LeapBackBlog 2012 Film Awards – Part 4: Leading Performances

Film in 2012 may not have been quite as strong overall as 2011, but right at the top there were a lot of good and very entertaining films. 2012 also featured many wonderful performances, particularly among men (many great performances that would have made my lists in past years were sadly left off). The LeapBackBlog Film Awards are comprised of what I think were the best and most interesting films, the strongest performances (taking into consideration who the actor is and what else they have done), the narrative style that drew me in (best directing), and exquisite craftsmanship (best technical achievements). But really, these are lists of my favorites from the year.

Part 1: Technical Achievements

Part 2: Supporting Performances

Part 3: Directors

Part 5: Films

Christian Bale – The Dark Knight Rises

Reprising his role as Bruce Wayne/Batman for the third time, Christian Bale is again astonishing in The Dark Knight Rises (in what is easily an overlooked performance given the genre and how seamlessly and natural Bale plays the character). While in the past two films Wayne is a pillar of strength in the community, here Bale plays him as a broken man, both figuratively and literally. Even when he returns to being Batman, his heart is not really in it anymore, and Bale lets the audience see his crushed will and injured spirit while still putting on the guise of confidence and strength. This only makes his true return all the more dramatically powerful. Bale is known for his brilliant performances (films like American Psycho, Rescue Dawn, and The Fighter), and while this might not be as flashy it is equally as layered and just as strong.

Jessica Chastain – Zero Dark Thirty

Jessica Chastain had a breakout year in 2011 and has followed it up with another strong year. Playing Maya the CIA agent in the field that devotes herself totally for over a decade to finding and killing Osama bin Laden, she is brilliant in Zero Dark Thirty (and will likely win an Oscar for her work). She has the tough role of being strong even in the most emotionally crippling situations, but also must be vulnerable enough to let the audience in – and she finds the perfect balance. Chastain also captures the toll that the stress and drive takes on Maya. She has a very bright career ahead of her, as she is already among the best actress working right now.

Bradley Cooper – Silver Linings Playbook

Who knew Bradley Cooper was capable of such a good performances? Well, David O. Russell apparently. Cooper gives the best performance of his career to date in Silver Linings Playbook as Pat (which should open doors for better leading man work for him in the future and not just crappy romantic comedies). Cooper plays Pat with a mix of compassion and hostile energy. The performance seems to constantly teeter on the edge of completely exploding with nervous rage, which absolutely pulls the audience in. But, the audience also likes Pat and is behind him because they see that Pat is capable of love and really does want to get his life together. It is very strong work by Cooper (in a year with at least fifteen or so male leading performances could have made this list).  

Marion Cotillard – Rust and Bone

Aside from the practical challenge of playing a character that loses both her legs below the knee, Marion Cotillard also has to play the deep depression felt by her character Stephanie in Rust and Bone. What makes the performance so compelling is Stephanie’s emotional journey back. Cotillard is phenomenal, as she perfectly captures the strength and drive of Stephanie. The audience is heartbroken and inspired all in the same dramatic arc. Cotillard is also very good in Little White Lies and The Dark Knight Rises this year.

Daniel Day-Lewis – Lincoln

Daniel Day-Lewis is not so much playing a character in a film as much as he seems to be channeling Abraham Lincoln in Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln. It seems silly to say that, as I have no idea what Lincoln was actually like or how he sounded when he talked, but Day-Lewis just seems so completely lost in the character that it does not even occur to me that he is not actually Lincoln. That is what he does, he just becomes his characters, and is maybe the greatest actor working right now.

Keira Knightley – Anna Karenina

Keira Knightley just seems to excel in costume period dramas, especially when working with Joe Wright. Anna Karenina is their third collaboration together. Knightley is able to bring the extreme highs and lows of Anna’s tragic relationship with Count Vronsky to life by completely giving herself over to the role. Anna thinks she is above high society and can live outside their rules, only to pay the price and lose everything. Knightley pulls the audience in with her naïve charm and strength, and breaks their heart with her fall, filled with crazed fits of jealousy and anguish. Though she gets a lot of criticism (especially among English journalists, who often try to tear down their own), she has really emerged as one of the top actresses of her generation with continued great work.

Jennifer Lawrence – Silver Linings Playbook

Jennifer Lawrence had a great 2012. She starred in a huge blockbuster in The Hunger Games cementing her as one of Hollywood’s biggest young female stars (probably with Emma Stone, Kristen Stewart, and Emma Watson) and she was nominated for her second Oscar in Silver Linings Playbook. She is brilliant in the film, bringing a ton of energy and strength to the role of Tiffany, a young widow also dealing with mental issues. She is electric, making ever scene better and stealing the film (which also features great work from Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro). It is my favorite female leading performance of the year.

Leslie Mann – This Is 40

This Is 40 takes both a realistic and comically exaggerated look at modern relationships. At its center is a fantastic performance by Leslie Mann, who plays Debbie – a mom and wife who just wants her life to be perfect and tries to control everything around her to make it so, but this leaves her feeling frustrated, disappointed, and ultimately unhappy as things fall short of her expectations. Mann, however, is great in the film because she also can see her own flaws and wants to change, it is just difficult, which brings a very relatable aspect to her performance – the relationship troubles in the film between Debbie and Pete are almost too real for a comedy (and that is thanks to the good work by Mann and Paul Rudd).

Joaquin Phoenix – The Master

Freddie Quell, Joaquin Phoenix’s character in The Master, is an absolute scoundrel. His destructive nature ruins and destroys any possible good that might come his way, yet his struggle to find a place in post-WWII America is utterly compelling because Phoenix brings so much to the character. He is an unpredictable train wreck and the audience cannot take their eyes off him, wanting to see what he will do next, but there is also an inner depression that allows the audience to feel for him as well. It is my favorite male leading performance of the year.

Denzel Washington – Flight

The character of Whip Whitaker in Flight is one of the more difficult roles of 2012 because the character is an unlikable protagonist. Denzel Washington is able to get the audience behind Whip by bringing his usual swagger and confidence to the character. He also plays Whip to have a deep sadness behind the confidence, which allows the audience to sympathize and care about him even after his self-destructive behavior. Washington is so good in the film that the audience roots for him to come out on top, when he clearly has a problem and needs help. It is very good work and among Washington’s best.

Lincoln (2012) – Review

Review: Lincoln is a historical political drama built on wonderful performances and historical significance that still resonates today. The film is about President Abraham Lincoln’s battle within the House of Representatives to pass the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution (essentially making it illegal to own slaves, among other things) before the end of the Civil War (which, in its fourth year, saw the South beginning to wane considerably), as with the war ended it would be much more difficult (negotiating the peace with the South).

Director Steven Spielberg has structured the film to be essentially a political drama centered around the struggle to pass a piece of legislation – a historic piece of legislation but one nonetheless – and thus the connection to the main narrative journey for the audience comes from whether or not they care about the consequences if the legislation does not pass. Spielberg faces a difficult challenge from the start, as this being famous (in at least that everyone knows that Lincoln freed the slaves, in simple terms) informs the audience of the outcome before the film even starts. Thus, the audience must be drawn into the story by more than just the outcome of the narrative. Spielberg accomplishes this by also making the film a character piece focusing on Lincoln (not so much biographically looking at his career, but more about the man himself, his personality).

Looking first at how the film works as a political drama, excusing the fact that the audience already knows how it ends, the film achieves its narrative goals but lacks a powerful deeper dramatic impact. Its main flaw comes from how Spielberg manages the tone of the film. For the most part, the film is presented as a very serious drama with grave consequences to the actions of the characters, matching the backdrop of the very bloody and devastating Civil War ravishing the country – the stakes could not be higher. Plus, the importance of passing the amendment in the House quickly (as it had already been passed in the Senate), a main narrative point that sets the plot and characters in motion, stems from Lincoln’s understanding that the North mostly agrees that making slavery illegal will help end the war, but if the South is going to surrender in short order then the amendment is not necessarily essential (as Democrats and conservative Republicans do not support it as adamantly as liberal Republicans). Thus if the amendment is going to pass at all, it needs to happen before the South begins its surrender (and thus the urgency). Spielberg is able to convey how critical the urgency is, but Washington D.C. in the film seems unaffected by the war. Yes, there are graphic images of the war, but for the most part it feels very removed from the drama in the film. Spielberg uses an almost playful tone in many of the political scenes (especially those featuring Bilbo, Latham and Schell and their mission to buy votes – though, these are among the most fun moments in the film, but should we be talking about fun moments in a serious political drama?), which undermines the tension that he is otherwise building. The House is also comprised of laughable caricatures, with many of the representatives (particularly the Democrats) portrayed as exaggerated buffoons (again, how can the audience take the film seriously with characters such as these). The film at moments feels like a political farce, like In the Loop, and yet, again, the stakes could not be higher (is Spielberg really making a satire addressing today’s political climate?). It is as if Spielberg is worried that the film will be overly dramatically weighty and wants to infuse light moments into the narrative to allow the audience to breath (especially given the film’s long runtime). However, this is ultimately problematic because the audience no longer feels just how important the passing of the amendment is (even if they intellectually understand it) nor do they feel the grave pressure that the war is putting on all of the characters, as the whole political drama is presented to them as a satire of sorts tonally. The saving grace of the drama however comes in the form of a few serious characters that convey the full weight of what is going on (namely Thaddeus Stevens), but it is not quite enough.

 To compliment the political drama structure of the film, Spielberg lays a character study of Lincoln on top, giving the audience a look into the man. The tone of the character work juxtaposed to the political drama (satire) does not always mesh well (as the character stuff is seldom light), often leaving these moments of the film feeling overly tedious and slow (especially those involving Mary Todd Lincoln). Spielberg wants to give the audience a full understanding of Lincoln, not just his role in politics but also his personal life (reminding me of the HBO miniseries John Adams in this way). However, despite how good the performances are, the film is first structured as a political drama and thus the character moments should play into the narrative of getting the amendment passed (and for the most part they do), everything else is not needed. Lincoln’s interactions with his family, which Spielberg uses to develop the character, add very little to the film, even detracting from it greatly as they drag down the pacing, because they do not inform Lincoln’s decision-making process in regards to the main narrative, they are merely present as fluff (and thus unnecessary). It is as if Spielberg presents Lincoln as a great man accomplishing great things in spite of his personal family drama, even going so far as to have Mary say as much. Yet, Lincoln seems unaffected by his personal life when it comes to his handling of the affairs of state, which again makes these moments narratively and dramatically unneeded. The audience never feels the toll that his personal life has on him (because it seems to have none). Spielberg does have some great character moments as well, however, specifically those featuring one of Lincoln’s many stories (wonderfully illustrating both the man and his thoughts on particular matters). The stories reveal much more emotional character detail about Lincoln that resonates with the audience in relation to the film’s main narrative. If Spielberg wanted to dive deeper into the character, the film should have been structured as a character piece primarily, not centering all the dramatic tension and action on the passing of the amendment, or sought out a longer format to tell a more in-depth story (like a miniseries).

These two main faults do hold Lincoln back from being great, as despite its grand scale, social relevance and overall strong filmmaking (though, I would argue that the finale image in the film is very sloppy, including the awkward dissolve) it is far too tedious, infuriatingly so. The film is filled with beautiful, powerful and electric images and scenes, but is constantly undermined and compromised emotionally by slow pacing (resulting from a flabby secondary narrative) and an uneven tone.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Steven Spielberg is a master of Hollywood filmmaking. What that means is that he is the master of making grand event films that are both highly entertaining and dramatically impactful (regardless of the genre, be them blockbusters or serious dramas). With Lincoln, Spielberg certainly tries to achieve this balance, which probably accounts for the lighter tone and caricature-like characters in a number of the scenes juxtaposed to the serious social and political importance of the narrative – i.e. he is trying to make a blockbuster serious drama. However, the film is quite flawed, and thus should not be counted among his best Hollywood dramas (Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan and Munich), and yet it is still impressive.

John Williams’s score gives Lincoln an added emotional depth. It has a weight to it, which coveys to the audience the significance of the characters and events taking place. Williams also gives Lincoln a classic theme (maybe not among his best, but a fitting one nonetheless). Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski’s lighting gives the film an overall an almost cheerless feel, matching the season in which it is set (being the dead of winter) and general mood surrounding the country (that of devastating war). However, it does clash a bit with the tone at times. In terms of shot composition, Kaminski’s photography is fantastic. Lincoln is often cast in shadow or in silhouette, playing off his famous features. Rick Carter’s production design compliments the cinematography adding a very realistic grit and grim to the images. The world of 1865 was a very dirty place, and Spielberg, Carter and Kaminski are not afraid to present a more realistic look for the period (instead of the usual gloss that Hollywood films have) with faded colors, dirt and incessant shadows clouding everything in darkness and gloom. Overall, the film is very strong aesthetically.

The acting throughout Lincoln is very good (even if some of the performances tend towards the side of caricature). It has a massive supporting cast with many great and well-known actors. However, James Spader (sorting of playing an 1865 version of his The Office character Robert California) steals almost all his scenes and is very entertaining (the montage retellings of his Bilbo et al. acquiring votes is hilarious and completely engaging). Lee Pace (playing the vocally opposing Democrat Fernando Wood) is also fantastic and highly entertaining. David Strathairn (playing Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward, who was also targeted for assassination on April 14^th, 1865 but his assailant failed) has the difficult role of being the audience’s in to what is going on, being forced to mainly convey exposition and context. However, Strathairn is still very good often playing devil’s advocate to Lincoln. Sally Field has a thankless (and grating) role playing Mary Todd Lincoln, left to be an irritation (both for the audience and) in her husband’s life. She does accomplish being annoying (so I guess she played her role well?). Tommy Lee Jones is brilliant in the film, playing a man (Thaddeus Stevens) that must comprise his beliefs to ultimately take the first step forward. He is able to exist both in the exaggerated silliness of the House arguments and still maintain an emotional connection with the audience (it is quietly the best performance in the film). As always, Daniel Day-Lewis completely embodies his character (in this case Abraham Lincoln). Every line of dialog or movement feels organic. It is a tough task to take on such an iconic historical figure, but Day-Lewis brings so much humanity to Lincoln that the audience leaves the film feeling like they really got a sense of the man.

Summary & score: Lincoln in many ways is a triumph and a disappointment. 7/10

Movie of the Week – There Will Be Blood

This week’s movie is There Will Be Blood (2007).

The drama is about Daniel Plainview, a turn-of-the-century oil man whose lust for greed, competitive spirit and hatred for fellow man leads to a confrontation with a small-time religious figure, Eli Sunday, whose church sits in the town of Little Boston and whose patrons have land under which there is tons of oil that Plainview wants to get at. The film is the fifth from writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson (and probably my favorite of his, though I do also really like Magnolia). It has some of the best aesthetics of any recent film, with a magnificent score by Jonny Greenwood, Oscar winning cinematography from Robert Elswit (though, Roger Deakins could have won for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and No Country for Old Men or Seamus McGarvey for Atonement too, as their work is also brilliant) and great production designer from Jack Fisk (giving it a Terrence Malick feel). Daniel Day-Lewis stars giving an incredible performance (probably one of the five greatest performances of the decade), and Paul Dano is good in support. Ciaran Hinds is also good in a small role. While there is an element of a western tone to the film, it mostly plays as a platform for two great characters to clash. Typically in a narrative, the protagonist will go on a journey that changes him or teaches him something, but here with Plainview he just becomes more entrenched in his own mania (which is great for us, the viewers, as it is utterly compelling). In many ways the film reminds me of Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon. It is a must-see for fans of P.T. Anderson and brilliant character performances. Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD and Streaming

Movie of the Week – The Last of the Mohicans

This week’s movie is The Last of the Mohicans (1992).

The drama is about Nathaniel Poe, a white-man raised by the Mohican tribe. He and the last two remaining members of their people get caught up in the French and Indian War after they come across a British Major and two women who are being attached by a French-aligned Indian war party. The film is directed by Michael Mann, serving as his first epic (though not his first film) and the beginning of his string of great movies to present (I include Miami Vice in the list, many do not). It is based on the novel by James Fenimore Cooper. Mann has a fantastic group with him including composers Randy Edelman and Trevor Jones (whose score is iconic, here is an example), brilliant cinematographer Dante Spinotti (who also shot Heat, The Insider and Public Enemies for Mann) and production designer Wolf Kroeger. It stars Daniel Day-Lewis, and features supporting work from Madeleine Stowe, Russell Means, Eric Schweig, Jodhi May, Steven Waddington, and Wes Studi. The film has aspects of a war drama, but seems to really be a romance at its core. Though, many of the best scenes feature intense battles. Mann also does a wonderful job of fleshing out his characters, including many of the supporting parts. The film has a powerful dramatic impact as the result of the great character work. The Last of the Mohicans certainly is not Mann’s best work (that is probably Heat), but it is his first great film. It is a must-see for fans of epic dramas and war dramas. Check out the trailer.

Available on DVD and Streaming