Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts

Monday, January 30, 2012

Seen--and STILL Snubbed--By Oscar (Lead Performer Addition)


With the 2012 Oscar nominations being announced last week, the Hungry Preacher continues his long-running series on Oscar-worthy performances that were seen by the Academy (we know this, since they nominated other performer[s] from the same movie) and yet were still not nominated.  Read here for ground rules and such.

Briefly, these are genuine snubs--"Saw it, didn't like it"--and not just great performances that didn't happen to get seen by enough voters.

This series started with supporting actor snubs, but continues with lead performers of all genders.  Lead performers are less likely to get snubbed, if for no other reason than most movies have, at most, 2 lead performers but often upwards of 5 or 6 supporting performers with roles that could merit Oscar consideration.  Also, lead roles are more frequently given to big-name performers who can ride their fame alone to an Oscar nomination.

Without further ado, here are the biggest supporting actor snubs of the 2000’s from movies that received an acting nomination for someone else.  (All info is from imdb.com.)

What movie?  Moulin Rouge! (2001) [EDITOR'S NOTE: The exclamation point is part of the title!  Really!  The Hungry Preacher doesn't get that excited about ANY movie!]
Who got nominated?  Nicole Kidman
Who got snubbed?  Ewan McGregor
Did anyone else see what I saw (i.e., any awards or noms from anyone)?  Mostly in countries that speak English but sound funny doing it, like England and Australia.  He also got noticed by organizations that recognize "Musical or Comedy" performances as distinct from "Drama", and actually won the "Musical or Comedy" Satellite award.
What’s the big deal?  First, a question: What do William Hurt, Kevin Kline, Michael Douglas, Harrison Ford, Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Richard Dreyfuss, Gene Hackman, Robert Redford, and Warren Beatty all have in common?  Answer: They all turned down the role of Paul Sheldon in the film "Misery," the movie best known for winning Kathy Bates a best actress Oscar.  Paul Sheldon was a great role, and James Caan nailed it.  But the guys on the list above understood the rule: "The 'straight man' will not get noticed" ("straight" as in "not over-the-top").  Ewan McGregor seems to have missed that memo.  Since he gained prominence playing a heroin addict in 1996's "Trainspotting," Ewan has steadily played characters that are more normal than the characters around him, sometimes bizarrely so (think "The Men Who Stare at Goats," opposite a paranoid, goat-staring George Clooney; "Big Fish," opposite a steady flow of circus types; "Star Wars," opposite Jar Jar Binks; and don't forget this year's "Beginners," where he was the straight man times-two, opposite Christopher Plummer's just-come-out dying old widower).

A comparison of his roles shows that Ewan can play subdued characters with great distinctiveness and believability, and none was more impressive than his turn as Christian, opposite Nicole Kidman's Satine in "Moulin Rouge!"  In a surreal movie overflowing with larger-than-life characters, Ewan utterly convinces as the naive protagonist who believes in love, experiences firsthand all of the reasons to cynically abandon his belief, and resolutely decides to cling to his initial belief in spite of it all.  We see Christian not so much experience an awakening, but earn painful credibility to his already-awakened point of view.  At the beginning of the film, Christian believes in love, but has neither loved nor lost.  By the end, he has done both, and still believes.  And Ewan communicates this growth without without slipping into one-note cynicism or passing judgment on his old self.  Oh, and he sings.

What movie?  Lost in Translation (2003)
Who got nominated?  Bill Murray
Who got snubbed?  Scarlett Johansson
Did anyone else see what I saw (i.e., any awards or noms from anyone)?  Yes, quite a few folks did.  Most notably, she was nominated for a Golden Globe and won acting awards from Boston Film critics and even BAFTA, which doesn't distinguish between dramatic and comedic performances.
What’s the big deal?  This role is different from most, in that the "Oscar moment" for most characters takes place near the end of a film, leaving us with a lasting impression.  Charlotte, however, "breaks" during the opening scene--on the phone, no less--and spends the rest of the movie processing and burying.  It's an unconventional character arc, and perhaps one that damaged Scarlett's Oscar chances.  Watching characters explode is more memorable than watching them defuse bomb after emotional bomb right below the surface (or than watching them clean up the debris from ones they couldn't quite defuse--also just below the surface).  Of course, the eyes give her away.  Maybe Scarlett had an unfair advantage in playing this role; if the eyes are the window to the soul, who better to cast in this role?  If we're supposed to believe that Bill Murray's Bob can see past Charlotte's outward hiding and denying, past her facade of having it all together, and into her fear and loneliness--well, of COURSE an actress with huge, deep eyes should be cast as Charlotte.  All the better for US to see HER with, right?  Lots of people have big eyes, though, and Scarlett used hers to perfection in this movie, giving us a thousand different glimpses into Charlotte's wounded soul that she paradoxically guarded, yet yearned to have embraced.

What movie?  House of Sand and Fog (2003)
Who got nominated?  Ben Kingsley, Shohreh Aghdashloo
Who got snubbed?  Jennifer Connelly
Did anyone else see what I saw (i.e., any awards or noms from anyone)?  Not many.  She won the Kansas City Film Critics Award, and got a couple of other nominations, but got snubbed not just by the Academy, but by the Golden Globes and even the Independent Spirit awards, for which this film was eligible and had a much smaller field of competition.  This is a real head scratcher for me.  I was relatively unimpressed at Connelly's performance in "A Beautiful Mind" from two years earlier, which won her a slew of supporting actress awards.  It seemed that all the pieces were in place for this to be her big "lead actress" parade (at least as far as nominations go): she seemed to be an Academy darling (having just won 2 years prior); she was still young and beautiful and in the prime of her career; she proved she could lead and not just support; she took on an unglamorous and more explosive (i.e., Oscar friendly) role; and nominating her for "House of Sand and Fog" would have given the Academy a chance to validate their decision from 2 years prior.
[EDITOR'S NOTE:  Between writing this entry and publishing the post, I was flipping through a book, "The Ultimate Book of Top 10 Lists--a mind-boggling collection of fun, fascinating and bizarre facts on movies, music, sports, crime, celebrities, history, trivia and more."  I stumbled upon the list "Top 10 Films About Alcoholics."  Number 2?  "House of Sand and Fog."  The last sentence of the explanation reads, "This is one of my favorite plot-oriented films, and as Kathy, Jemnnifer Connelly delivers one of the finest performances I've ever seen."  Ahhhh, the sweet nectar of validation...]
What’s the big deal?  Remember what I said about how memorable it is watching characters explode?  Connelly's Kathy is a step away from pulling off the feat LITERALLY, as she haphazardly fills up a gas can while a cigarette hangs out of her mouth.  And the singleminded carelessness with which she was willing to abandon her humanity for the task was as memorable an image for me as Ben Kingsley running through the hospital, or even his final scene.  Every step Kathy takes down the spiral is convincing, owing to the believable desperateness established by Connelly from scene one.  We believe that Kathy has wholly "built her house on sand," and grabs hold of whatever she can to give herself the illusion of permanence and control: relationships, drugs, booze, justice, and even her life.  The anguish that Kathy feels at not being able to control the one literal, physical house in her life exposes how unstable ALL of her houses are and intensifies her desire to regain control by any means possible.  Connelly drives this progression so seamlessly that by the end of the movie I was asking myself, "How did she get from there to here in only two hours without my even noticing?"  How can the spiral of a character unraveling so extremely be portrayed so subtly?  Like I said: a real head scratcher.

What movie?  In America (2003)
Who got nominated?  Samantha Morton, Djimon Hounsou
Who got snubbed?  Paddy Considine
Did anyone else see what I saw (i.e., any awards or noms from anyone)?  Barely.  Remember what I said about a head scratcher?  Paddy got nominated for a Satellite award, and also for a British Independent Film award (if you narrow the focus enough, even YOU can get nominated).  Like Connelly, Paddy couldn't even make the cut for an Independent Spirit award.
What’s the big deal?  Heck, I would have nominated Considine based on how well his CHARACTER ("Johnny," an actor) acts within the movie!  Kidding aside, I truly don't remember a time when I was watching a movie and was so unable to resist being pulled in to the emotional journey of a character.  With help from the Bolger sisters, Considine pours out the soul of his character like the colors on a Jackson Pollack painting.  It was messy but mesmerizing.  Child-like, but tragically mature.  Solid and surprisingly coherent, but busy and unpredictable.  Unlike Pollack, with all the madness and sadness, Considine's work pours out a breathtaking streak of hope.  Of course, the thrill of the movie is watching Johnny discover for himself if the streak of white on the painting of his life actually leads anywhere, or was it just an accidental spill?  Until he discovers for certain, we watch him smile and laugh and lash out, like a character in his own life play.  He yearns for a script, but is forced to improvise.  His character is himself, yet even HE isn't sold on his performance--and he doesn't know why.  So he acts, and acts, and acts...  Until, suddenly, he doesn't.  He becomes the character that he has been striving to be.  And with him we weep for joy.

What movie?  Sideways (2004)
Who got nominated?  Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen
Who got snubbed?  Paul Giamatti
Did anyone else see what I saw (i.e., any awards or noms from anyone)?  Yes.  Giamatti got lots of nominations, including SAG and Golden Globe, but only a few wins, thanks largely to some guy named Jamie Foxx playing some guy named Ray Charles the same year.  Amusingly enough, "Ray" and "Sideways" both fall into the "Musical or Comedy" genre (because they're such similar movies!), which means that in almost any other year, Giamatti would have run the table on awards that distinguish between genres.  This year, though, Giamatti was the just the bridesmaid, and not even that for the Oscars.
What’s the big deal?  I've got a soft spot for every-man characters, believing that they are often more difficult to play than Oscar's preferred "disabled, dying, or diabolical."  Giamatti's "Miles" is as "every" as they come.  He's a normal guy with normal habits and insecurities, successful enough by the world's standards.  But spending a week with his friend, Jack, opens Miles' eyes to an uncomfortable incongruency: though Miles thinks more deeply about things like friendship, love, faithfulness, and dreams, Jack is just as happy and successful as Miles is (it seems).  Miles' dissatisfaction swells up during their trip through wine country, and Giamitti lets it spill out like wine from a chalice.  With his expressive eyes and revealing inflections, Giamitti shows us the ultimate "good guy": he refuses to judge his friends' shallowness, and he refuses to partake in it.  But the respect he maintains for those in his immediate circle prevents him from scapegoating any of them for the injustice of his unfulfilled dreams.  He's left casting the blame at faceless publishers.  As this catharsis proves unsatisfying, Miles realizes that his noble striving for a lofty vision of life may actually be a tactic for avoiding the risks of embracing the beauty in life all around him.  Literally and figuratively, we watch as Miles learns when to let a wine age, and when it is time to take a drink.

What movie?  Cinderella Man (2005)
Who got nominated?  Paul Giamatti
Who got snubbed?  Russell Crowe
Did anyone else see what I saw (i.e., any awards or noms from anyone)?  Yes.  Several nominations, including Golden Globe and SAG.
What’s the big deal?  I admit there are a several reasons NOT to appreciate Crowe's performance.  The character wasn't the most nuanced.  Crowe has played a tough guy before.  For that matter, Crowe IS a tough guy, and this role could be dismissed as a typecast.  On the other hand, when I think about Crowe's character, Jim Braddock, I don't think of a tough guy.  It is after the fact that I remind myself that he was, indeed, a boxer.  Instead, I think of him as a sensitive family man unable to provide, humbly aware of his sorry state.  His boxing serves his character; it does not define his character.  Beyond this, I remember being struck by how totally enveloped by the character Crowe allowed himself to be.  It is rare that I watch a movie with a superstar lead and forget that I am watching a superstar pretend to be someone else.  Contrast Crowe's transformation into Braddock with, say, Tom Cruise playing the title character in "The Last Samurai," a movie released a couple years before this one.  In that, I was never NOT watching Tom Cruise playing someone else.  Crowe made me forget I was watching Crowe.  Ironically, easy-to-watch often translates into easy-to-overlook.

What movie?  Frost/Nixon (2008)
Who got nominated?  Frank Langella
Who got snubbed?  Michael Sheen
Did anyone else see what I saw (i.e., any awards or noms from anyone)?  At the risk of offending the Valenciennes International Festival of Action and Adventure Films who awarded their best actor prize jointly to Langella AND Sheen--no, not really.  (Did the international cut of this movie contain scenes of action OR adventure?)
What’s the big deal?  I almost chose Sheen's portrayal of Tony Blair in "The Queen," but one could argue that was a supporting role.  Fortunately, Sheen has been overlooked in all sorts of roles, including this one opposite Frank Langella.  Sheen is a true chameleon; everything I said above about Russell Crowe applies to Sheen in every role he's played.  In fact, despite having seen, liked, and appreciate Sheen's work in both "The Queen" and "Frost/Nixon," it wasn't until I examined his film credits that I realized he was in "Midnight in Paris," which I saw about a month ago.  It was one of those "Oh, yeah... that WAS him" moments, which is common with so-called character actors--not so much with leads.  The fact that I recognized his work as Oscar worthy in two prior films, then didn't even recognize HIM in another movie is a testament to his seamless portrayals.  As Frost, the presumably overmatched interviewer of former president Richard Nixon, Sheen shows us his character's gradual appreciation of the gravity of his assignment and how someone for whom things have always come easy can rise to the challenge when something becomes hard.  Which Sheen, of course, make look easy.


With that, we wrap up another addition of "Seen--and STILL Snubbed."  All performers included in this post are eligible for "A Golden Preacher" award, that I or one of my sculpting apprentices will personally construct (not out of real gold, of course) for any recipient who contacts me in person to claim their award.

To everyone else, thanks for reading.

-THP

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Sobe It: Updates from Miami & the Bahamas, PART 5

Beth and I saw the movie "Face/Off" in the theaters during our honeymoon in Maine.  The precedent was set.  We've taken some movieless trips, of course, but we regularly manage to squeeze in a show while we're on the road: "Julie & Julia" in Seattle; "Hands on a Hard Body" in Austin; "Chicken Run" in Minneapolis; "A Simple Plan" & "Gladiator" in Kansas City.  I think I'm missing a couple, to say nothing of the road trips we took during college to Columbia or Des Moines for the primary purpose of seeing a movie or two.

Anyway, after our ship returned to port and before our flight left back for the midwest, we had a whole day in Miami to kill.  What's a stranded couple to do?  Uh, see a movie, of course!  This time, it was "Moneyball."  We saw it at a mall, and spent some time in Barnes & Noble beforehand.  If it weren't for days 1 and 2 of our trip, I'd say Miami is a lot like St. Louis.

BONUS POST-WITHIN-A-POST: THOUGHTS ON "MONEYBALL":
"Moneyball" was good.  It's got some early Oscar buzz for picture and actor, and I'm OK with that.  I've got a soft spot for acting nominations that are NOT for evil and/or mentally/physically challenged characters.  Subtle nuances usually get overlooked, and Brad Pitt did a good job embodying a character in a believable manner WITHOUT having any "Oh, I hope this scene lands me an Oscar nomination" scenes.

The movie had an even-keel-ed pace for a sports movie, but still had its excitement.  I've read a couple of reviews of the movie from sports sites that are basically like, "It's a very good and realistic movie, if you can get past a few little things."  One of those "little things" is that the Oakland A's winning streak--and really much of their success for the duration of the season--was due to the talent of their "Big 3": Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, and Tim Hudson.  In real life, this Cy Young caliber trio of pitchers was regarded enough to have a collective nickname; in the movie, I'm pretty sure none of them is even mentioned.  So there's that.

Also, the A's didn't win the World Series (or even get there).  And the team that the movie sites as having been influenced by this newfangled approach to putting a team together--the Boston Red Sox--also happened to have the second highest payroll in MLB in 2004, when they won the World Series.  So there's that, too.

Out of the context of reality, the moral was great: that sometimes you can achieve something great even if you don't realize it at the time.  If you want a movie that better reflects the economic realities of baseball and the impact that those realities have on the field, we can wait for this movie to get made.

Back to vacation...

After the movie, we had a happy-hour dinner at a restaurant in the mall that reminded us of McCormack & Schmicks, where I used to work.  It was likely the tastiest meal we had on the trip, and a great note to end on.

The real highlight of the trip, though, was coming back home and having this waiting for us:



-THP

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Seen--and STILL Snubbed--By Oscar (Supporting Actor Edition)

It’s Oscar season, and all bloggers are contractually obligated to blog about it in some way, shape, or form.  Popular topics?  Here’s a few:
-who should win
-who will win
-who got snubbed
-who got lucky

There’s also the “long term” approach, which is basically picking any of the above topics and applying them to a period longer than just last year (and talking about it in past tense, of course—predicting, say, future Oscar snubs is pretty speculative).

Don’t get me wrong: I love reading lists like these.  There’s just a lot of them.  And a good number of people who write them have actually seen nearly every movie that came out this past year, and can speak from a far more informed point of few than I could.  So there’s no reason for me to get all huffy about “so-and-so should have been nominated from this great little Russian film from 2004—it was a huge snub back then.”  Joe Movieblog probably saw every movie back then, and would say it was only the 17th best performance.  And he’s probably right, for all I know.

So I’m not doing a biggest snubs list.  Here’s my list instead:
The biggest acting snubs of the last 10 years (i.e., the 2000’s) from movies that did actually received an acting Oscar nomination for someone else in the movie.

Pros to doing this list:
-It’s a relatively small sample size; probably about 115 movies received acting nominations in the last 10 years, and I’ve probably seen most of them.  I can kind of know what I’m talking about (so might WPFF readers!).
-I haven’t seen a list like this anywhere else; if it’s not unique (and—for real—it’s probably not) it’s at least more distinct than “biggest snubs of the last year”.
-Here's the biggie: While I don’t see every movie, neither, in fact, do the people who decide who gets nominated for and who ultimately wins Academy Awards.  But those folks DID, as a rule, see these 115-ish movies, since they nominated people who acted in them and all.  So this is actually a bit truer by way of pointing out actual snubs rather than performances that maybe just weren’t seen by enough of the right people.  These are performances that the Academy said, “Yeah, we saw it—we just weren’t that impressed.”

Also, I decided just to go with supporting actor snubs.  We’ll save the other categories for future posts.

Without further ado, here are the biggest supporting actor snubs of the 2000’s from movies that received an acting nomination for someone else.  (All info is from imdb.com.)

What movie?  Erin Brockovich, 2000
Who got nominated?  Julia Roberts, Albert Finney
Who got snubbed?  Aaron Eckhart
Did anyone else see what I saw (i.e., any awards or noms from anyone)?  No.
What’s the big deal?  When I first saw Erin Brockovich, I remember thinking how neat it was that they got an actual biker-guy to play the biker guy in the movie.  “Typecasting exists for a reason,” I thought.  Eckhart didn’t become a household name (in my household, that is) until years later, and not until even later did I see his name connected with Erin Brockovich.  I couldn’t remember who he played in the movie.  “Surely not the biker-guy,” I thought.  Oh, you know he was.  I was retroactively very impressed.  Furthermore, I postulate that if Eckhart’s career had been reversed—that is, if “Thank You For Smoking,” “The Dark Knight,” and a couple of rom-coms had gotten him on the radar, and THEN he had played the biker-guy in “Erin Brockovich”—then I’m guessing the Academy would have noticed.  Obviously, it was “that kind of film,” with Roberts winning best actress and Finney getting a supporting actor nomination.  Eckhart would have been right there with them, probably viewed as the one of the three who was most stretched in his role.  But if you’re off the radar and not overly flashy, you’re not going to get noticed.

What movie?  About Schmidt, 2002
Who got nominated?  Jack Nicholson, Kathy Bates
Who got snubbed?  Dermot Mulroney
Did anyone else see what I saw (i.e., any awards or noms from anyone)?  No.
What’s the big deal?  We already see a theme here: Actors completely enveloped in a non-flashy role.  Mulroney, from what I understand, is kind of a heartthrob.  In “About Schmidt,” he’s a “nincompoop,” as Jack Nicholson’s character refers to him.  And he’s wonderfully engrossed in the nincompooposity of his character, Randall Hertzel.  The “participant” trophies on display in his room perfectly encapsulate his character: he’s clueless, for sure, and not too bright; but he’s endearing and genuine in his way.  Part of him is really proud of his trophies, and he’s probably not sure why.  He probably hasn’t thought about it.  Mulroney obviously acts in a thoughtful way—his throwaway line at the airport about “having the plane in the background of the picture” is brilliant—but he hides his own thoughtfulness inside of a character who doesn’t do much thinking.  And he does it in such a way that's fun and not boring to watch.  That ain’t easy.

What movie?  Junebug, 2005
Who got nominated?  Amy Adams
Who got snubbed?  Ben McKenzie
Did anyone else see what I saw (i.e., any awards or noms from anyone)?  No
What’s the big deal?  Ben is best known for his leading role in “The O.C.”, and is cast against-type in “Junebug” as Johnny, a small-town drop-out with a lot of pent-up anger and not much to say about it.  Somehow Johnny ended up with an adoring wife (played by Amy Adams) who is very pregnant, and is as excited about the baby as Johnny is ambivalent about it.  We’re left to figure out the sources of Johnny’s anger: Fear about the baby?  Insecurity about having “married up”?  Feeling looked down on by his brother or his brother’s art-dealing girlfriend from the big city?  Shame from dropping out of high school, or from living at home, or from not being able to do something as simple as following through on a thoughtful impulse to record a TV show for his wife?  We don’t know, and neither does Johnny.  He seems as surprised as his brother is when he launches a wrench that hits his brother in the face, and McKenzie’s expression that follows is a lasting image from the film.  McKenzie lets us see for a moment how confused and scared Johnny is, and then he buries it away, beneath the familiar scowl.  If Johnny had dealt with his feelings on camera, maybe McKenzie would have gotten more attention for this role.  But communicating to the audience that Johnny won’t directly deal with his feelings, and will park in front of the TV for the next few weeks for some extended repression, is in itself an impressively specific reality that McKenzie conveys.

What movie?  Juno, 2007
Who got nominated?  Ellen Page
Who got snubbed?  Jason Bateman
Did anyone else see what I saw (i.e., any awards or noms from anyone)?  No
What’s the big deal?  Memo to male actors best known for their TV roles who are offered non-heroic supporting roles in movies starting with “Jun,” opposite pregnant women: You will probably not get noticed.  That’s the trend on this list, anyway.  On the one hand, Bateman doesn’t stretch a whole lot from most of the roles we’ve seen him in.  But this role has a twist, and it’s a character twist that needs to work in order for the entire plot twist of the movie to work.  Bateman has played sleazy, and he’s played smug, but almost without exception, we’re supposed to like whoever he’s playing.  Not here.  What’s impressive is that we think we like Mark Loring, and any indication of “sleaziness” is easy to overlook because, hey, it’s Jason Bateman!  But when we find out we actually don’t like him or respect him, we feel the same mix of embarrassment and disdain that Juno herself felt: “The signs were there the whole time!  Why didn’t we see them?”  Maybe because Bateman knows exactly how subtle the difference between “sleazy-seeming-but-sweet” and “sweet-seeming-but-sleazy” can be, and, as Mark Loring, he takes us from one to the other before we know what hit us.

What movie?  Eastern Promises, 2007
Who got nominated?  Viggo Mortensen
Who got snubbed?  Vincent Cassel
Did anyone else see what I saw (i.e., any awards or noms from anyone)?  No
What’s the big deal?  As with Ben McKenzie’s character in “Junebug,” Cassel’s Kirill is angry, with a lot of confusion and insecurity underneath.  And just as we’re left guessing with Johnny in “Junebug,” we’re never fully sure what’s getting at Kirill.  This tense speculation is a driving force in the movie, because—like Mortensen’s Nikolai—we don’t know if we can trust him, largely because even if Kirill doesn’t suspect Nikolai to be a traitor, he still may do him in out of jealousy or even some repressed attraction.  Cassel’s volatile and unpredictable performance brings home the danger of Nikolai’s situation.  Cassel isn’t playing “just another tough guy”—he’s playing a tough guy who has a lot to prove, but who himself isn’t sure “what,” “why,” or “to whom.”  It’s scary, nuanced, and snubbed.

What movie?  Rachel Getting Married, 2008
Who got nominated?  Anne Hathaway
Who got snubbed?  Bill Irwin
Did anyone else see what I saw (i.e., any awards or noms from anyone)?  Yes!  He was nominated for Best Supporting Actor by the Chicago Film Critics Association.
What’s the big deal?  Maybe I’m a sucker for repression, but Irwin’s Paul differs from the other characters in this list in that instead of his repression leading to destruction, he’s doing his darnedest to hold something of his family together during the weekend of his daughter’s wedding.  He’s desperate to make something work, and his efforts at levity, expression of feelings, or even just conversation are all so laced both with sadness for his fractured family unit and deep love for the individuals, we can’t help but root for and even admire him for at least trying with all that he’s got.  When he breaks, we break.  Irwin makes all of this happen, playing a pretty ordinary guy in an extraordinarily difficult situation.  And, lest we think he’s typecast, this is the same Bill Irwin who plays “Mr. Noodle” on Sesame Street.

What movie?  Changeling, 2008
Who got nominated?  Angelina Jolie
Who got snubbed?  Michael Kelly, Jason Butler Harner
Did anyone else see what I saw (i.e., any awards or noms from anyone)?  No
What’s the big deal?  Once I got over Michael Kelly’s resemblance to Steve Martin, I appreciated his performance for what it was.  His character was the one who kept the police force from being a caricature, and gave us a believable glimpse of humanity within an inhumane system.  I feel like he must have been on screen the for the whole movie, because I can’t imagine his character’s transformation being so believable with only a handful of scenes—but that’s a testament to Kelly’s intentional use of what time he had to show us Detective Ybarra’s pivotal transformational moments, as well as enough build-up for us to believe them.

Harner, meanwhile, plays the flashiest character on this list: a serial killer.  And speaking of someone who makes the most of his screen time: he’s only got a few minutes, but those are some darned creepy minutes!  I like subtle characters, yes, but I’m not opposed to being blown out of the water by a portrayal of a killer.  Harner, with his oddly-timed smiles, shiftiness, and unsatisfying remorse—well, I’m a little creeped out just thinking about it.


And there they are.  Gents, I know a paragraph on willpreachforfood.com is not the same as an Oscar statue, and maybe not even a Golden Globe, but kudos nonetheless.

Readers, enjoy the Oscars, and I’ll see you Friday.

-THP