The good, the bad, and the mediocre: that's what you get with the Oscars, and this week, we'll be highlighting the latter of the three with Best Actor 2006. Up to this point, I've tried to pick Oscar categories that included at least some nominees that I had a passionate opinion on (whether it be positive or negative), but this week, I thought I would highlight indifference incarnate, blase personified, mediocrity embodied. Now of course, these adjectives won't apply to this article, which (as always), will be peerless, but rather the lineup of candidates that made up the Academy's Best Actor race of 2006. Whether in writing or in thought, it is actually an extremely useful exercise to analyze the middle of the road fair, for when we understand what separates the average from the excellent, we have a better understanding of the things that truly touch us, make us move as human beings. If "it's all relative," then we sure as hell better know relative to what, and this week we will discussing the what.
Now as critics of the Academy (and who isn't), the question arises, was 2006 just a middling year for lead actors, or did the Academy, yet again, skip over superior work for more comfortable choices conforming to their typical patterns of familiarity? While maybe not the most stirring year for male lead performances, like almost any year, 2006 did have some above-par turns, but a typical Oscar nemesis reared its ugly head, preventing meritocracy from ruling the day: the ensemble film. I don't know what it is about film's with great ensemble casts that prevent the Academy from rewarding their individual actors (category confusion, cast cancellation?), but with a few exceptions (such as the first two "Godfather" films), multiple cast members from the same film are rarely nominated, no matter how deserving they all are. For 2006, the biggest example of a wronged actor is actually one of the nominees (which was undoubtedly part of the problem), Leonardo DiCaprio. As you will see momentarily (if you did not already know), DiCaprio was nominated for Best Actor in 2006, but not for his career's best work as an undercover Boston policeman in Martin Scorsese's "The Departed", but rather for his underwhelming role as a mercenary involved with the African conflict diamonds trade in "Blood Diamond". How DiCaprio did not win, much less get nominated, for "The Departed" is a mystery that only people in Hollywood know the answer to. It may have something to do with the fact that DiCaprio's costar in "The Departed", Matt Damon, was also likely eligible for the lead category, and likewise gave one of his all-time best performances. As some sort of stupid compromise, instead of doing the right thing by nominating them both, some in the Academy may have decided to throw their weight behind DiCaprio's sub-par "Blood Diamond" performance. It doesn't make sense, but it's the type of reasoning the Academy seems to employ all too often.
Another wonderful performance from a great ensemble film that was deserving of a nomination was Greg Kinnear as an aspiring motivational speaker in 2006's "Little Miss Sunshine". Again, I'm not sure of which category most people placed him in, but as the dad of "Little Miss Sunshine" herself, if he is not considered lead, then I guess everyone in the film is "supporting". Another worthy, but categorically questionable, performance is that of Michael Sheen as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in "The Queen". It's one of the best portrayals of a modern political figure that I can remember (and one Sheen has done three times), but whether it should qualify as a lead performance is tough to say. Finally, one last performance that isn't spellbinding, but a step ahead of some of the competition, is Ryan Phillippe as John Bradley, in Clint Eastwood's "Flags of our Fathers", the story of the men who were forever engraved in American consciousness after their picture was snapped raising the American flag over Iwo Jima. For now though, let us take a look at the group of so-so nominees.
5. Peter O'Toole in "Venus"
The Academy loves its veterans more than a small Midwestern town during a memorial day parade, and they show them their love by consistently showering unworthy old-timers with awards and nominations that would not be considered were it not for their reputation. This is especially the case for Hollywood veterans who have for some reason or another, failed to win an Oscar, such as Peter O'Toole. In fact, many times they make up for past transgressions by giving the "once-great" actor an Oscar for second-rate work (see Paul Newman's win for "The Color of Money"), thereby jipping off some more deserving young actor, who they will inevitably have to reward for some inferior performance later on, starting an endless cycle of unjustly rewarding seniority over merit. The fact then that the Academy didn't feel it was necessary to reward the legendary eight-time Oscar losing actor (which is more nominations without a win than any other actor in Oscar history), tells you something about the performance. Now don't get me wrong, I love Peter O'Toole. I consider his performance in "Lawrence of Arabia" as one of the all-time greatest performances in cinema history. It was a role he should have easily won for. (Although, the actual winner, Gregory Peck in "To Kill a Mockingbird", is inarguably terrific as well). His performance in "Venus" though, while not terrible, is an all too common retread of the "dirty old man" role that was tired when whoever originated it first made goo-goo eyes at some young pretty thing who could have any man her own age (or even middle-aged) whenever she desires. A beautiful young woman, hanging out with a dying old man, just so he can have some jollies vicariously recalling the days of his sexual conquest is the type of nonsensical sentimentality that I can't stand, and O'Toole does nothing new with the role to make it interesting. A suave, delusional, womanizer, O'Toole's Maurice acts exactly as you would expect him to, which is the problem. Peter O'Toole is a great actor, who should have won an Oscar at some point in his career, but I for one will not let sentimentality ease my analysis. This performance was not worthy of winning, or even being nominated.
4. Leonardo DiCaprio in "Blood Diamond"
Why Academy, why did you not nominate DiCaprio for "The Departed"? I know I already discussed this above, but I can not think of this nomination without anger boiling up over this ridiculous mix up. I want someone who voted to nominate DiCaprio for "Blood Diamond" over "The Departed" to explain to me their reasoning. What was it that you liked about his performance in "Blood Diamond" so much that it was somehow superior to his role in "The Departed"? Was it the crappy European accent? Or maybe it was the prototypical character arc, starting out as a brash hubristic man "only in it for himself", moving on to a brooding fragile man with flaws and a "troubled past", and finishing up as the reformed self-righteous prodigal son who proves he "really was a good guy all along" by making an enormous sacrifice? Is that what suffices as good acting to you, hitting the preordained paces? As an accounted DiCaprio fan myself (out of the "current" generation of leading actors, he is my favorite), it pains me to have to criticize the man this way, but in this rare occasion, I honestly don't blame DiCaprio that much for the misstep. For even though I consistently say that the actor is ultimately responsible for his or her performance (which I still believe even now, as I am about to contradict myself), there is one man who I think should take the lion's share of blame for DiCaprio's formulaic performance, and that man is Ed Zwick. Zwick has the anti-midas touch, turning everything he touches into pewter . Every inclination the man has as an artist is wrong, always siding for the over-dramatic and formulaic. If stereo-typing was crime, Zwick would be locked up in the Hague. Despite a few acting nominations under his helm, if I was an actor I would stay far away from a Zwick project. Many a fine actor has turned in some of their worst performance under his leadership, and unfortunately DiCaprio's no exception. As much as I would have been tempted to vote for DiCaprio and just pretend I was voting for his performance in "The Departed", the rules are the rules, and DiCaprio's paint-by-numbers turn in "Blood Diamond" is far from "Oscar worthy".
3. Ryan Gosling in "Half-Nelson"
Ryan Gosling appears to be on the verge of superstardom, and I think 2011 will be his breakout year. Already receiving rave reviews in the surprise hit of the Cannes film festival "Drive", Gosling is going to star alongside Steve Carell (as well as Emma Stone, Kevin Bacon, Marisa Tomei, and Julianne Moore) in the big summer romantic comedy release, "Crazy, Stupid, Love" (which you have likely already seen commercials for), and towards the end of the year, Gosling is starring in the likely Oscar-contending, "The Ides of March", a George Clooney-directed political thriller that also has an insanely famous cast, and this doesn't even include some big name films he already has lined up for the next year and beyond (such as the remake of "Logan's Run"). If true movie stardom comes to fruition though, it will have been through the unusual route of art-house hero. With the exception of "The Notebook" (which seems to be the modern day female's ultimate "cry film"), Gosling has built his cult through solid performances in independent films, and one of the first of these was "Half-Nelson". While I am hopeful for Gosling's future and look forward to seeing how his career progresses (mostly because his strong performance in "Blue Valentine"), I hate "Half-Nelson" with a passion, and was not all that enamored with his performance in the film (although it is significantly better than the movie). "Half-Nelson" tells the story of an insufferably sanctimonious drug-taking junior high-school teacher who works in a poor urban neighborhood and quickly becomes a close friend and mentor to one of his students. The movie is everything I hate about "realist" cinema. Insincere, pious, pretentious moralist garbage, the movie, however much it pretends to deny this, thinks it knows the world better than the world knows itself, and it's chief proselytizer of this message is Gosling's "too cool for school" (which, being a teacher, is so "ironic") Dan Dunne, a man so ostentatiously didactic, that he makes Al Gore seem devil-may-care. As much as I despise Gosling's character though, the film's problems derive more from the direction than the acting. It is the film the canonizes Dunne, not Gosling (although he may be just as sympathetic), and the fact of the matter is there are people in the world like Dan Dunne and Gosling does an apt job of recreating the character. I may hate the movie and I may hate his character, but judging the performance objectively, Gosling does a sufficient job, and shows the potential we will hopefully see bloom in the coming years.
2. Will Smith in "The Pursuit of Happyness"
Starting from his "Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" days, then moving on to become a major Hollywood action star in films such as "Independence Day" and "Men in Black", seeing Will Smith competently take on the lead role in a dramatic awards season film was a shock to many. This lead to what I believe to be grading on the curve (which I may be guilty of too). Rave review after rave review poured in all singing the praises of the rapper-turned-actors compelling portrayal of the true-life story of Chris Gardner, a man who went from a struggling salesman, to a homeless man on the streets with his son (played by Will Smith's real life son, Jaden), to finally a wealthy stockbroker. It's an amazing story, and one perfectly set up for the Hollywood schmultz treatment, which the movie does dabble in, although not to the extent of some of its contemporaries ("The Blind Side" anyone?). This is not only true of the movie, but at times, of Will Smith's performance as well. Instead of being a man doing his best to deal with the circumstances life has given him, in certain parts of the film he feels more like a man who knows, we know, that he knows, he is in tough a bind (if that makes any sense). It's a typical problem in melodrama, and as much as I would like to say that Mr. Smith avoids this pitfall, he does not completely. It is by no means a weak performance though, and when it works, it works well, which make the adoring reviews understandable. Will Smith has always seemed to be the go-getter (which you would have to be to go from rap star, all the way up to genuine Hollywood stardom), and this natural independent attitude is exactly what is called for the portrayal of Chris Gardner, an man who is obviously infused with the intangible entrepreneurial spirit. The relationship between Smith and his son is also very convincing and natural, which is no doubt helped by the real life rapport between Will and his son Jaden. It doesn't reach the heights of say Ryan and Tatum O'Neal in "Paper Moon", but it is nevertheless a terrific pairing, and one of the strongest points of the film. It may not be a knockout, and while I still have my doubts about Smith's dramatic acting chops (he is a great action star and comedian), overall it is a fine performance, and one Smith should be pleased with.
1. Forest Whitaker in "The Last King of Scotland"
Now we come to the winner, Forest Whitaker in "The Last King of Scotland". While out of the five nominees I do agree with the members of the Academy that he was the best, I'm not as crazy about the turn as many seemed to be. As soon as the movie hit the scene, and it was clear that it would be eligible for the 2006 Oscars, Forest Whitaker was anointed king (of Hollywood, not Scotland) for his performance as Idi Amin, the despot dictator of Uganda during the 1970's who ruled over the African country with a tyrannical fist. As with "Half-Nelson", the key here as an objective juror is to judge Whitaker's performance on it's own, disregarding the terrible quality of the film itself. Exploitive, hokey, and unilluminating, the film surprisingly takes on the tone of a cheap "B" horror movie at times, but putting these facts aside for a moment, what are the merits of Whitaker's performance? It's definitely a good performance, unquestionably worthy of the nomination, but something keeps me back from embracing it as wholeheartedly as I might of with say Javier Bardem in "No Country for Old Man", or Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight". When I break it down, it's clear that this hesitation is due to the nagging notion that when watching Whitaker as Idi Amin, I am watching mimicry more than true thespian art. It is nonetheless a superb imitation, but much like Jamie Foxx in "Ray", there is something lacking to the character as a person. Whitaker does infuse Amin with both a jovial side, along with a merciless thirst for blood for anyone who gets in his way, and for the most part, he doesn't overplay his hand on either side of the coin (unlike Will Smith in the aforementioned "The Pursuit of Happyness"). The problem though is he doesn't really enlighten us to the man's philosophical core, instead turning the man into some treacherous super villain you might see in a comic book film. Now it's hard to put the blame for this directly on Forest, given as most of this responsibility falls on the writers and director, but the great actors always manage to find a way, even in the minutest of details, to add something to create a complete human being, full nuances and complexities. Whitaker does not do this with his Amin, settling for the straight up evil that inevitably leaves you cold. It is a great performance (don't believe I think otherwise), and there have been far worse performance that have passed the Academy's test of valor, but there's just that something special missing from the performance to categorize it as a true "tour de force".
As always, if you have any comments on this week's article, feel free to let your thoughts known below.
No comments:
Post a Comment