Brokeback - I know it's a movie but...
Mon, 30 Jan 2006, 10:25 amWalter Plinge12 posts in thread
Brokeback - I know it's a movie but...
Mon, 30 Jan 2006, 10:25 amI know this is for theatre, but I think we can all take a page out of this movie if we wish to become Oscar winners.
Well.
I just saw Brokeback Mountain, to support fellow Australian Heath Ledger.
Can I just say if that was his finest performance and that is all you need to be an Oscar contender - EVERYBODY STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING! Don't act!
I mean seriously, if all you have to do is emulate Billy-Bob Thornton from Swingblade or Switchblade minus the mental handicap, ad a crook neck and you have his performance.
The moments when he got emotional, I think were very nicely done, but by no means unattainable by any other actor nor something we haven't seen in many other films this year.
Jack Gyllenhall was slightly better, giving his usual Doe-eyed performance. We all feel sorry for this lad whatever film he does. Whether its for choosing to do The Day After Tomorrow or for playing the emotionally retarded Donnie Darko. This boy has got range and skill and he displays a bit of that range in this film. I think this would be another Philadelphia if Ledger wins and Gyllenhalls not even mentioned. Denzel deserved that oscar, but Hanks walked away with it. Instead Denzel gets it for Training Day? I mean come on!!!
Onto th rest of the review:
In all, the production was very Ang Lee (Surprising since it was directed by the man). Minamalistic in Dialogue, Beautiful scenery and cinematography.
The problem is, the movie went half an hour too long, many people in the auditorium getting restless, shifting, coughing and the like (and no that was not because of the uncomfortable experience of two men having simulated sex onscreen). Too many moments of beautiful nature shots, unnecessary pauses.
I will say it had one or two poignant moments, but overall the film seems to be a visually stunning advert for the Wilderness of the USA and the hardships of the ranchers/cowboys.
Michelle Williams looked grotty and unkempt, suiting her character and she was the person I sympathised with the most, giving an honest and earthy performance.
Anne Hathaway was a surprise - nice to see her out of the usual fairytale princess role, though by the time her character was thirty, she still looked angel faced and youthful. The only person that seemed to age in the production was Jake Gyllenhall and this was through the colouring of his hair and a moustache.
We complain in amateur theatre if a person doesn't look old if they play old and the same in professional theatre as well I am sure, so how do these people get away with it? If they didn't have the date changes on the screen, I would have assumed the movie took place over a couple of weeks according to how the leads aged (of course the children would have blown that theory)
To create a 2 hour ten minute movie from a 25 page short story, great work, but I think Mr Lee pushed a little too hard, trying to weigh scenes down with symbolism, depth or something that just wasn't necessary. Especially when their defence is that it isn't a gay cowboy movie but a movie about two people falling in love. I don't think I have seen such a weighty love story since Elliot Gould in "Little Murders" in which I cried simply because it was one of the most confusing and aggrovating films I have ever seen.
Oscar Contender Heath, Ang and the film itself? Not really deserving.
A nice film, though overly long (which I recall a local production getting criticised for that late last year) but no better than Rom Com "Family Stone" or even "Chicken Little" I had more fun in both of those films, was moved to tears in the first and both times thought the movie had only been going for an hour when the credits started rolling - a sign of a good film if you ask me.
I do not endorse the writing of film reviews for this website, I just felt that the fact all you need to be an oscar contender these days is the ability to not act or act bored, then we can all learn something here.
Well.
I just saw Brokeback Mountain, to support fellow Australian Heath Ledger.
Can I just say if that was his finest performance and that is all you need to be an Oscar contender - EVERYBODY STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING! Don't act!
I mean seriously, if all you have to do is emulate Billy-Bob Thornton from Swingblade or Switchblade minus the mental handicap, ad a crook neck and you have his performance.
The moments when he got emotional, I think were very nicely done, but by no means unattainable by any other actor nor something we haven't seen in many other films this year.
Jack Gyllenhall was slightly better, giving his usual Doe-eyed performance. We all feel sorry for this lad whatever film he does. Whether its for choosing to do The Day After Tomorrow or for playing the emotionally retarded Donnie Darko. This boy has got range and skill and he displays a bit of that range in this film. I think this would be another Philadelphia if Ledger wins and Gyllenhalls not even mentioned. Denzel deserved that oscar, but Hanks walked away with it. Instead Denzel gets it for Training Day? I mean come on!!!
Onto th rest of the review:
In all, the production was very Ang Lee (Surprising since it was directed by the man). Minamalistic in Dialogue, Beautiful scenery and cinematography.
The problem is, the movie went half an hour too long, many people in the auditorium getting restless, shifting, coughing and the like (and no that was not because of the uncomfortable experience of two men having simulated sex onscreen). Too many moments of beautiful nature shots, unnecessary pauses.
I will say it had one or two poignant moments, but overall the film seems to be a visually stunning advert for the Wilderness of the USA and the hardships of the ranchers/cowboys.
Michelle Williams looked grotty and unkempt, suiting her character and she was the person I sympathised with the most, giving an honest and earthy performance.
Anne Hathaway was a surprise - nice to see her out of the usual fairytale princess role, though by the time her character was thirty, she still looked angel faced and youthful. The only person that seemed to age in the production was Jake Gyllenhall and this was through the colouring of his hair and a moustache.
We complain in amateur theatre if a person doesn't look old if they play old and the same in professional theatre as well I am sure, so how do these people get away with it? If they didn't have the date changes on the screen, I would have assumed the movie took place over a couple of weeks according to how the leads aged (of course the children would have blown that theory)
To create a 2 hour ten minute movie from a 25 page short story, great work, but I think Mr Lee pushed a little too hard, trying to weigh scenes down with symbolism, depth or something that just wasn't necessary. Especially when their defence is that it isn't a gay cowboy movie but a movie about two people falling in love. I don't think I have seen such a weighty love story since Elliot Gould in "Little Murders" in which I cried simply because it was one of the most confusing and aggrovating films I have ever seen.
Oscar Contender Heath, Ang and the film itself? Not really deserving.
A nice film, though overly long (which I recall a local production getting criticised for that late last year) but no better than Rom Com "Family Stone" or even "Chicken Little" I had more fun in both of those films, was moved to tears in the first and both times thought the movie had only been going for an hour when the credits started rolling - a sign of a good film if you ask me.
I do not endorse the writing of film reviews for this website, I just felt that the fact all you need to be an oscar contender these days is the ability to not act or act bored, then we can all learn something here.
Re: Brokeback - I know it's a movie but...
Mon, 6 Feb 2006, 07:04 pmWalter Plinge
I agree, understated acting can be dificult to pull off, however, I feel the line between understated and not actually giving a performance is very fine and I believe both Ledger and Bana unfortunately stepped over the line more often than not in their respective films. It's not enough to give (as I believe I may have mentioned) a copy cat performance of Billy-Bob Thornton from Slingblade with your voice and mouth positioning and then back it up with absolutely nothing.
However to say both Jake and Heath pulled it off is contradictory as Jake, whom I feel gave a more believeable and honest performance, was playing a human being, with thoughts, feelings, emotions that were hardly understated.
Sandra - Depending on your theory of theatrical acting and the shows you choose to see and whom they are directed by will vary the style of acting you will see. The theory or realism in the theatre has been described as many to be the most unrealistic form of theatre - How often in real life does the phone get answered after the first ring, do the kids be quiet when they leave the room, does a kettle boil in one minute just in time for the visitor's monologue to begin holding the cup of tea? There is a marked difference between the realism on screen and that on stage. The people you see on screen you empathise with more, you follow their journeys from start to end, from episode to episode, you feel for them, begin to predict what the character would do based on what you have learnt. You get to know the character. Even the bad people, wanting the villain to get away with the crime in some movies. A good actor (with the help of the director) can draw an audience into their story. In a realistic theatrical performance the same could be said for the most part. There is however, only a small difference between not acting on screen and not acting on stage. If the actor isn't acting, there is no bond, there is no predicting, there is no journey from start to end. Most of the time the actor looks to be contemplating his or her next line.
I won't say Heath looked like he was contemplating his next line (as there were too few of them to contemplate) He just didn't look like anything. Even when someone eats food, they think. When they look at country side, animals, men they like dislike or love, they are thinking something, hopefully feeling it too, but this didn't come across at all in Heath's performance. Can you honestly say you were drawn into Heath's performance? And if you were, was it more than you were drawn into Jake's or perhaps any other lead actor you have seen in a film this year?
As for appreciating a subtle side to a cinemati experience - I totally agree, but there is also a line between subtlety and drawing out a film with long pauses and good cinematography.
Oscar contender? Why? What makes this so unique or special? I have had this discussion with several people and they tend to say it is because it is depicting love between two men. My answer is, what makes that different to depicting a difficult relationship between two women, one man one woman or whatever? There is nothing unique about this piece excepting it is a gay love story.
I once had a discussion with a young gay actor who said that a lot of oscar nominees get nominated for playing mentally handicapped or physically handicapped or gay people. Look at Tom Hanks for Forrest Gump and Philadelphia, or Russell Crowe for Beautiful Mind, Charlize Theron for Monster I can't remember his exact phrasing but it came across like playing a gay character is like playing a handicapped person which I just can't understand. Especially coming from him. Isn't a gay man or a lesbian a normal person, so what is so hard to play that they deserve an award for it?
I believe Christian Bale gave a better performance for his portrayal of Batman (as did Michael Keaton who gave one of the most amazing and understated performances I have ever seen in his version) than Heath and yet He wasn't nominated. Tobey Maguire in Spiderman - a huge hit with audiences, a fantastic portrayal (as he gives in most of his films) but he wasn't nominated. Onto a different Genre - Coach Carter with Samuel L Jackson. A very able performance, stirring, powerful. Nominated? No. Back to Philadelphia Why wasn't Denzel Nominated? He carried the film? He had the most turmoil as a character, most screen time. Why wasn't he nominated as Best Actor yet Tom Hanks was?
As for the film istelf, the movie Serenity - A science fiction film of all things, brilliantly pieced together, the characters, the actors, the story, the effects, the cinematography. It is a piece of art. This is only hearsay but I have had many people tell me they believed this to be one of the best, most honest pieces of work released this year. B-grade television actors completing a film and they all did a fantastic job. But not an oscar contender. Of course not, it's a sci-fi film.
So is Brokeback an oscar contender because it is a gay love story?
Family Stone - Romantic Comedy yes, but it had a lot of heart and story in it. The leads may not give the best performances, but the supports are fantastic. Rachel McAdams is brilliant (in most things she does). All I am saying is don't write them off, because you could be missing films that are or should be oscar contenders or have oscar contender actors in them but are neglected because they don't have harrowing storylines, which does not make them any worse in cinematography, acting ability, direction or anything else - yet very rarely are they considered for oscars. One of the few I can think of is Shakespeare in Love and there was sooo much hoo-haa about the winners of the oscars in that.
And finally I totally agree about the Chicken Little stereotyping. Unfortunately I believe it is because it makes children laugh (and many adults too) But the best performance is from the Mute "weirdo" aptly named Fish Out of Water, very misunderstood, yet the most knowing of the group.
However to say both Jake and Heath pulled it off is contradictory as Jake, whom I feel gave a more believeable and honest performance, was playing a human being, with thoughts, feelings, emotions that were hardly understated.
Sandra - Depending on your theory of theatrical acting and the shows you choose to see and whom they are directed by will vary the style of acting you will see. The theory or realism in the theatre has been described as many to be the most unrealistic form of theatre - How often in real life does the phone get answered after the first ring, do the kids be quiet when they leave the room, does a kettle boil in one minute just in time for the visitor's monologue to begin holding the cup of tea? There is a marked difference between the realism on screen and that on stage. The people you see on screen you empathise with more, you follow their journeys from start to end, from episode to episode, you feel for them, begin to predict what the character would do based on what you have learnt. You get to know the character. Even the bad people, wanting the villain to get away with the crime in some movies. A good actor (with the help of the director) can draw an audience into their story. In a realistic theatrical performance the same could be said for the most part. There is however, only a small difference between not acting on screen and not acting on stage. If the actor isn't acting, there is no bond, there is no predicting, there is no journey from start to end. Most of the time the actor looks to be contemplating his or her next line.
I won't say Heath looked like he was contemplating his next line (as there were too few of them to contemplate) He just didn't look like anything. Even when someone eats food, they think. When they look at country side, animals, men they like dislike or love, they are thinking something, hopefully feeling it too, but this didn't come across at all in Heath's performance. Can you honestly say you were drawn into Heath's performance? And if you were, was it more than you were drawn into Jake's or perhaps any other lead actor you have seen in a film this year?
As for appreciating a subtle side to a cinemati experience - I totally agree, but there is also a line between subtlety and drawing out a film with long pauses and good cinematography.
Oscar contender? Why? What makes this so unique or special? I have had this discussion with several people and they tend to say it is because it is depicting love between two men. My answer is, what makes that different to depicting a difficult relationship between two women, one man one woman or whatever? There is nothing unique about this piece excepting it is a gay love story.
I once had a discussion with a young gay actor who said that a lot of oscar nominees get nominated for playing mentally handicapped or physically handicapped or gay people. Look at Tom Hanks for Forrest Gump and Philadelphia, or Russell Crowe for Beautiful Mind, Charlize Theron for Monster I can't remember his exact phrasing but it came across like playing a gay character is like playing a handicapped person which I just can't understand. Especially coming from him. Isn't a gay man or a lesbian a normal person, so what is so hard to play that they deserve an award for it?
I believe Christian Bale gave a better performance for his portrayal of Batman (as did Michael Keaton who gave one of the most amazing and understated performances I have ever seen in his version) than Heath and yet He wasn't nominated. Tobey Maguire in Spiderman - a huge hit with audiences, a fantastic portrayal (as he gives in most of his films) but he wasn't nominated. Onto a different Genre - Coach Carter with Samuel L Jackson. A very able performance, stirring, powerful. Nominated? No. Back to Philadelphia Why wasn't Denzel Nominated? He carried the film? He had the most turmoil as a character, most screen time. Why wasn't he nominated as Best Actor yet Tom Hanks was?
As for the film istelf, the movie Serenity - A science fiction film of all things, brilliantly pieced together, the characters, the actors, the story, the effects, the cinematography. It is a piece of art. This is only hearsay but I have had many people tell me they believed this to be one of the best, most honest pieces of work released this year. B-grade television actors completing a film and they all did a fantastic job. But not an oscar contender. Of course not, it's a sci-fi film.
So is Brokeback an oscar contender because it is a gay love story?
Family Stone - Romantic Comedy yes, but it had a lot of heart and story in it. The leads may not give the best performances, but the supports are fantastic. Rachel McAdams is brilliant (in most things she does). All I am saying is don't write them off, because you could be missing films that are or should be oscar contenders or have oscar contender actors in them but are neglected because they don't have harrowing storylines, which does not make them any worse in cinematography, acting ability, direction or anything else - yet very rarely are they considered for oscars. One of the few I can think of is Shakespeare in Love and there was sooo much hoo-haa about the winners of the oscars in that.
And finally I totally agree about the Chicken Little stereotyping. Unfortunately I believe it is because it makes children laugh (and many adults too) But the best performance is from the Mute "weirdo" aptly named Fish Out of Water, very misunderstood, yet the most knowing of the group.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···