OVP: Actor (2006)

OVP: Best Actor (2006)

The Nominees Were...

Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond

Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson

Peter O'Toole, Venus

Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happyness

Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland

My Thoughts: We are not keeping track of which acting lineups are the worst, though maybe someday I'll go back & give out that prize.  Best Actor of 2006, while probably not the worst, is definitely one of the least-inspired lineups in Oscar history.  There were better choices even in a weak year (we'll get to them next week when we conclude our 2006 run with a My Ballot post), but Oscar didn't take them.  The men of this lineup, several of them have given truly seismic, film-defining performances, but here we are at best getting to the adequate.

We'll start with the winner of the trophy, and the only man of this bunch to be a one-and-done Oscar nominee (honestly, a rarity for Best Actor), Forest Whitaker.  Whitaker has spent most of his career either directing or taking on supporting parts, but here he is central stage as Idi Amin.  This is a showy role, one that Whitaker cannot seem to ground, playing him to the hilt.  He gets some points for being able to convey a realistic madness through the character, particularly toward the end when his paranoia's scope sets in, but there's too much scenery-chewing and not enough back-and-forth chemistry with James McAvoy.  This is kind of a textbook definition of Oscar getting enamored with a biopic without really standing back to see if the movie has any merit.

Whitaker, though, brings that madness to his character that I found interesting even if it didn't ultimately work.  I have nothing really redeemable to say about Will Smith in The Pursuit of Happyness.  The picture itself is schmaltzy garbage (and that deliberate typo in the title is maddening), and Smith is the kind of actor who will lean into the schmaltz rather than elevate it.  His work here as a man about to be evicted from his home who eventually becomes a millionaire brokerage firm manager is the kind of uplifting story that makes for great Today Show copy, but rarely can transform into intriguing acting, and Smith mines it for easy tears without ever giving us a complicated look at our principle character.

Peter O'Toole, at least, is trying.  In his last of eight nominations, O'Toole plays a dying lothario who is romancing a young woman through wooing her since he has been rendered impotent by his prostate cancer.  O'Toole is saddled with a very weird film, one that doesn't quite gel (Jodie Whittaker's Jessie is underwritten & Whittaker can't fix that), but he makes it work.  O'Toole is a fine actor, and this is a solid bit of character study in a strange film.  O'Toole occasionally veers into coasting on his film legend status, perhaps because even he doesn't know what to do with this atypical approach to a cancer drama, but this isn't entirely a "legend getting in for being old situation"-O'Toole is genuinely good in the movie.

This is not something I can say for Leonardo DiCaprio.  DiCaprio gave a complex, fascinating look at privilege, crime, & loyalty in The Departed, which was nominated for Best Picture & would've been among his best citations from the Academy...so of course Oscar decides to reward him for a film & piece-of-work that is every bit The Departed's inferior.  It's difficult to believe, considering this is his signature as an actor, but DiCaprio's work here is without charm, unable to gain chemistry with Jennifer Connelly & he falls flat in the final hour of the movie once his opportunity for banter has left.  Leo DiCaprio is a great actor, but similar to Rosalind Russell & Spencer Tracy, he was too often-cited for work that didn't play to his strengths, which is light comedy & soapy romance (Blood Diamond is neither of those things).

Our final nominee is Ryan Gosling, who was graduating here from The Notebook heartthrob into a very serious actor; it's hard to remember, but there was once a time when Gosling's ability in front of the camera wasn't yet proven.  His work as an unorthodox teacher is, like all of the men in this category, in a movie that doesn't quite work.  Half Nelson is the best of these movies, but it's still a cliched education drama with familiar beats.  Unlike DiCaprio or Smith, though, Gosling elevates the work & makes it a much better movie.  He gives a subdued, informed performance as Dan Dunne, someone who is both an authority figure but also a bit lost in his own maturity.  That juxtaposition feels solid for Gosling's wheelhouse, and I'm glad Oscar was paying attention to such a small movie.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes of course break out their nominees between Drama and Comedy/Musical, so we have ten names from their ceremony.  Drama gave us most of the Oscar lineup, with Gosling out and Leo DiCaprio (double-nominated) in for The Departed (Whitaker won), while Comedy/Musical went to Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat) over Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean 2), Aaron Eckhart (Thank You for Smoking), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Kinky Boots), & Will Ferrell (Stranger than Fiction).  SAG went exactly for Oscar's lineup (winner & nominees), while BAFTA totally did its own thing-Whitaker won, but beat Leo (for The Departed), O'Toole, Daniel Craig (Casino Royale), & Richard Griffiths (The History Boys).  In terms of sixth place, the only logical answer is Sacha Baron Cohen, which would've been a mind-bend kind of nomination-you could make an argument for Greg Kinnear (Little Miss Sunshine) or Ken Watanabe (Letters from Iwo Jima) since they are in Best Picture contenders, but as someone who lived through this Oscar race, there was real talk about Baron Cohen getting the spot.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Well, I would've cited DiCaprio for the right movie, that's for darn sure.  I also know I'm sounding like a broken record here, but two years after the Academy invited Clive Owen to the club with his (deserving) work in Closer, why exactly did they skip out on nominating him for the best performance of his career in Children of Men?

Oscar’s Choice: Easy win for Whitaker.  A bit perplexing in hindsight, but like I said above, sometimes Oscar just gets the biggest crush on a biopic performance & the fever doesn't break until it's too late (and hey, Whitaker is better than Rami Malek).

My Choice: I'm going to go with Gosling over O'Toole, since he does a bit better with incorporating his performance into the film in question.  Behind them would be Whitaker, DiCaprio, & Smith.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you joining the stampede for Whitaker or will you stay in detention with Ryan Gosling & I?  Would Maria Bakalova's bizarre awards run earlier this year have felt so strange if SBC had gotten the fifth slot here?  And what is the weakest ever Oscar acting lineup?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2006: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2006

Past Best Actor Contests: 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019

OVP: Actor (2004)

OVP: Best Actor (2004)

The Nominees Were...

Don Cheadle, Hotel Rwanda

Johnny Depp, Finding Neverland

Leonardo DiCaprio, The Aviator

Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby

Jamie Foxx, Ray

My Thoughts: All right, we are in the final four now as we hit the closing stretch of our 2004 write-ups.  This week, we'll be tackling both lead categories with the Oscars, and we'll be starting with the gents.  The 2004 Oscars featured a record number of black actors nominated (at the time), including two in this field.  We also had the return of Leonardo DiCaprio, back a decade after his last nomination and commencing what would be a march to inevitability with an Oscar win.  We'll start there, because Leo's end result (winning an Oscar for one of his least performances in The Revenant) actually began in a much stronger position, and one wonders what might have happened had he just won during his pretty boy phase.

DiCaprio's second outing with Martin Scorsese is perhaps his best (though they've made magic a few times, so I put an asterisk next to this statement).  DiCaprio has such a buoyancy in his acting style (he's so much better at lighter comedy or romance than heavy drama) that lends itself well to Howard Hughes as a young man, when his intense promise & massive privilege afforded him the luxury of pursuing his adolescent fantasies (planes, movies, & beautiful women).  DiCaprio uses that memory of a young Howard as the film progresses, making him fall apart and lose his sense of balance in the film's final third.  This is not the best part of the movie, and it's where most actors would've leant in the hardest (and DiCaprio does, occasionally showing some strain), but he's laid such groundwork in the previous chapters that it has a different aura than an actor who would've solely approached Hughes through his own disabilities.

Jamie Foxx is also playing an iconic 20th Century figure in his film, but he does so with less internal dialogue.  Foxx's work is all about mimicry, playing Ray Charles with the same sort of body language & intonation as the legendary singer.  This is skillful, and it's a talent that Foxx has shown off in countless talk show appearances (he's a very good impressionist), but it's not really acting in the sense of what DiCaprio is doing.  Foxx doesn't give us enough of the character Ray Charles, and of course he's not doing his own singing in the movie, so much of the majesty in some of the film's musical numbers aren't something that you can attribute to him.  This isn't a complete whiff (after all, film history is littered with people lip-syncing & giving us great work), but without some sort of depth in the actual performance he's giving offscreen, there's not much there in his work-this is showy surface-level stuff, not anything of note, and the kind of performance that feels like the makeup team deserved the Oscar more than the actor.

Johnny Depp is playing a famous person as well, but unlike DiCaprio & Foxx, he doesn't need to really look or sound like him-JM Barrie is not well-known to the mass audience for anything other than creating Peter Pan.  Despite some of my misgivings about the film as a whole, Depp is good in this movie.  He plays Barrie as a man lost, someone who cannot quite understand where the magic of his life has gone, and finds the ability to recapture it.  However, this isn't Oscar-worthy work, and feels like the kind of afterglow nomination that happens when the Academy finally sits up and notices your talent.  While Jack Sparrow is so good you'd be forgiven for thinking that it deserves two Oscar nominations, that isn't really how the OVP works and so I'd say this is middling in terms of conversations about Depp's career (we'll get to his splendid work in Pirates eventually, possibly as soon as this fall).  

Don Cheadle has shown a knack in recent years for comedy & genre work, which is not where his career initially began.  Hotel Rwanda is his only nomination (to date), but it's also one of my least favorite of his performances.  Cheadle excels at his best when he's given something naturalistic to play onscreen, bringing an ease to his characters.  That's not the case of Hotel Rwanda, where he's asked to essentially just experience tragedy-after-tragedy, but gives us little insight into the man he's playing.  This isn't really his fault.  Unlike Foxx or Depp, the script doesn't give him a lot to do other than be miserable for two hours & heroic in the face of increasingly long odds, but it's also not a particularly strong performance that elevates its unimpressive source material.

The final nominee is Clint Eastwood, playing the only fictional character in this entire bunch in Million Dollar Baby.  Eastwood's politics and recent spell of movies (which have had increasingly poor results), sometimes negate the fact that he can act, and is actually quite a good actor with the right role.  That's what happens in Million Dollar Baby, where he gives (by my estimate) the best performance in the picture, imbuing his boxing coach with a sense of not only lost opportunity (getting the relationship with Hilary Swank's Maggie that he could never have with his own daughter), but also a sense of the passage of time.  Life is not fair, and Eastwood's Frankie Dunn knows this.  Eastwood isn't stretching his acting muscles too hard here (this is right in his wheelhouse), but a good director & movie star knows to pick scripts that play to their talents, and Eastwood certainly does that here.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes of course break out their nominees between Drama and Comedy/Musical, so we have ten names from their ceremony.  Drama went to DiCaprio, over Cheadle, Deep, Liam Neeson (Kinsey), & Javier Bardem (The Sea Inside), while Comedy/Musical gave their trophy to Foxx over Jim Carrey (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), Kevin Spacey (Beyond the Sea), Kevin Kline (De-Lovely), and Paul Giamatti (Sideways).  The SAG Awards gave their trophy to Foxx as well, with the entire Oscar lineup (save Eastwood) showing up, along with Paul Giamatti.  BAFTA also gave the trophy to Foxx, here skipping both Eastwood & Cheadle in favor of Carrey and Gael Garcia Bernal (The Motorcycle Diaries).  In terms of sixth place, I have to assume it's Paul Giamatti, though the case could be made that Neeson or Bardem was in the hunt as well (though their films weren't nearly as successful with Oscar as Sideways was)-Eastwood's nomination was an indication that Million Dollar Baby was about to win a lot of Oscars.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: When people talk about how Jim Carrey deserves an Oscar nomination, this is surely where he deserved it the most.  His work in Eternal Sunshine is the rare case of a comedian playing a straight role but losing none of his natural charisma-truly bravura work.  I also would have included Bruno Ganz for Downfall-if they're going to cite it for Foreign Language Film, there's no reason we aren't also getting his seismic work a trophy for this performance.

Oscar’s Choice: Revisionist history might make you think DiCaprio was close, but he wasn't.  Jamie Foxx was a landslide all season long.

My Choice: I'd give it to Leo-his work is the most complete, and uses his natural gifts the best.  Following him (in order) would be Eastwood, Depp, Cheadle, & Foxx.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Is everyone still on Team Jamie or are some of you willing to join me over on the Leo side of things?  Do we think Clint Eastwood will ever win an acting prize for the Academy or will he join the likes of Orson Welles & Woody Allen with only behind-the-scenes trophies?  And how exactly did Sideways score so big but not get an acting nomination for Paul Giamatti?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2004: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2004

Past Best Actor Contests: 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019

OVP: Actor (2019)

OVP: Best Actor (2019)

The Nominees Were...

Antonio Banderas, Pain & Glory

    Leonardo DiCaprio, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Adam Driver, Marriage Story

Joaquin Phoenix, Joker

Jonathan Pryce, The Two Popes

My Thoughts: We move into the lead categories this week, and our Best Actor field.  Toward the end of these series I sometimes run out of things to say about the movies in question, and to a degree we're entering that mode with the 2019 contenders.  Oscar was so unoriginal in what he was pulling off here-the films that are in contention here have all been mentioned, and with one exception, we're already discussed them more than once at this point.  But weirdly we have spent very little time discussing most of these lead performances as we've gone through the movie's technical elements, and as a result there are still some chapters left to analyze in this lineup.

Specifically, I don't know that I've actually mentioned Leonardo DiCaprio during all of these write-ups (and it's not because I don't like him, as Leo is a frequent favorite of mine).  This is weird because in my notes on this performance, Leo gave a solid bit of acting.  I always appreciate him better in lighter roles (which this is), and his chemistry with child actor Julia Butters is one of the better parts of the movie.  This isn't a standout performance in his career, but it is well-grounded (he plays this as a man who came close to stardom but couldn't quite reach the echelons), though one wonders if this nomination was necessary-there were better performers in 2019, and he had just won.  Usually Oscar makes the actors wait a little bit longer, so perhaps they want him to get a second after his long drought?

It's harder to begrudge Jonathan Pryce his nomination, as he is a "long-working character actor getting his due" but I felt somewhat similar about his work here.  Pryce's Pope Francis doesn't have the internal drive & "awards clips" that Hopkins' performance elicits, and while I'm not shy about enjoying less bait-y work (and indeed, the chemistry between the two actors is a both-sided situation), this is a bit routine from Pryce, and you leave not knowing enough about Francis in the way that you do about Benedict by the film's end.  Still, as I've said multiple times this is a better (and lighter) film than one would expect considering the biopic subjects.

Joaquin Phoenix would of course win this trophy, becoming the second actor to take the Oscar for playing the Joker onscreen.  If you'll recall I gave this trophy to Ledger when we profiled his performance in 2008, but Phoenix's work is not going to repeat that feat.  There's an intense physicality  to this performance that I have to respect, as his actions & body need great control to pull off some of the consistent ticks & swerves of this character, but I'm not as impressed by physical changes as the Academy is.  And once you take that away, there's not much there-Phoenix, a truly great actor, gives his Arthur little depth or dimension, instead making him some sort of bizarre creation without a driving soul.  Gone is some of the care he's put into better work like The Master or Her, and instead we're given a performance that feels (for me) quite flat.

Adam Driver, on the other hand, is an "of the moment" actor who completely lands this characterization.  Driver's work kind of makes-or-breaks the film, as it is ultimately his arch (the big Sondheim number where he realizes what he lost & what he must let go of) that will land the film.  Driver creates his Charlie as someone who had ambitions, and is sometimes obtuse to the feelings of a partner that he clearly loves on some level, but dislikes for not being the person he wanted her to be.  Playing characters of this ilk, where they're meant to be unlikable but human, is hard because the cartoonish angles or crutches are there if the actor wants to partake, but Driver is so committed to us feeling Charlie's journey (even if we aren't "siding" with him) that he doesn't take them.

Banderas' nomination is in some ways similar to Jonathan Pryce's-a longtime trouper getting his moment in the sun with the Academy-but while Pryce has been a character actor at the edges, Banderas is that rarer breed of proper movie star who finally gets recognized for his talent.  This is another Oscar trope, and sometimes it's even better than the character actor because it gives us a career-defining role that made us rethink what we thought about a matinee idol.  Banderas has always been good, but this ranks up there as some of his best work as a director working through his inner-demons, frequently frustrated by his inability to move beyond a long-ago success story, and also giving us a tender love story (not just for himself & a past lover, but also with his complicated relationship with his mother).  Banderas creates his own soul, but uses his decades of work with Pedro Almodovar to blend in personal elements of the director's life & personality into the characterization to give us a fully-realized performance.

Other Precursor Contenders: As we've said a few times here, the precursors didn't bring many new names into the Oscar conversation, and uniformity was the theme.  The Globes gave their Drama trophy, therefore, to Joaquin Phoenix over Driver, Pryce, Banderas, & Christian Bale (Ford vs. Ferrari), while the Comedy/Musical went to Taron Egerton (Rocketman) over DiCaprio, Daniel Craig (Knives Out), Roman Griffin Davis (Jojo Rabbit), & Eddie Murphy (Dolemite is My Name).  SAG went with Phoenix as their winner, besting Bale, DiCaprio, Driver, & Egerton, while BAFTA also favored Phoenix over DiCaprio, Pryce, Driver, & Egerton.  Throw in Robert de Niro (The Irishman), who was probably on some ballots considering his longtime perch at the Academy, and this is a really sturdy lineup...I would have to believe that Egerton was in sixth place and surely would've been nominated were it not for the stench of the Bohemian Rhapsody wins a year earlier.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Even with a slate that's not terrible, I'd upend almost the entire lineup personally.  I'd include Brad Pitt, who was considerably better in Ad Astra than he was for Hollywood (which you'll remember I did enjoy), and would've kept de Niro, who brings an empty soul quality that I liked to The Irishman.  Jimmie Fails (Last Black Man in San Francisco) announced himself as a talent with his sensitive portrayal of disappointment & hope in that movie, while Franz Rogowski gave a star-making performance (if anyone bothered to watch) in the beautiful Transit.

Oscar’s Choice: Phoenix skated through easily in a role that twenty years ago would've struggled to get a nomination-honestly not sure even who was second it was such a foregone conclusion (maybe Banderas?).

My Choice: Driver-he brings the most to his work, and creates the best (if not always as famous) characterization.  Banderas, DiCaprio, Pryce, & Phoenix follow him in that order.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you with me siding with Driver, or am I a little mad for not picking Phoenix?  Is this the end of the line for Banderas or Pryce, or can they come back like Gary Oldman did & win a trophy?  And did Rami Malek cost Taron Egerton his first Oscar nomination?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2019: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Animated Short, Live Action Short, Previously in 2019

Past Best Actor Contests: 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

OVP: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)

Film: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)
Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Al Pacino
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Oscar History: 10 nominations/2 wins (Best Picture, Director, Actor-Leonardo DiCaprio, Supporting Actor-Brad Pitt*, Cinematography, Costume Design, Production Design*, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Original Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Quentin Tarantino, at this point, is one of those directors who has a blank check from me as a viewer, because even when I'm going to see something terrible, it'll at least be interesting, and with films like Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, and Inglourious Basterds, he's proven he can make truly spectacular movies.  Few directors working today (save, perhaps, for Martin Scorsese) are as in love with the process of moviemaking as Tarantino, who frequently indulges in filmmaking techniques that pay homage to the most minute of film references.  We saw this a few years ago with the excruciating The Hateful Eight which still looked great in 70 mm even though the imagery couldn't save the story, but here it's more apparent in recreating the indulgent art decor of 1960's cinema and television.  The strangest thing about Hollywood, though, isn't that it pays such careful homage to this era's entertainment, but instead that this feels like the least stylistic of Tarantino's pictures, perhaps even his attempt (until the ending) to make a movie that might be downright...pleasant.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film centers on 1969, a year in Hollywood where television has largely replaced movies as the national past time, but not the allure of movie stars themselves.  We see two fictional figures of the era, former TV star Rick Dalton (DiCaprio), who has fallen on hard times & is largely reduced to guest roles on TV rather than getting his own lead, and his stunt double Cliff Booth (Pitt), who is Dalton's caretaker but has never enjoyed the glimpse of success that his boss did. Dalton lives next door to Sharon Tate (Robbie), who at this point has just completed Valley of the Dolls and is one of the most famous women on the planet, a star far greater than Dalton had ever hoped to be, even though she's largely ancillary to the plot and just there to look pretty.  Much has been made for Robbie's part being underwritten, and it is, but there's something sort of fascinating about watching Robbie, possibly the most beautiful woman in pictures today, giving us the lonely take of Sharon Tate, who was once the most beautiful woman in pictures.  Robbie has become a marvelous actress at this point and so she manages to make the isolation of being such a famous figure compelling.  Tate's need for validation and warmth gives her a proper character path with limited screen time, and as a result while criticism that Tarantino seemingly forgets the stories of women might be valid in other films, Robbie's Sharon is a solid creation & shouldn't be a subject of this ire.  There's a great scene where Tate watches a largely forgettable performance in the Dean Martin flick The Wrecking Crew, and seems overjoyed in her anonymity to find that the audience enjoyed her work-this is smart, careful moviemaking.  Tarantino should instead be raked over the coals for once again prominently inserting three of his actresses' (Robbie, Qualley, and Fanning) feet pervertedly onscreen for no apparent reason other than his own fetishes, but leave Robbie's role out of it.

Overall, there's nothing really bad about Hollywood, especially when it comes to the actors.  DiCaprio and Pitt are both great.  Though I don't want to get hyperbolic here (both actors have been better before), but they land their scenes with an ease & delivery that's genuinely fun.  DiCaprio is always better at lighter roles than serious ones, and Rick Dalton gets moments of levity, particularly opposite Pitt as well as a young actress whom he is starring with on a fictionalized TV show (played by American Housewife's Julia Butters).  DiCaprio is fun in this part, and now armed with his much-sought-after Oscar, gets back to what he's best at-playing a handsome man who is frequently his own downfall, but man do you want to root for him.  Pitt is even better as Cliff, a man who came within an inch of fame, and has some inner-demons that are only hinted at (it's implied but never confirmed that he murdered his wife on a boat, perhaps an homage to a different famous Hollywood death, Natalie Wood), but who is still very good at his job.

Pitt has a long, extended sequence where he visits Spahn Ranch with Margaret Qualley's Pussycat (not an actual member of the real-life Manson Family, but instead a character inspired Kathryn Lutesinger) that is terrific, and the most "Tarantino at his best" moment of the picture.  There's a tension here, since we don't actually know that Cliff (who is fictional) will need to live through his time on the ranch, but that certain people like Dakota Fanning's Squeaky Fromme and Austin Butler's Tex Watson will live since they still have crimes to commit.  It's not often in a movie where you know the hero might die, but that the villains have to survive, and I liked the juxtaposition.  Tarantino spares Cliff, and eventually totally messes with history (this is a fairy tale, and as a result Sharon Tate and the other residents at her Cielo Drive home live while the likes of Tex Watson & Susan Atkins die in over-the-top violent deaths), but the suspense here is mesmerizing, as is the way that Tarantino plays with our expectations (having Bruce Dern's George Spahn get mad at Cliff rather than the murderers who are fleecing him, is a nice touch even though Cliff is looking out for his own interests while Squeaky is just using him).

The film's ending is a bit of an eye roll.  We've already seen Tarantino's willingness to screw over history with Inglourious Basterds, and the shock simply isn't there this time.  We know the second that Watson & Atkins decide to go into Rick's house rather than Sharon Tate's that this is going to be a different ending than real-life, which feels appropriate (I didn't think I could handle watching a very pregnant Tate get butchered onscreen, and I suspect Tarantino realized that even for a director known for violence this was a bridge too far), but it also feels super predictable and kind of tired for a director who seems to have lost the ability to craft violence creatively.  Hollywood is best when it's going for nostalgia (like the scenes with DiCaprio & Robbie) or with atmosphere (like the scenes with Pitt on Spahn Ranch or the one scene featuring Damon Herriman's Manson, a sequence that hangs over the rest of the film, especially since it's our only glimpse of the monster behind all of this madness).  Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is that rare Tarantino movie that's good up until the ending, and as a result I'm going with 3 stars even though it's a 4-star picture for most of the movie (I'm someone who gets annoyed when the execution on the back half is sloppy).  Note that this downgrade has nothing to do with the movie's length, which actually feels about right for what he was going for, but entirely due to the ending feeling like it missed the mood of the best moments of the picture.  This is an interesting departure for the director, though, and has enough strong elements that I'd recommend you see it.

OVP: Actor (2015)

OVP: Best Actor (2015)

The Nominees Were...

Bryan Cranston, Trumbo
Matt Damon, The Martian
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant
Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs
Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl

My Thoughts: Frequently you think of a specific year’s Oscars in relation to the Best Picture winner.  1953 is the “From Here to Eternity Oscars” or 1976 is the “Rocky Oscars,” (for example).  However, that’s occasionally not the case, and I think the most recent example of this is the 2015 Oscars, which few people seem to remember as the SpotlightOscars, but instead the ceremony where Leo “finally” won his statue.  The collective internet seemed to think that DiCaprio’s lack of a trophy was approaching Susan Lucci at the Emmys territory, and as a result he seemed to have won by collective acclimation for The Revenant.  I’ve been a Leo fan for years, someone who has proclaimed he’s earned an Oscar more than once (including in this Oscar Viewing Project-check out 2013 below in the links), but that he won what will likely be his only trophy for a movie like The Revenant seems like a gigantic miss.

Leo’s work in The Revenant, is, at best, a physical achievement. It’s certainly a transformative experience, and in the one truly great scene in the movie (the fight with the bear), he is able to create a sense of fear that is lacking (but desperately needed) in the rest of the movie.  But Leo’s Hugh Glass is nothing more than that.  He’s not a man, he doesn’t have any character growth, he’s just someone enduring the constancy of the elements.  This might be filmmaking, but it certainly isn’t acting.  Leo does nothing to ground the character he’s bringing to the screen, and in my opinion gives his worst performance in The Revenant because there’s nothing there.  It’s hard to even judge it-it feels more like you’re judging a reality TV star for acting, because it’s just a series of stunts and grunts, nothing special & certainly not leaning into the great talents (charm, wit, vulnerability) that made him a star in the first place.

I’ll be real, though-if Leo was going to win over a field for an “it’s about time” Oscar, he picked the right lineup to conquer as 2015’s Best Actor race isn’t that impressive.  Matt Damon, who I always associate with Leo (even though DiCpario had won critical and awards success several years before Damon’s breakout performance in Good Will Hunting), is good in The Martian, a solid action-adventure that doesn’t feel the need to bring depth to its work but instead just let a good story keep the tale going.  The parts where he’s amusing himself to fight the mind-boggling loneliness of being the only man on a planet are quite fun (Damon, like DiCaprio, is probably best at light drama or comedy), but the second half isn’t as impressive when he flexes the acting muscle rather than the movie star muscle, though it’s still game and one of the better performances in this lineup.

Bryan Cranston is probably wishing he was in a film as good as The Martian, as he’s clearly trying to pull a similar trick of a capable actor attempting to substitute star charisma for acting.  Unfortunately, Trumbois not The Martian, and Cranston isn’t doing enough work here to save the film from itself.  His Trumbo is unknowable, though unlike Leo he is definitely a character, just a one-dimensional one.  I left thinking that he must have been just a lovable scamp, but I also don’t think that Cranston grounded enough of the actual actions of his character with the words-why was it that his Trumbo was willing to give up a career that he obviously loved to stand for a principle that doesn’t feel particularly engrained in his day-to-day life?  That there’s not an answer to this question is a fatal flaw not only in the movie, but in Cranston’s performance itself.

Michael Fassbender is also tasked with playing a larger-than-life character, but here he manages to find the sole of the man he’s portraying.  It’s rough playing one of the most famous figures on earth just a few short years after he passed away, but Fassy brings an incredible amount of depth to his creation, not mimicking Jobs but instead making a megalomaniacal genius that recalls his visage (Fassbender is also considerably more attractive than Jobs, so trying to just have him look like him would have been a failure).  Fassy understands the rat-a-tat of Sorkin’s screenplay, which is good but suffers from all of his indulgences (and inability to write particularly compelling women that don’t revolve around a man’s achievements), and is the only person in this lineup who is giving a performance we should still be talking about some four years later.

Cause that sure ain’t the case for Eddie Redmayne.  Redmayne, an actor & celebrity who seemed to have a moment a few years ago and then disappeared into a boring franchise, has never really equaled the talent I saw in him with Les Miserables seven years ago, despite a pair of Oscar nominations since.  His Einar/Lili has a grace that he can’t lose, and that’s necessary in handling such a role, but he’s too calculating and timid in his work, even when Lili is supposed to feel free.  You can almost see him thinking “I need to be angry” or “I need to be scared” rather than let it come organically, and you leave having spent so many intimate moments with this character but knowing little about what she wanted to bring to the world, other than herself.  It’s hard to judge this film already because the politics of it feel dated, but Redmayne’s work is not up to the same caliber of some of what we’d come to expect from him, and certainly not equal to what Vikander is doing as his leading woman.

Other Precursor Contenders: We start with the Globes, which distinguish between Drama and "Comedy/Musical," and as a result have ten men to contend with.  The Drama category saw nearly an exact replica of this field, with the only one missing being Damon (instead going with Will Smith in Concussion…Leo won), while Comedy had Damon beat Christian Bale (The Big Short), Steve Carell (also The Big Short), Al Pacino (Danny Collins), and Mark Ruffalo (Infinitely Polar Bear).  Damon won, despite the fact that he was in a drama.  SAG threw out Damon for leading actor, instead picking Johnny Depp (Black Mass), and went with Leo as their winner as well, while BAFTA went for an exact replica of the Oscar race, and Leo was again victorious.  In picking a sixth place, I suspect it was Smith, but honestly looking at this race I am guessing that it was a very distant sixth place.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I would almost completely re-haul this category.  For starters, I’d keep Michael Caine’s quiet, dignified work in Youth as he tries to overcome the grief of a dead wife whom he neglected.  Jacob Tremblay certainly deserved to be included (even though he was campaigned as supporting) for his breathtaking work in Room, and one wonders if they’d gone all-in as a lead actor if they’d managed to have gotten him the nomination as Cranston & Damon were vulnerable.  I’d throw in Tom Hardy’s double-duty in Legend, which was a dismissible film but one where he’s having a blast (and I did too). And for the final spot, why not Michael B. Jordan, who unlike Leo has a physical transformation AND achieves a complicated performance?

Oscar’s Choice: The internet literally would have revolted if Leo hadn’t won, and Oscar wasn’t going to deprive the people of their big speech.  In a world where he wasn’t here, I suspect Redmayne getting a back-to-back Oscar could have been in the cards (or honestly Will Smith might have gotten a similar sort of Leo Push).

My Choice: Fassbender is head-and-shoulders above the rest of these guys.  Follow him with Damon, Redmayne, Cranston, and DiCaprio.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you agree that this was Leo’s time, or are you with me that Fassbender had this coming?  Won’t it be strange if Trumbo (of all things) ends up being Bryan Cranston’s only Oscar nomination?  And has anyone actually seen Danny Collins orInfinitely Polar Bear…should I?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2015: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Previously in 2015

Past Best Actor Contests: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

OVP: Blood Diamond (2006)

Film: Blood Diamond (2006)
Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Djimon Hounsou, Jennifer Connelly
Director: Edward Zwick
Oscar History: 5 nominations (Best Actor-Leonardo DiCaprio, Supporting Actor-Djimon Hounsou, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Film Editing)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

Leonardo DiCaprio has become one of those actors that is hard for me to discuss with other people.  For starters he's one of the rare actors that acts in prestige pictures that people actually seek out.  Outside of Meryl Streep or Tom Hanks, that's not really a thing anymore, at least not in my world.  Usually the movies that people in my life see (save for a select couple of cinephiles) are something like a Ghostbusters or Beauty and the Beast, and discussions of movies that are in awards contention only happen after the actual awards lists are released.

As a result of this, people in my life have opinions of Leo, as do I, but they always want me to side with the "Leo was way overdue" for an Oscar conversation, even when in my head that conversation begins with Glenn Close and ends with Annette Bening.  And that's perhaps because the Academy doesn't seem to have picked the "correct" Leo films in my opinion to cite.  DiCaprio has always felt, to me, like he was at his finest when he was either breezy or vulnerable, or perhaps both.  Think of Titanic and Catch Me If You Can, in my opinion his two finest performances, where he's effervescent and so alive in those characters.  Sadly, though, the Academy keeps insisting on citing him for work like The Revenant or Blood Diamond, and as a result I end up sitting through the height of tedium for over two hours as Edward Zwick reminds us that he was once a force at the Dorothy Chandler.

(Spoilers Ahead) It's worth noting that, if nothing else, the film brought to the forefront the battles in countries like Sierra Leone over the heinous "blood diamond" industry, and that is the focus of the movie.  The film centers around one of the workers in these labor camps Solomon Vandy (Hounsou), who finds an enormous pink diamond clearly worth millions, but then he is taken prisoner by the government.  Through circumstance, he finds a man named Danny Archer (DiCaprio), an unscrupulous diamond smuggler who teams up with him to retrieve the diamond, so that Vandy can be reunited with his family and Archer can amass a fortune.  Along the way, they come across a reporter Maddy Bowen (Connelly) who somehow gets beneath Archer's "tough veneer" and he falls in love with her before he dies in a battle.  The film ends with Bowen uncovering the diamond trade and implicating Westerners in the scandal, while Vandy joins his family once they sell the diamond.

The film is about as cliched and overwrought as that description would indicate.  One would think that DiCaprio would be able to find something to do with this role, but he is not Michael Douglas in Romancing the Stone, and once the initial charming of Connelly is done, he never really is watchable the rest of the movie-it's arguably the least of his Oscar-nominated films, and if you remember my thoughts on The Revenant you'll know that's saying something.  Still, he's the best of the three leads, as Connelly is just blankly staring most of the time and doesn't seem to inhabit any of the necessary skills an investigative journalist in her position would need, and Hounsou's only reaction seems to be yelling all of the time.  That this film was nominated for Sound is absurd-they can't even get the dialogue to come across correctly.  Zwick has made films I've enjoyed in the past (Glory and Legends of the Fall being chief amongst them), but this gives in to his worst instincts, with forced sentimentality and illogical changes in character to fit the plot.  Blood Diamond is a bad movie, with few redeeming qualities other than social awareness.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  This was a big hit when it first came out, so don't pretend I'm the only one who has seen it?  Is anyone a fan of this picture, or DiCaprio/Hounsou in it?  Anyone want to make the case that DiCaprio deserved this Oscar (or that he was better here than in the far superior The Departed)?  I'm all ears-let's take to the comments!

Reviewing the Oscars: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly,and the Unexplainable

As has become a TMROJ tradition, I'm going to weigh in this morning with the good, bad, and the ugly of last night's broadcast.  This year, though, I'm substituting the Indifferent, however, for the Unexplainable as there were too many moments in what amounted to a hot mess of an Oscar ceremony to have much to be indifferent about.  Let's just jump right in and do this thing, shall we?

The Good

-This isn't going to be what one would consider a wonderfully-received review, as I didn't have a great time compared to your average Oscars (I always love the Oscars, but last night was more miss than hit).  However, it's impossible to ignore a few of the great highlights, and one of them was surely a couple of surprises that got lobbed out in terms of wins.  My second favorite victory of the night was surely Ex Machina taking Visual Effects, as the film felt completely out of its element against blockbuster Best Picture nominees like Mad Max, The Revenant, and The Martian (not to mention the gigantic Star Wars 7), and I didn't think it stood a prayer.  Chalk this one up to the Academy genuinely picking substance over box office.  Additionally, I will say that the myriad trophies for Mad Max (six in all) felt deserving for such a marvelous film.  I would have liked to have seen these wins translate into the Picture or Director category, but at the very least Spotlight bested the insufferable Revenant, so there's that to smile about as well.

-I say second favorite up above because nothing could top the win for Ennio Morricone, particularly as he sat next to John Williams while taking his first competitive Oscar.  I was yelling "get up" ala Kathy Griffin when he won (I was doing the same for Joe Biden-thank you Lou Gossett, Jr. for having some class there) and was so glad he got a very well-earned standing ovation as the oldest person to ever take a competitive Academy Award.  Bravo!

-Easily my favorite moment of the entire night was the presentation of the sound categories.  Every year while doing Oscar prediction contests or discussing the ceremony, the question of what the difference between sound mixing and sound editing is shows up, and this year rather than a tedious discussion of the topic, the Academy appropriately let your ears do the learning, as they played clips of all ten nominees first minus the mixing and then minus the editing.  It was clever, sharp, and inventive, and whoever thought of it in the editing room has earned my gratitude.  The only other presentation that came close was Louis CK's hilarious rundown of the Documentary Short subject winners and how much the trophy actually changes their lives (appropriately and quite Oscar nerd-pandering-ly it then went to a woman who already had an Academy Award).

-The speeches were largely a snore, save perhaps for Leo's (though he had the most confidence he'd get to deliver one) as he went into a healthy diatribe against climate change deniers and greedy politicians who take money from corporations (Joe Biden awkwardly got panned to during that portion of the speech, though it wasn't clear whether Leo grouped the Vice President into that conversation).  It was a wonderful way to use a moment he knew the world was watching and waiting to see.

The Bad

-Why precisely were Lady Gaga, The Weeknd, and Sam Smith given their full song rather than the more traditional 90-second clip of what was actually performed when the Academy didn't "have the time" of day for the nominees for Racing Extinction and Youth?  After all, for a ceremony that desperately wanted to trumpet diversity it says something that they cut the Asian woman and transgender woman from getting to perform alongside the rock stars.  Also, while I liked the song better live than I did in recording (though I didn't care for either that much, TBH), who was working the psychotic camera-angles during the Lady Gaga performance?  It felt like I was getting whiplash, which is unfortunate since the Academy was clearly trying to emulate last year's moving "Glory" performance.  Also, don't you hope that Diane Warren, Roger Deakins, and Thomas Newman were off in the bar by the time Best Picture was being rewarded toasting Ennio Morricone after yet another chorus of losses?

-This will literally be the only time I ever complain about Sylvester Stallone besting stage titan Mark Rylance in an acting race, but really Academy?  In what has to be one of the most bizarre acting upsets since Juliette Binoche bested Lauren Bacall, Sly looked forlorn as he lost his third bid for an Oscar, one nearly everyone was expecting him to take.  It'd be one thing if this was a Bacall/Binoche situation where the latter was clearly the superior, but Rylance wasn't better than Stallone, who gave the performance of a lifetime in Creed.  In hindsight we'll probably be fine with this (Rylance being the better actor in almost any other competition and he could now become a staple in acting ala Geoffrey Rush or Chris Cooper), but it still stung.

-A few other things that don't qualify as ugly, but should still be mentioned.  The girl scout cookie bit was funnier when Ellen Degeneres did it a few years ago with pizza, the scrolling marquee of people to thank felt like they cut it halfway through (seriously-did Brie or Leo even have one?), and while I applaud the diversity in the presenters, occasionally it felt a little eyeroll-y in terms of whom they selected (Dev Patel and Sofia Vergara stick out in particular), and the overall ceremony seemed pretty lacking in major movie stars.  Also, would it kill them to let a woman present Best Picture or be the final star in the In Memoriam?

The Ugly

-You'll notice the name Chris Rock hasn't shown up yet, and that's because I wasn't impressed.  Listen, I was well aware that the biggest part of his monologue was going to focus on #OscarsSoWhite, but it was literally the source of every single joke, break, and monologue.  It felt in many ways like Rock hated being on that stage, and that he felt he was doing everyone a major service by showing up.  I think some of his jokes stuck (the White People's Choice Awards was biting, and he'd already basically done it on Twitter, but it still set the tone), but after a while he went too far (the lynching joke in particular felt egregiously in bad taste, and kind of horrifying in its flippancy), and he wholly abandoned the idea of celebrating any of the nominees.  In fact, he never, not once, highlighted any of the twenty people who actually did get nominated, despite major movie stars (Jennifer Lawrence, Sylvester Stallone, Leo DiCaprio, and the K/Cates all being highlighted) and a number of notable first-timers (Bryan Cranston, Rachel McAdams, and Jennifer Jason Leigh all come to mind) being included in the running.  It felt after a while more like a shame-on-you roast and not a night of celebrating the movies, and we already have enough of that on late night and Comedy Central.  Again, I do want to stress that some of his comments were valid, but there was no celebration of some truly great films and performances last night at all during the show, and that felt wrong in one of the few places we still get to celebrate the movies and not be smugly sarcastic about everything.

-I also loathed his bit about how people don't watch films like Room, Carol, and Bridge of Spies-this is a time to champion people seeing complicated films that aren't superhero movies or blockbusters.  He did this eleven years ago as well, and he ended up appearing like a bully in both skits.  A cheer within a jeer though to the woman who said By the Sea was her favorite "white people" movie, as that caught Rock off-guard enough that he got in his best line of the night: "that wasn't even (Brad and Angelina's) favorite white-people movie of the night."

-One last note on Rock, but it would have felt a lot more genuine if he'd championed diversity issues outside of just the lack of African-Americans nominated.  While he did chastise a few actors like Jada Pinkett Smith during his monologue, some of his most cutting barbs felt like they toed the line into bullying and offensive, such as lambasting those who decried sexism on the red carpet after spending almost six minutes calling out the definition of racism.  It felt like he was trying to have people think more complicated thoughts about racism, but when sexism came onto the stage he said women's complaints weren't important.  He did the same thing with Asian-Americans (that cringeworthy moment with three young children coming out as accountants), transgender people (the skit with Tracy Jordan as The Danish Girl was played for "man-in-a-dress" laughs), and gay men (comparing Sam Smith to George Michael just because they're both gay and British).  Without these sorts of additional discussions, his ask for more inclusion and diversity fell flat.

-A couple of other notes before we get into the three most baffling moments of the night.  Whoever is in charge of selecting the music for presenters needs to be fired, as it took until Louis Gossett, Jr. to get someone paired correctly with their songs, and resulted in uncomfortable moments like Whoopi Goldberg walking out to "What's Love Got to Do With It" despite that role being played by a different black actress, Angela Bassett.  Come to think of it, can the orchestra also find a way to not play off important political speeches, as trying to get someone talking about climate change or their film's subject's horrible oppression played off is wrong and we shouldn't be taking away that voice of a winner?  Finally, the GIF that circulated everywhere on the internet was of Jenny Beavan walking down the aisle after winning her second Oscar and watching as a slew of men randomly judged her on her outfit and didn't applaud.  You can see it here, and I don't see anything but a shame moment for the likes of Tom McCarthy, Quincy Jones, Lou Gossett, and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (there were others there but I couldn't pick them out).

The Unexplainable

-What the hell was with the Stacey Dash sketch?  I don't even mean this as an obvious slam on Stacey Dash, who probably wanted to show she was in on the joke of her being a pariah in the African-American community, but it felt rushed and it wasn't really obvious what was supposed to be funny to all of us in that moment.  I don't even think Rock or Dash really got what was going on there, but just wanted to throw out a WTF moment to confuse the audience once they both found out they'd be game for such a situation.  This actually could have been funny, but it probably would have been a video-scripted moment and Dash would have had to lampoon herself a lot harder to make it work.

-What Sam Smith meant to say was that Ian McKellen complained about no openly gay men having won an Oscar for acting, and Sir Ian is right there.  Just to clarify before I point out how ridiculous Sam Smith, whose song I don't actually mind (I've never gotten the vitriol over it), looked as his live performance was laughably bad and who clearly should have prepped his speech a little better before dismissing the likes of J. Roy Helland, Elton John, Dustin Lance Black, and I'm sure myriad others.  At least the beard was working for him.

-Finally, if there's a way to ban Sacha Baron Cohen from ever presenting at the Oscars again, can I please sign up for it?  His skit was stale years ago and felt like a horribly timed moment to coincide with Room, which is a psychological study that he totally dismissed with callousness.  Thank goodness Brie Larson won later on if only to remind people it's a marvelous picture that deserved a lot more respect.

There you have it folks!  I'll do a fashion rundown tomorrow, but in the meantime what did you think of last night?  What are your thoughts on Rock's provocative hosting gig?  And where did you land on the winners?  Share in the comments!