2018 Road to the Oscars: Actor in a Leading Role

2018 Road to the Oscars

Actor in a Leading Role

Timothée Chalamet v. Gary Oldman

Call Me by Your Name              Darkest Hour

It has been a fantastic year for movies. Blockbuster fans have had their fill, from summer box office smash Wonder Woman to the latest installment in the Star Wars franchise. Independent film has had an especially notable year, with Lady Bird and The Florida Project maintaining strong critical acclaim heading into awards season. Even Get Out, which came out way back in February 2017, has a real shot at collecting more nominations. The Independent Spirit Award nominations are out, but we will have to wait until January 23rd for the big list: the 90th Academy Award nominations. As we await this season's picks, let's look ahead to the race for Outstanding Actor in a Leading Role.

[Note: In the past, I tried to keep posts spoiler-free in order to foster a safe environment for moviegoers to get a preview of films to watch out for. It has become apparent that the only way for me to properly dissect films and related topics is to be willing to dive deeper and include pivotal plot points when investigating actors' choices, filmmaking techniques, et cetera. For safe, spoiler-free reading, feel free to go back to any post prior to 12.26.17. The few posts that have spoilers contain clear warnings before anything is ruined. For more thought-provoking, investigative reads, see all posts written on 12.26.17 and beyond.]

While five men will be chosen for this honor, two future nominees seem to be where the competition lies. In Call Me by Your Name, Timothée Chalamet plays seventeen-year-old Elio, coming into his own in 1983 Northern Italy. When Oliver (Armie Hammer), a grad student, arrives for the summer, Elio expands his sexual horizons. With Darkest Hour, Gary Oldman adds himself to a long list of actors who have given Winston Churchill a whirl. The film begins just before Churchill comes into power, chronicling the early days of his first term as Prime Minister of the U.K.

The storytelling style of each film makes our reception of Elio and Churchill inherently different. Call Me by Your Name is told from Elio's point of view, just like its source material. We follow Elio around for all the mundane moments in his day. These are the scenes in which Chalamet shines. In one particular scene, he lies down on his bed, tingling with summer boredom and restlessness. He buries himself in the sheets, then retreats. The moment develops organically as Elio struggles to find an outlet for his conflicting feelings. Chalamet makes scenes that sound dry on paper thoroughly captivating. His performance is transparent and honest. There appears to be no separation between actor and character: a masterful illusion.

Churchill's story, on the other hand, is told with more omniscience. The film starts with Parliament discussing potential replacements for Prime Minister, so we do not even meet Churchill right away. Luckily this does not end up hurting the development of the audience's relationship with the character. It is actually the cinematography and editing choices that create a bit of a disconnect. Bruno Delbonnel is a very skilled cinematographer, and that should not be discounted. He did Amélie and has been trusted by such auteurs as Tim Burton and the Coen brothers. And there are some smartly-photographed and wonderfully-lit scenes in Darkest Hour. Nevertheless, different choices could have been made by director Joe Wright to further showcase Churchill, the whole reason the film exists at all. There are a few moments in which we cut to wide shots when it might have been more powerful to stay close-up and focus on the performances. Similarly, we cut away from Churchill's final speech of the movie far too many times. I was surprised to discover that it was the last scene of the movie, Oldman's last chance to wow us and leave a lasting impression of Churchill. Instead, we cut away to see the boring reactions of the subpar supporting actors. It is a wonder Oldman delivers as memorable a performance as he does with his lackluster scene partners. In particular, Lily James gives a bland, cookie-cutter performance as his typist, a woman who shares much of his screen time. Despite some weak directorial choices, Oldman is given a grand moment to shine. Churchill decides to ride the subway for the first time to get a sense of what his constituents want. In the subway car, the physical constraint of the space serves the scene well. The cinematography features point-of-view shots to convey the townspeople's surprise. In this intimate setting, and heartfelt, fish-out-of-water scenario, Oldman delivers in the most successful scene of the film.

Back in Northern Italy, the onscreen chemistry is palpable. Elio's complex relationship with Oliver is just the start of it. Chalamet appears to effortlessly fill in the seventeen-year-old relationship with his onscreen parents, as well as a long-winded, casual relationship with Marzia, a local girl. These strong scene partners help to elevate Chalamet's performance. Unlike Churchill, we get to be there with Elio for impressionable moments in his adolescence. Some of these moments are perhaps a bit more universally-relatable than being Prime Minister of a sovereign nation. I do not mean to imply that Elio's actor was destined to be superior to Churchill's, but that our reception of the characters affects how we connect with the actors' portrayals. That is not to say that Oldman's Churchill is heavily guarded or formidable. In fact, we spend a significant amount of time at home with him in his robe, or even less clothed. However, as is the case with many historical movies, we lose time with him to the overarching plot. In Call Me by Your Name, we have the luxury of time and focus on the characters.

In dissecting these men's performances, we cannot push aside how the filmmakers showcased them. We receive a different experience witnessing Elio's slow-and-steady coming-of-age amidst beautiful, Italian landscapes, than we do watching Churchill's time-sensitive political moves transpire in dark interiors. Film is such an emotional medium, and at the end of the day, I feel more watching Chalamet take on Elio than I do with Oldman's Churchill. With that said, I will be thrilled to see both actors win nominations for their committed portrayals.

JP

Do the Right Thing - 25th Anniversary

          This "Spike Lee Joint" depicts racial tensions in Brooklyn during a heat wave. Perhaps inspired by the hot summer of '77 that Lee spent documenting on Super 8mm, we follow different characters in the neighborhood as they go about their day. Besides having written, produced, and directed the film, Lee starred in it as Mookie, a black pizza delivery guy working for a family of Italians. The Italians are the only white people in the neighborhood, but they get along with everybody else - for a time. Tension arises when Giancarlo Esposito's character, called Buggin' Out, starts complaining that there are not any black people on the wall of fame in the pizzeria. Another character on the block is called Da Mayor, for he is an elderly man who has overseen the happenings of the neighborhood for years.
          Of course, it is interesting to follow around Lee's wild assortment of characters, but perhaps the best aspect of the movie is the use of color to show the boiling tensions. The weather is hot to match the metaphorical heat rising in the neighborhood, so it only makes sense for hot colors to be used. One whole wall in the neighborhood is painted the brightest red you will ever see on bricks. Less blatantly, a nice yellow light disperses through the window in an apartment in the very beginning of the movie. Yellow is the least severe of the three colors of heat, so it shows how normal and settle everything was in the morning that day that everything went wrong.
          Twenty five years later, this film still carries itself. It is taught in film schools, including in the color temperature lesson on filmmakeriq.com (there more discussion about the cinematography and coloring can be found), which puts Ernest Dickerson's cinematography against that of Roger Deakins in Fargo. The title is always amusing, too, particularly after seeing the climax. Did the inhabitants in the neighborhood really "do the right thing," or did they just add more fuel to the fire?

Palo Alto

          Alas, Gia Coppola has followed in the footsteps of her aunt and grandfather: she has become a filmmaker. For her debut feature, she adapted James Franco's book of short stories, Palo Alto: Stories. After initially drafting separate screenplays for the different recurring characters from the short stories, Gia integrated their distinct lives into one singular screenplay. The characters are comprised of teenagers living in Palo Alto, California, all of whom struggle to make good choices under the extreme intensity of teenage life. Emma Roberts, who first read the book the day it came out, plays April, a soccer player whose coach has inappropriate desires for her. He is called Mr. B. and is played by James Franco himself. Jack Kilmer, first-time actor and son of Val Kilmer, plays Teddy, an "alcoholic" troublemaker with good intentions and a crush on April. Nat Wolff plays Fred, Teddy's best friend, who is a troublemaker with bad intentions. He always seems to be around when Teddy makes ill-fated decisions. Then there is Emily, a combination of the characters Pam and Emily from the book. Played by Zoe Levin, Emily lacks true romance but chases it everywhere she goes, flinging herself at all males in her path.

          Palo Alto has been getting great reviews from critics and relatively poor reviews from the general public. Many average moviegoers are complaining about Franco's name being second on the poster despite his quaint screen time. Usually I would join in on this criticism. For example, it always bugged me that Anna Gunn got the second slot in the opening titles, coming before Aaron Paul. Skyler may have been married to Walter White, but Jesse clearly was more important to him. However, I think the author of the original source material deserves a boost in positioning credits-wise. Furthermore, people would not have been misled had they read the book. On the other hand, critics and moviegoers alike have been saying that Palo Alto is just another high school movie, that it does not mix things up or portray teenage life in a new light. I can respect that, but exactly what else could we possibly want adult filmmakers to tell us about teen life? We all go through that, as do the filmmakers. If they feel a personal connection with something like Palo Alto: Stories and want to turn it into a movie, then they should be able to do that without being expected to reveal some shocking part about being a teen that we have never seen before. Because we have seen it all, we have lived it all. All Gia needed to do was make it her own aesthetically and get good performances from her actors.

          Born into a family of distinguished auteurs, Gia had a rare burden to bare upon agreeing to direct Palo Alto. Francis Ford's The Outsiders aside, I predicted she would be more like her aunt, since Sofia is more current and often deals with adolescent tales. Looking at Palo Alto, one can see parallels to Sofia's work. One obvious correlation was the palm tree shot from Teddy's mom's car. There was a practically identical shot in Sofia's The Bling Ring, which was also about rebellious teens. It was also a nice shout-out to have an unlabeled piece of the poster of Sofia's The Virgin Suicides on April's wall.

          Nonetheless, Gia did create her own voice apart from her family's or Franco's. She has evident great taste in shot variation, going closer in on characters' faces - particularly April's - when they discover new highs or face new lows. Regardless of the ultra-low budget of under one million dollars, the colors are brought out nicely, which is not usually the case with such budgets. Surely the film does not look like it came from a hundred million dollars, but most cinephiles today are appreciating a new wave of dull-colored indies over the ostentatiously-colored superhero movies. Such films with bland palates like Mud, Lena Dunham's Tiny Furniture, and Greece's Dogtooth have been widely acclaimed. If nothing else, Palo Alto rises above these loved indies with its plentiful-though-not-overreaching assortment of colors. Like these films, Palo Alto features rather bland backgrounds, but they are overtaken by bold colors in the foreground. The costumes contribute greatly to this triumph, though much of the characters' wardrobes were taken from the actors' own closets. Additionally, the lighting creates a phantom effect on the subjects, which looks similar to many of Gia's photographs from before working on this film, though much of the mastering of the effect may have been done in post-production. She was also not afraid to be out of focus at times, which further illustrated the confusion of adolescence. The key is that she did not overuse this technique. It is worth mentioning that the cinematographer was Autumn Durald. She has not done much thus far, but I look forward to keeping an eye out for her in the future.

          As her job description as director requires, Gia got good performances from her actors. Leading the cast, Emma Roberts gave probably her best performance to date. Although Franco was not in much of the movie, he nailed it in every scene he was in. Mr. B.'s affection for April could be felt in the way Franco looked into Roberts' eyes. At the same time, he took a simplistic approach to the character, not pushing anything or trying to overpower his fellow actors, which was wise. Jack Kilmer gave a realistic portrayal of a guy who is not yet sure of exactly what he wants. Kilmer's absence of acting experience probably helped him this time. He is another rising star to watch out for. Levin and Wolff were sufficient, but not standouts. The only bad actor in the whole movie was the one who played Teddy's parole officer.

          Gia Coppola has found her voice. Every minute of Palo Alto is engaging, especially several special sequences, which I will not spoil here. Like Sofia Coppola, Gia adapted a book for the screen for her debut feature film. She pulled much of the dialogue straight from Franco's pages, but she deserves credit for filling in the blanks and making one cohesive narrative out of a collection of short stories. I myself read that book, and I genuinely loved the direction she went in every time she strayed from the original structure. As part of that, she inserted some of her own dialogue, which added humor and a motif to be referred back to at the end of the movie. Gia Coppola showed off what she has got in Palo Alto, and I am hopeful her sophomore project will be even stronger.

Afterthought: I realize that I only included stills of Roberts as April, but she was truly photographed the best in the movie. Plus most of the released stills are of her.

Pictures of My Themed Dishes from Oscar Night

Guess which dish is symbolic of each of the nine Best Picture nominees:

2014 Road to the Oscars: Motion Picture

          This year's Best Picture nominees were disappointing after the golden assortment of independent and big-budget films last year. Nonetheless, some of them have what it takes to win. Once again, here they are: American Hustle, Captain Phillips, Dallas Buyers Club, Gravity, Her, Nebraska, Philomena, 12 Years a Slave, and The Wolf of Wall Street.

           American Hustle has everything anyone could ever want out of a Best Picture nominee: solid acting, some fights, romance, a fun soundtrack, and an interesting plot. That is not to say that it is very new, as hustlers have been portrayed a thousand times over. Still, it is one of the top three contenders, for better or worse, alongside Gravity and 12 Years a Slave.

          Captain Phillips was really nothing special. Something about ships and Tom Hanks tend to appeal to Academy voters. Overall the acting is nothing more than ordinary. The film is full of blue, orange, and white, but its nomination leaves me feeling nothing more than blue.

          Dallas Buyers Club was riveting, using its $5.5 million budget to the max. The acting from McConaughey and Leto is ridiculous and amazing. The cinematography was effective if not very inventive. Unfortunately it does not stand a chance for the top prize, but acting will almost certainly be victorious.

          Gravity can win every technical award there is, but it should not win Best Picture. The story is linear, the acting is not very good, and the screenplay is terrible. This film contains not storytelling but a technical experiment. The experiment has obviously garnered it much success thus far, but I say, "No more!"

          Her is probably one of the most deserving nominees. It has great cinematography and acting. Despite minute flaws in the screenplay, it was a great story told in the best way possible. It has no shot, but I would love for it to win.

          Nebraska is a good film that has good dialogue and good acting. There is nothing exceptional about it, but it does what it does well.

          I am still surprised that Philomena got nominated, but I am not outraged. The acting was solid and the cinematography was adequate. I just don't see what was so great about it. Luckily, it really isn't a contender. However, it is nice to see more and more small-budget films at the Oscars. I appreciate this film standing as a microcosm of the power of independent film.

          12 Years a Slave stands as a Spielberg-esque picture just when we thought we had escaped from Steven for a couple of years. There is nothing new about the cinematography or the story, of course, but the acting is phenomenal. Particularly Lupita Nyong'o. There was a time when I thought American Hustle would win, but now I think Slave will. We will know soon enough.

          The Wolf of Wall Street is something special. Historically, the Academy has not always been so open to films with three hours of debauchery. Martin Scorsese can make it happen. With great acting all around and a distinct, personal style for a larger-than-life true story, Wolf is one of the few nominees that deserves the top prize.

          Although I would love to see Her or Wolf win Best Motion Picture of the Year, 12 Years a Slave is likely to win. It makes you wonder if the Academy feels safer giving Europeans the prize for telling a pure American story that was told by an American just last year. Just because Django Unchained was made humorous and more enjoyable does not mean that it took the slavery subject lightly. And it certainly was more stylish than Slave. I think the acting was the determining factor. The acting was great in both films, but Nyong'o was more affective and effective in showing the despair of slavery than Kerry Washington was in her comparable role in Django. Furthermore, Slave is nominated in three of the four acting categories, whereas Django was only nominated in one.

          That is all for the 2014 Road to the Oscars. I will be posting my thoughts on the results tomorrow. Thank you all for reading, and enjoy the Oscars tonight!