Much as I enjoyed The Fighter -- and its uncharacteristically broad performances by Christian Bale, Amy Adams and Melissa Leo -- when I read the Oscar nominations yesterday and saw that the three supporting actors all got nods but that the lead (and title character) Mark Wahlberg did not, it confirmed a long-held suspicion that what gets honored during awards season is the most acting rather than the best acting.
Bale alluded to this when he accepted his Golden Globe for the role of Dicky Eklund, the jittery and strung-out half-brother of welterweight contender Micky Ward (Wahlberg). Bale said something to the effect that"loud" performances like his would not be possible without "quiet" ones like Wahlberg's, and that in the past he had delivered quiet performances and seen the loud ones get the attention. (He was referring to his implosive Batman in The Dark Knight, which won the explosive Heath Ledger a posthumous Oscar.)
As the loudmouthed matriarch of the Eklund/Ward clan, Melissa Leo likewise gives a "loud" performance, one that wags refer to as "Hey, chowdahheads, gimme tha Oscah!" And so does Amy Adams, bossy and prickly where usually she is deferential and sweet. Oscar likes acting that looks like acting rather than acting that is the invisible disappearance of actor into role. Oscar likes change-of-pace performances, when good-looking performers gain weight and deglamorize, as with Robert De Niro in Raging Bull and Charlize Theron in Monster.
Given this year's nominees, this bias favors Bale and Leo in the supporting roles and Colin Firth (The King's Speech) and Natalie Portman (Black Swan) in the lead roles. But I would be happy to see the more modulated work of Annette Bening (best actress nominee for The Kids Are All Right) and Hailee Steinfeld (supporting nominee for True Grit) be rewarded.
Your thoughts?
I wouldn't say that Firth's work is really the same type of "pay attention to me" acting that the others you mention are, but yes, subtlety doesn't usually pay off at the Oscars. DeNiro in Raging Bull, despite the physical changes, isn't really a showy performance. It's still stunning even today and up there with Brando in On the Waterfront as one of the greatest screen performances of all time. DeNiro going over-the-top is what he did in Cape Fear. One of the few recent examples of a subtle performance winning out was Adrien Brody for The Pianist, though I think he was helped by the fact that he was up against four men who had 7 Oscars already between them. The bias against subtlety though really shows in their snubbing of Andrew Garfield for The Social Network. I'd toss Ruffalo or Renner for him.— edwardcopeland- all things considered would like to see jeremy renner win— robbie r
- I could not take my eyes off of Bale. He was mesmerizing, as was Leo. The Oscars are not awards of objectivity. I think the winners are often chosen with emotion and favoritism despite trying hard not to be.... When you and Rea do the "Who WILL Win vs. Who SHOULD Win" column, you acknowledge that fact (to me anyway....) But I do not disagree with you: the quiet ones often do not get the recognition they deserve, kinda like in real life, too.— giggles
- I was tired of Bale's histrionics in THE FIGHTER even before the opening credits. Leo over-emoted as well. I thought Adams was the best thing in it. (Wahlberg is an actor who has two modes--silence (see THE FIGHTER, LOVELY BONES) or rage (see THE DEPARTED). I thought Firth was better in A SINGLE MAN. Geoffrey Rush gave the Best Supporting Performance in KING'S SPEECH. And Tilda Swinton in I AM LOVE was better than Portman and (sorry, Carrie) Benning. I still think the nominations are always more interesting than the winners.— garyk
- VIEWED
- Commented
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
