets were struggling with their various personal horrors.  Nixon had resigned, leaving a mistrustful America in his wake.  And up here in Canada, we were dealing with a Prime Minister who was often more playboy than politician.  Lumet’s searing film, from an original screenplay by Paddy Chayevsky, was timely indeed.

    Whispers of a posthumous Oscar have circulated Heath Ledger’s performance in “The Dark Knight” for weeks now, bringing Finch’s seizure of the Best Actor trophy back to the forefront of discussion.  But was Finch’s win a recognition of the performance or was it fueled by his unfortunate dead in January of 1977?

    (more…)

  • Jeff Wells says it’s Downey Jr. vs. Ledger

    Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic ThunderIn a review of Ben Stiller’s “Tropic Thunder” this afternoon, Jeffrey Wells has brought the “O” word into the conversation, specifically for Robert Downey Jr.’s performance as an actor who undergoes a pigmentation makeover to play an African American in the Vietnam film-within-the-film.

    Here’s what he has to say:

    It also feels to me like an Oscar-level thing for Downey. I know — who gives a hoot about Oscar nominations when a film is this funny? But Downey is amazing in this. This plus Iron Man — what a year for the guy. The Best Supporting Actor race is already down to Downey vs. Ledger.

    Obviously he forgets that Downey still has a role as Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez in Joe Wright’s “The Soloist,” due out later this year, which, judging by the subject matter and the fact that you’ve got the same studio pushing that film for awards fodder, may turn out to be his best shot at Academy recognition.

    Of course, we’ve been calling it the year of Downey Jr. around these parts for a few months now.  Not that it isn’t the most obvious aspect of the season.  And indeed, it is the story of the year.  Such a rise from the depths and into the spotlight as a star with impact yet again.

    I’m really looking forward to “Tropic Thunder,” as well as “The Soloist,” for that matter.  And I’d be lying if I didn’t say it had a lot to do with Downey Jr.

  • Can Ledger’s brilliance truly move AMPAS?

    Heath Ledger in The Dark KnightAfter seeing “The Dark Knight” three times now, I am convinced that Heath Ledger was an actor of extraordinary ability who might have gone on to the heights of a Marlon Brando or Jack Nicholson.  Sure, that is easy to say now that he is gone, but consider his all too brief filmography.

    Ledger’s work in “Monsters Ball” was superb, a haunting presence through the film, while his performance in “Brokeback Mountain” was among the finest achievements in screen acting in the last 10 years. How in God’s name did he lose the Oscar? That last scene alone still breaks my heart, knowing Ennis will live out his days alone having lost the love of his life.  Thank God for the New York Film Critics Circle, which honored him with their best actor prize in 2005.

    As a drug addict in the little seen but powerful “Candy” he was nothing less than astonishing, and now we arrive at “The Dark Knight.”  What is remarkable about those performances is that each is radically and wildly different from the other, bold and daring, taking performance art to the very edge.

    Imagine signing on to play the Joker and knowing that not long ago Jack Nicholson knocked the role out of the poark and was adored by millions…my God…the pressure?? The dilemma for Ledger must have been similar to Robert De Niro portraying a young Vito Corleone in “The Godgfather Part II,” knowing that the eyes of the film-going world would be watching him closely after Marlon Brando’s Oscar-winning efforts two years prior.

    And of course, Ledger is brilliant in the role, dominating the film in every way.  The Oscar talk is moot. His performance will live forever and if the Academy has the courage to at least nominate him, I will be pleased.

    Does it matter that the performance came in a comic book adaptation? For me, it’s all the more reason to nominate him and celebrate what he accomplished, because he took a role well known to millions and evolved it, made it his own, smeared it with a deeply psychotic spin that works to perfection.

    I personally don’t even expect him to be nominated.  Many great performances have missed Oscar’s call (as outlined in this space many times).  But they still live on in history.

    I hope I’m wrong.