Tag: Sean Penn

The Great Performances: 2001

In one of the weakest years in memory, not just for performances but for great films, 2001 saw Denzel Washington and Halle Berry knock “two birds out with one stone,” as the former declared on Oscar night, as two African Americans won the top acting prizes for the first time ever. And it was difficult to argue with either.

Washington was superb in “Training Day,” clearly loving his role as crooked cop Alonzo, walking the line without ever going over the top, blowing everyone off the screen. In many ways it was a make-up award for his having lost for “Malcolm X” in 1992 to Al Pacino’s ranting work in “Scent of a Woman” and perhaps, though lesser so, for his loss for “The Hurricane.”

Berry gave a raw, sexually charged performance in “Monster’s Ball,” one of such searing truth and rage you could never look away from the screen. Robert Duvall called her performance the finest by an American actress he had ever seen and was not the least bit surprised when she won the Oscar for Best Actress.

My question remains: Should Denzel Washington have won over the non-nominated performances of Gene Hackman in “The Royal Tanebaums” or the vastly under-appreciated Jack Nicholson in “The Pledge,” one of his finest recent performances? Don’t think so.

There was a lot of love shown to Tom Wilkinson for his heartbreaking work in “In the Bedroom” as well as Russell Crowe (again) for his performance in “A Beautiful Mind,” which eventually won the Best Picture Oscar. I was very surprised that Sean Penn was nominated for his performance in “I Am Sam” because though I consider Penn one of the greatest actors in the history of the cinema, his work in that film represents one of the very few times I could “see” him acting.

(more…)

November 20, 2009
Hal Holbrook’s awards season play, take two

Over the weekend, “That Evening Sun” star Hal Holbrook took the Excellence in Acting award at the Starz Denver Film Festival over the weekend. When the press release landed in my inbox, it reminded me that, while I’ve been a pretty strong proponent of Patterson Hood’s original song from the film, I haven’t written about Holbrook’s performance all that much.

It’s a beautiful piece of work. Holbrook adds every ounce of texture, nuance, authenticity and depth that Clint Eastwood was woefully lacking in the similarly themed “Gran Torino” last year, but it’s unfair to start with a comparison, I guess. Holbrook nails ornery to a T, and he seems to be able to work the natural rhythms of southern conversation better than anyone other than maybe Robert Duvall.

Susan King recently talked to the actor, who said working on Sean Penn’s “Into the Wild” gave him confidence. And not to be SO 2007, but he offers some high praise for the actor/director in the piece.

(more…)

November 18, 2009
The Great Performances: 1999

1999 was a strange year. And it’s hard to believe a full decade has slipped past since. There were some great award-winning performances, to be sure, but there seemed to be just as many not nominated that certainly should have been.

Ten years later, I remain stunned that Reese Witherspoon was not nominated for her brilliant work in “Election” as a pathologically ambitious, grasping social climber student doing anything it takes to head up the student council in Alexander Payne’s astute and black comedy.

Witherspoon won the National Society of Film Critics award for Best Actress, besting eventual Oscar, LAFCA and NYFCC champ Hilary Swank in “Boys Don’t Cry.” What made Witherspoon’s work so incredible was that we all must have known a Tracy Flick during our high school days, and the actress created such an accurate depiction.

Swank was a most deserving winner for her superb performance, winning over nominees, Annette Bening in “American Beauty,” Janet McTeer in “Tumbleweeds,” Julianne Moore in “The End of the Affiar” and Meryl Streep in “Music of the Heart” (perhaps the perennial Oscar favorite’s least accomplished nominated performance).

Bening’s performance was brilliant, she won the Screen Actors Guild award for it, and though there seemed to be a swell of support for her as Oscar night approached, there was no denying Swank for her career-altering work.

(more…)

November 7, 2009
The Great Performances: 1998

For all my bitching about Roberto Benigni winning Best Actor in 1998 for his incessant mugging in “Life is Beautiful,” I was also thrilled the Academy watched enough films and paid enough attention to realize that Edward Norton was deserving for his magnetic turn as a neo-Nazi who sees the light in “American History X.” Norton was electrifying as Derek, the charismatic leader of a group of skinheads, handpicked by the older gentleman, played with menace and sleaze by Stacey Keach, who believes in what Hitler taught and seeks to spread the word to the youth of California.

Norton gave the best performance by an actor I saw in 1998, but the Academy got caught up in the groundswell of support of Benigni’s movie, a fable set in a death camp. I’m not a fan, either of his overwrought, over the top performance, or the film itself. No rant, you all know what I think there.

That said, there was a bounty of great male performances in 1998, many of which went unnoticed by the Academy. They did their best to get it right, though. Joining Norton and Benigni for nominations were Nick Nolte in “Affliction,” Ian McKellen, superb in “Gods and Monsters,” and Tom Hanks as the weary soldier in Steven Spielberg’s magnificent “Saving Private Ryan.”

Not even nominated, however, were Warren Beatty for his brilliant turn as the truth-talking senator in “Bulworth,” Joseph Fiennes in Best Picture winner “Shakespeare in Love,” Jim Carrey in “The Truman Show,” George Clooney in “Out of Sight,” Brendan Gleason in “The General” and John Travolta in “Primary Colors” or “A Civil Action,” take your pick. And perhaps the most deserving of all: Jeff Bridges as The Dude in “The Big Lebowski,” the actor’s finest work, in my opinion.

Each of the aforemenetioned men gave stronger performances than the eventual Oscar winner, yet failed to nab a nomination. Jeez!

(more…)

October 30, 2009
The Great Performances: 1997

1997 was a great year for actors, but a tough year for Oscar; how do you choose when there are so many deserving nominees?

It’s that age-old issue that some award-worthy performances are going to be left out, which though unfair and sad, is very much part of the Academy Awards and frankly what makes the whole thing interesting for us. The Best Actor field ended up largely a battle of the old boys. The acting warriors from the 1970s gave some of their finest performances in 1997, and four of the five nominees for Best Actor had been icons for 20 years.

In fact the Academy could have allowed the one upstart to slip past and nominated Al Pacino in “Donnie Brasco,” which was the actor’s best work in years. As it was Pacino was by-passed in favor of young Matt Damon in “Good Will Hunting,” who found himself going toe-to-toe with Robert Duvall in “The Apostle,” Jack Nicholson in “As Good As It Gets,” Dustin Hoffman in “Wag the Dog” and Peter Fonda in “Ulee’s Gold.”

I first saw Duvall’s performance at the 1997 Toronto International Film Festival and have written about it many times since. He won the Los Angeles Film Critics Association’s Best Actor award, and then the National Society of Film Critics’ honor, but the Mayor of Hollywood stood in the way of Duvall’s second Oscar.

(more…)

October 23, 2009
The Great Performances: 1995

Based on some of the comments I received last week regarding my article on great acting, I took the suggestion of a young lady and am kicking off a series of articles, one per week, that will explore the best performances ofeach year, beginning today with 1995. So let’s go back and work our way towards 2008 and discover the great film performances we know about, and maybe a few we do not.

The Academy did a pretty fine job in 1995 when it came to the acting nominees. Sure there was some shock when John Travolta was snubbed for his superb work in “Get Shorty,” and those hoping for a three-peat with Tom Hanks missed it when the actor was not nominated for his solid work in “Apollo 13.” I personally would like to have seen Clint Eastwood nominated for his wonderful work in “The Bridges of Madison County,” but there are just five slots open, and so many fine pieces of acting.

One could also argue for Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt, both excellent in David Fincher’s “Seven,” or Bruce Willis, who was nobly brilliant in “Twelve Monkeys,” and perhaps even Jack Nicholson in “The Crossing Guard.”

Nobody could argue with Nicolas Cage in “Leaving Las Vegas,” Sean Penn in “Dead Man Walking” or Anthony Hopkins for “Nixon” as Best Actor nominees. And frankly I believe Penn gave the best performance of the year, one for the ages in fact. However, Richard Dreyfuss in “Mr. Holland’s Opus?” Seriously? I love Dreyfuss and I think he’s even been short-changed in the past, but come one. He does fine work and it’s not his fault the script asks him to be mushy and sentimental, but I have struggled with his nomination over Hanks, Travolta and Eastwood for many years.

(more…)

October 10, 2009
Great performers at their best

After spending some time this summer watching some excellent films on DVD, I was inspired to write this piece about the great actors’ (living, with one exception) greatest performances.

Narrowing it down to one each (brutal, believe me), I think have come up with a list of actors, young and old, that represents some of the finest talent working in film over the last 40 years, and selected the performance I believe each will be remembered for. This is obviously a subjective endeavor, so if you feel different, tell us why.

Let’s dive in…

Jack Nicholson
Jack is not often given the credit for being the brilliant actor he is because we far too often expect him to be “just Jack.” But when he puts his actor’s hat on there simply may not be a greater actor in film history. For me he was never better than he was as Randall Patrick McMurphy in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” which is a breathtaking piece of work. Watch him when he’s not speaking and see the emotion he packs into this astonishing piece of acting.

Meryl Streep
There is no question here for me. As concentration camp survivor Sophie in “Sophie’s Choice,” Streep gave not only her best performance, but the single finest performance ever given by a woman, in my view. That terrifying silent scream paralyzes the viewer with heartache and dare I say, shame. Sophie may have survived the camp, but she walks through her life more dead than alive because her soul was left behind and somehow Streep conveys that to the audience.

Robert Duvall
This is a tough call because Duvall was so good in “Apocalypse Now,” but I think his best work was in “The Apostle” as a preacher challenged by his own flaws and forced to atone for his sins. A volcanic performance in which Duvall never seems to stop moving or speaking.

(more…)

August 21, 2009
Remembering 1999, the movie year that was

Last year I dedicated one of the first formal installments of The Lists to the films of 1999, one of the most electrifying slate of films to come along since Hollywood’s epic 1939 peak 60 years prior. There was an embarrassment of riches, truly, great work from the classic masters, eye-opening new work from future masters and everything in between.

There was exceptional independent filmmaking on display as well as impressive studio offerings. Envelope-pushing was the norm while formulaic studies also seemed curiously refined. As the century drew to a close, it seemed, in some ways, that 1999 would come to represent everything that made the medium so special for its first 100 hundred years.

Over at Movie City News, Noah Forrest has dedicated a new column to the discussion. He can be forgiven, I think, for twisting in the winds of indecision when it comes to pegging a personal best film from 1999, but he also offers a number of other superlatives to honor the films and performances from the year.

(more…)

July 21, 2009
Sean Penn to headline new Sorrentino pic

Now this is an exciting pairing. You might remember that I’m pretty crazy about “Il Divo,” Paolo Sorrentino’s blazing political biopic-thriller that took a well-deserved Jury Prize at last year’s Cannes fest. (Seriously, check it out when you have a chance.)

Between that triumph and his intricate, super-stylish 2001 noir “The Consequences of Love,” Sorrentino has shown a kinetic narrative sense and visual dynamism that seemed a virtual siren-call to Hollywood, so it’s no surprise to hear that he’ll be making his English-language debut with his next feature.

Variety reports that Sean Penn — who, coincidentally or not, headed the jury that was so impressed by “Il Divo” last year — is set to star in “This Must Be the Place,” which will see Sorrentino teaming up with his regular producers once more. The thriller-ish pitch runs as follows:

Penn would play a wealthy rock star who becomes bored in his retirement and takes on the quest of finding his father’s executioner, an ex-Nazi war criminal who is a refugee in the U.S.

Penn strikes me as a good trans-Atlantic match for Sorrentino, both men having a muscular, showy approach to their respective crafts. I’m not sure what to make of the premise on paper; it seems to allow for quite a pulpy, heightened treatment, but there’s so little to go on. For now, the names alone have me hooked.

May 18, 2009
Stay cool

Over a month after Sean Penn defeated Mickey Rourke in what was possibly the tightest acting race in recent memory, Cinematical’s Jeffrey Anderson has come up with an interesting take on how the outcome may actually benefit Rourke, and indeed “The Wrestler.” In short, he says, losing the Oscar allows them to retain their edge:

The Wrestler is just a couple of months old now, but it has already gained a certain type of following. It has actual fans; people love this movie rather than just admire it. Milk has become a good movie for students to watch in school, but The Wrestler is a film that they will choose to watch, in their free time. It’s a cult film now. And cult films don’t win Oscars. It automatically disqualifies them from cult status. A cult film is something that people discover on their own. If the Academy acknowledges it, then it has been plucked away and turned into something official. It has a stamp of approval, and cult films are all about not being approved.

I tend to agree, and this encapsulates why the Oscars tend to be antithetical to “cult” status — films seeking the former aim for a majority vote, while films seeking the latter tend to build on minority appeal. You only need look back to, say, “American Beauty” to see how the Academy’s endorsement can temper a once-venerated film’s cinéaste cache, while an also-ran like “The Insider” only gains in critical stature.

(more…)

March 27, 2009
The Stooges are set

Why does this project look like an absolute failure waiting to happen? And strangely, only Penn seems to fit here. Del Toro really doesn’t work for me in the role of Moe and there’s something, I don’t know…off about Carrey as Curly, but we’ll see what they come up with.

Variety reports the casting news here. Brad from Rope of Silicon has slapped together a nice Photoshopped image of the actors in character here:

March 25, 2009
Olbermann on the freedom of Oscar speeches

Thanks to Ryan Adams at Awards Daily for pointing us to this clip. “Of the 40 hours of TV Oscar analysis I’ve seen in the past 48, the depth of this 6-minute segment make the rest look like the cover of US magazine,” Ryan says.

Have a look:

February 24, 2009
A private function

When all is said and done, it wasn’t an awards season that deserved a fireworks finish, so perhaps last night’s muted, largely tasteful, faintly insular ceremony was an appropriate summation. It ran smoothly enough, with a handful of novel distractions and a uniformly generous, empathetic spirit running through the night’s speeches –- but I’d be hard pressed to remember many notable ‘moments’ from last night’s proceedings a week from now, let alone years hence.

Part of that stems from the fact that, as has been discussed ad nauseum on these and other pages, we had a less-than-stellar field of contenders to work with. But I’m afraid I must slide into the apparently tiny glass-half-empty minority on the show itself –- as efficiently and enthusiastically as the show unfolded, I simply didn’t find all that much to love about it. As Danny Boyle suggested in the midst of yet another boundless, winning acceptance speech (can we find something for him to win every year, please?), it looked like a blast for those present, but I’m not sure the clubby, “we’re all in this together” vibe really translated to the distance of a TV screen.

After the cloak-and-dagger secrecy shrouding Bill Condon and Laurence Mark’s revised take on the Oscars, I must say I was expecting a slicker, more dramatic reworking of the format –- and on that front, I must say I was a little disappointed. Hugh Jackman was certainly a game, likeable emcee, but I wasn’t certain who the target audience for his big set pieces was. Equal parts Crystal-esque shtick and endearingly naff “let’s put on a show” razzle-dazzle, both elements seemed to me too dated to court the broader, younger, hipper viewership the Academy wanted. The Baz Luhrmann-staged musical number at the centre was fun in itself, but existed in a similar cultural vacuum, despite the presence of current pop phenomena like Beyonce or Zac Efron. For all the hype, this was familiar content.

(more…)

February 23, 2009
He’s with them in spirit

February 23, 2009
‘Slumdog’ takes 8 trophies as Oscar keeps it under 190 minutes

In the final analysis, there isn’t much to say other than: What a captivating way to put a bow on the worst and, ultimately, most boring Oscar season of all time. The 81st annual Academy Awards swiftly went down earlier this evening with few surprise winners and a classy new sheen. It was captivating and, at times, inspiring. Here are my thoughts on Hollywood’s biggest night:

The winners
I did extremely well with my predictions this year, nailing 21 of the 24 categories and making good with gambles in the foreign language film and short film categories. I stuck with my heart on Mickey Rourke despite the smart money being on Sean Penn, but regardless of the strong desire to see the former holding an Oscar in his hands and delivering one more barn-burning speech, it is, of course, impossible to argue with Sean Penn’s expert work in “Milk.” His heartfelt acceptance was a highlight and it all felt somehow more complete than it did five years ago.

That “Departures” win took the wind out of the sails of one of the year’s most ingenious productions and yes, this is a committee that still needs a major overhaul. I don’t think I could possibly say it enough. That should take nothing away from Japan’s victory, mind you, because their submission is a delightful film that won’t deserve most of the ill will coming its way from those who haven’t even seen it. But “Bashir” seems to have wrongfully faced an uphill battle from the start.

The sound categories (hotly debated all week) proved once again that the Academy doesn’t understand the impact of mixers and editors on animated films. “Slumdog Millionaire” took the mixing award (I’m kicking myself for changing that), while “The Dark Knight” took the sound editing trophy.

Regarding those shorts, by the way, Pixar remains winless in the animated field since 2001’s “For the Birds” (the gorgeous “La Maison en Petits Cubes” rightly won tonight), while “Toyland,” with its ambitious structure (for a short) and obviously baity subject matter reigned supreme in live action.

The only award I missed kind of irritated me, I have to admit: Best Documentary Short. “Smile Pinki” took down what I thought to be the best of the field (and being the most cinematic, the most likely winner), Steve Okazaki’s “The Conscience of Nhem En.” But there was a concerted publicity effort behind the former that maybe I should have paid more attention to.

(More, plus a full list of tonight’s Oscar winners, after the jump.)

(more…)

February 22, 2009
Holocaust victims 4, Nazis 0

This interactive Oscar trivia chart at the Guardian is great fun, even if I can’t vouch for its accuracy across the board. (At a glance, I can tell that there are numerous names missing from their “most nominated without wins” page, while there have been more than three R-rated Best Picture nominees this year, let alone this decade.)

Quibbles aside, however, it’s a handy confirmation of several well-known Academy trends (yes, the most surefire route to an Oscar is playing someone with mental health problems, with 23 winners to prove the fact), as well as some less familiar ones. Who knew that Jon Voight remains the only man to win Best Actor for playing a long-haired character? If we count the early stages of “Milk,” does that mean that this much-neglected demographic will get a certain boost on Sunday night?

My favourite, however, was this particular nugget: four thesps have won for playing Holocaust victims. But Nazis? None. You’ve been warned, Ms. Winslet.

February 21, 2009
Contributors’ picks

Well, this is it. The big show is Sunday night and we’re pretty much out of things to discuss at this stage, no? But I’ve gone ahead and wrangled up all of our contributors’ predictions in each category. Trust who you must, but really, pray for a surprise. Right?

In the realm of “ballsy” calls, I guess you can look no further than Guy’s prediction that “The Class” will upset “Waltz with Bashir” in the foreign language film category, which I discussed at length earlier this morning. He’s also stuck his neck out for a “Slumdog Millionaire” sweep, much like Nathaniel Rogers did a week ago. I really wanted to go there. I really, really did, but the sound categories. The friggin’ sound categories.

As we’ve mentioned, people tend to forget that the Academy at large doesn’t exactly know from good sound mixing and sound editing, so “WALL-E” is perhaps a bit vulnerable in those fields, while “The Dark Knight” might be too safe a choice. I’ve talked to a number of people who seem to think “Slumdog” will be checked off down the line, though, so perhaps Guy and Nat are onto something there.

Me, I don’t have too many surprise predictions, as I’m sure you’ve already read. I’m sticking with “Man on Wire” in the doc feature category, despite my spit-balling otherwise. And even though I have a strong sense that “Departures” is waiting to surprise “Waltz,” I don’t feel like sticking my neck out. (UPDATE: Spoke too soon.)

I am, however, going with my gut on Mickey Rourke in the much-anticipated lead actor race, and it looks like I’m joined by Guy, Brian and Blake on that here.

John seems to be expecting a big night for “The Dark Knight,” predicting wins in both sound categories as well as Best Film Editing, which would be the same hat trick “The Bourne Ultimatum” pulled off last year. But he’s also banking on a win in the cinematography category, which would certainly make this writer a happy camper.

Blake is banking on the Bat’s victory in the art direction and makeup fields, where the rest of us expect “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” to prevail, while Brian is predicting a clean sweep for “WALL-E,” including the original screenplay category, which looks to be another one of the night’s most exciting races. He’s joined by Guy on that, while John, Blake, Gerard and I are taking the safe route and placing our chips on Dustin Lance Black’s work on “Milk.”

Despite those minority calls, we all seem to be in agreement on Best Picture (“Slumdog”), Best Director (Danny Boyle), Best Actress (Kate Winslet), Best Supporting Actor (Heath Ledger), Best Supporting Actress (Penelope Cruz), Best Adapted Screenplay (“Slumdog”), Best Visual Effects (“Button”) and Best Animated Feature Film (“WALL-E”). Everything else represents something of a menagerie.

Take a look at our individual picks after the jump.

(more…)

February 20, 2009
Not so very shocking

Dave Karger has posted a list of ten potential “shockers” that he thinks could (however faintly) foreseeably shake things up on Oscar night.

Many of them have been raised before, and are suitably fanciful. Though I’ve said before that there is a logical case to be made for Melissa Leo leapfrogging both Kate Winslet and Meryl Streep to the Best Actress award, it’s safe to say that the odds are firmly stacked against that happening. Meanwhile, while the “‘Benjamin Button’ goes 0-for-13” theory has been floated around before, it’s difficult to see how it could lose all three of the technical awards in which it is deemed a lock. So those outcomes would certainly count as shocking in some measure.

Some of Karger’s ideas would definitely be upsets, but not necessarily “shockers.” As I’ve written before, I’m joining him on the same limb in predicting a Best Foreign Language Film win for “The Class” — but that category is so prone to upsets, it’s almost more of a surprise when things go according to plan. And I know I’m not the only one seriously considering Viola Davis in the frequently topsy-turvy Best Supporting Actress category — she’s not the favourite, sure, but it wouldn’t be a jaw-dropper of Marcia Gay Harden proportions.

Some of Karger’s supposed “shockers,” however, wouldn’t even count as upsets to me. He lists both the possibility of “Slumdog Millionaire” making a clean sweep of nine awards, and “The Dark Knight” getting only one statuette — which are really co-dependent on each other, since the sound awards, as far as I can see, represent “TDK’s” only other shots at victory. (Cinematography, I think, sailed with the ASC.) And since “Slumdog” just nabbed the CAS award, would that be so very unexpected?

The one on Karger’s list that really surprised me, however, was a Best Actor win for Mickey Rourke. It’s well-known by now that this is a neck-and-neck battle to the finish between two beloved performances that have evenly split the major Oscar precursors. In the latest Gurus of Gold chart, Penn leads Rourke by a single vote. I think we can honestly say by now that either result would not be a surprise at all. Now Frank Langella … that would be a shocker.

February 18, 2009