Top 25 Performances of the Decade So Far (2010-2014) – March 2015

Picking the 50 best films of the decade so far was incredibly hard, but this was far more difficult. Every year there is a ton of very strong work to choose from – some performances are just incredible, and those are the easy ones to pick, but for the most part there are a lot of performances that just as easily could have made this list. I have put an “*” next to my favorite performance from each year. Anyway, here are my picks:

2010

Christian Bale, a supporting role in The Fighter*

Claire Danes, a leading role in Temple Grandin

Tom Hardy, a supporting performance in Inception

Natalie Portman, a leading Role in Black Swan

2011

Kirsten Dunst, a leading performance in Melancholia

Michael Fassbender, a leading performance in Shame

Rooney Mara, a leading performance in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo*

Carey Mulligan, a supporting performance in Shame

2012

Jessica Chastain, a leading performance in Zero Dark Thirty

Daniel Day-Lewis, a leading performance in Lincoln

Jennifer Lawrence, a leading performance in Silver Linings Playbook

Joaquin Phoenix, a leading performance in The Master*

2013

Cate Blanchett, a leading performance in Blue Jasmine*

Leonardo DiCaprio, a leading performance in The Wolf of Wall Street

Chiwetel Ejiofor, a leading performance in 12 Years a Slave

Adele Exarchopoulos, a leading performance in Blue is the Warmest Color

Michael Fassbender, a supporting performance in 12 Years a Slave

Brie Larson, a leading performance in Short Term 12

Mads Mikkelsen, a leading performance in The Hunt

Lupita Nyong’o, a supporting performance in 12 Years a Slave

2014

Ralph Fiennes, a leading performance in The Grand Budapest Hotel

Edward Norton, a supporting performance in Birdman

Rosamnd Pike, a leading performance in Gone Girl*

Eddie Redmayne, a leading performance in The Theory of Everything

Mark Ruffalo, a supporting performance in Foxcatcher

LeapBackBlog 2013 Film Awards – Part 4: Leading Performances

Film in 2013 was fantastic. We saw tons of wonderful performances, powerfully emotional dramas, hysterical comedies, gripping thrillers, big and entertaining blockbusters, and grand technical achievements. This year was particularly difficult in narrowing down my choices for my favorite films, performances, directors, and technical accomplishments. For example, I loved Amy Acker in Much Ado About Nothing and Oscar Isaac in Inside Llewyn Davis, but neither quite made the list, and the same can be said for David O. Russell’s wonderful directing in American Hustle or Hoyte Van Hoytema’s sublime cinematography in Her (both just missing out on the list, when they would have made it in most other years). And, there are a number of good films that did not make the list either (and a few I have not yet seen). As it stands, the LeapBackBlog Film Awards are made up, through difficult deliberation, of the films that entertained me and grabbed me as something special, the performances that engaged me, and the craftsmanship that delighted me. These are my favorites of 2013.

Part 1: Technical Achievements

Part 2: Supporting Performances

Part 3: Directors

Part 5: Films

Amy Adams – American Hustle

American Hustle is a con film, and like every con there needs to be something or someone that draws your attention away and makes you believe an untrue truth. Amy Adams serves this role in the film playing Sydney Prosser, an American who poses as the elegant British aristocrat Lady Greensley. Adams is fantastic in the role, and even has the audience questioning what is real and which emotions are true, setting up a great reveal and thus making the con work. Adams also uses a very bombastic wardrobe to grab the audience’s (and her mark’s) attention, pulling them him with her smile and a bit of skin. But it is all for show, as it is Prosser’s wit that is her best attribute. Adams had a prolific 2013, which included standout work in not only American Hustle but also in Man of Steel and Her.

Christian Bale – American Hustle

Christian Bale is an actor who just disappears into his characters (and has been a frequent name to pop up on my LeapBackBlog Film Awards), often physically transforming himself to fit the character, and Irving Rosenfeld is no different. American Hustle is a film of big performances, costumes, and hairstyles, but Bales keeps Rosenfeld grounded as the film’s emotional center. He is the character the audience can connect with and relate to – he is their in. Bale has genuine compassion in his performance, an emotional honestly that the audience can latch onto even when everything else seems to be living in the excesses that make the film what it is and a lot of fun. Without Bale’s great performance, to counterbalance the other bigger performances, the film may have collapsed in on itself, as something too remote and disengaged. His is the least flashy, but maybe the best of the performances in the film.

Cate Blanchett – Blue Jasmine

Oscar frontrunner (and likely eventual winner) Cate Blanchett is masterful in Blue Jasmine. Her character Jasmine is a woman who is in the midst of a psychological breakdown, and thus Blanchett in a sense needs to create two characters. The first is a prominent, sophisticated woman of means who gracefully and elegantly handles herself, while the other is a woman at the end of her tether a hair-pull away from being completely lost. Blanchett takes these two characters and smashes them together to create Jasmine, a woman who is in moments magnetic and commanding, completely radiant, and then in other moments a wreck, turning to alcohol and pills to forget/escape. It is fascinating yet uncomfortable and sort of tragic to watch. This is undoubtedly a deft and clever performance (one that could not have been played better by anyone else).

Sandra Bullock – Gravity

Sandra Bullock gives one of the year’s most physically challenging performances in Gravity. To create a realistic feeling zero-g environment, Bullock needed to work with puppeteers for what must have been very demanding days, mentally and physically. Her performance as Dr. Ryan Stone is the best of her career to date. She is just superb, having to convey everything with just her eyes, face, voice, and breathing for large portions of the film. She, like the film itself, is utterly enthralling. The audience lives and dies with her, holding onto every emotional moment – her journey becoming their own. Even though Gravity is a film built upon and largely succeeding on its amazing visuals, all of that splendor would have been lost without Bullocks stellar work.

Leonardo DiCaprio – The Wolf of Wall Street

Watching The Wolf of Wall Street, it is clear that Leonardo DiCaprio is having a blast with his character Jordan Belfort (regardless of whether or not he likes the man). DiCaprio has fully committed to the insane quality of the film and Belfort’s lifestyle, creating a performance that is maybe 2013’s most entertaining. His work is hilarious, but what makes it special is that DiCaprio still keeps the character grounded and creates a person who feels real to the audience despite the craziness that surrounds him (yes, Jordan Belfort is a real person, but it is doubtful that most audience members have heard of him, so in that way the film might as well be fiction). DiCaprio even gets the audience to get behind his character (a mostly despicable man) and root for him. How? Well, he is able to make the man resonate for the audience through emotional honesty in the performance. It is really fantastic work.

Chiwetel Ejiofor – 12 Years a Slave

There is a real strength to Chiwetel Ejiofor’s performances as Solomon Northup in 12 Years a Slave. He is a man who refuses to be beaten down, to submit to a life that is not his own. This determination both makes his life harder, as just cannot keep his head down constantly calling attention to himself, and ultimately is his saving grace, as he just will not give up until he is reunited with his family. It is impossible to imagine the struggle Northup was forced to undertake (I cannot even begin to create it on any level for myself – it is just too devastating, and I think I would not survive it), and yet Ejiofor’s brilliance brings the audience in and gives them a conduit by which they can take on the experience, and envision themselves in Northup’s place: taking on his pain, feeling his loss, and finally fighting too with his determination so that they too can feel the wave of alleviation wash over them, knowing that they are finally free again. Northup’s circumstances are heartbreaking, and through Ejiofor’s compelling work the audience experiences everything fully, but he was one of the lucky ones. What makes 12 Years a Slave all the more agonizing is that though Northup does eventually get is freedom again so many are left to toil away in dire chains of forced servitude.

Greta Gerwig – Frances Ha

Greta Gerwig is so very charming in Frances Ha, giving a performances that is utterly fun and joyful, yet still emotionally complex. Frances is a girl living in New York trying to find her way, and thus the film serves as a coming-of-age story (even though Frances is mostly an adult already). Gerwig has a fantastic nervous energy throughout. She wants so desperately to embrace life fully, but is at the same time guarded expecting failure and disappointment. This energy creates a very funny vibe to the character that is both entertaining and endearing for the audience. While there are good supporting performances in the film, Frances Ha almost exists as a one-woman show with Gerwig delivering dramatically and certainly comically at the center.

Michael B. Jordan – Fruitvale Station

Recreating a real person is always a little tricky. Michael B. Jordan breathes life into and pays tribute to Oscar Grant (whose life was tragically taken too soon). Fruitvale Station is one of the year’s most emotionally powerful films, and Jordan’s performance is at its center, its driving force. For the film to work, Jordan needed to convey the duality of Grant’s life – a man who was a loving father and good person and a man who still found himself pulled back into the street life (no matter how hard he tried to escape) and all that comes with it (including an attitude). The film speaks to racism still being a constant issue in America, but to escape clichés and to garner a true emotional connection with its audience the film also needed to work on a human level and not just spout lofty ideals. Jordan’s performance does connect deeply with the audience, as he presents a fully fleshed out character. His performance is so good that the film incites action in the audience, as seeing Grant’s death (a man the audience has come to care about) at the hands of overwhelmed transit police officers is just too unthinkably tragic and completely avoidable.

Brie Larson – Short Term 12

Brie Larson is magnificent in Short Term 12 playing Grace, a caretaker at the facility for at-risk youths. It is not only a glowing breakthrough for Larson (reaffirming for those who already know her work and announcing for those who do not that she is a very talented young actress with a bright future), but also possibly 2013’s best performance (right there with Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine and Chiwetel Ejiofor in 12 Years a Slave). Larson gives a very brave performance as Grace, completely committing emotionally (which must have been very taxing) to a character that is very guarded with deep emotional wounds. Larson pulls the audience in so entirely that her emotional journey is felt fully by each viewer as well, giving the film its power. It is wonderful work that has shamefully been overlooked by many (yes, I am looking at all of you Oscar voters). Larson was also very good in supporting roles in The Spectacular Now and Don Jon in 2013.

Joaquin Phoenix – her 

Theodore Twombly is a character that easily could have been over simplified as being just a sad mope or a weird quirky guy. Joaquin Phoenix brings so much to the character, giving a beautifully complex performance in Her. Theodore is in some respects an everyman – someone the audience can relate to – as he is just like all of us: he is social, has hopes and fears, but is melancholy due to his somewhat recent breakup with his wife. Phoenix is able to emote so fully that the audience finds themselves right there with him emotionally (which all you can really ask from a performance): they laugh when he laughs; they feel pain when he hurts; and they feel hopefully when his future looks a little brighter. It is a subtle performance (that many seem to have overlooked) but nonetheless extraordinary.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) – Review

Review: The Wolf of Wall Street is an insane, hysterical, and utterly compelling look at the American Dream (i.e. what has become a culture of consumerism and materialism run amuck). The film is about Jordan Belfort, a stockbroker who worked his way up from peddling penny stocks to owning and running his own brokerage firm – making millions of dollars in the process, allowing him to live a lavish and extravagantly debauched lifestyle. However, not all his business practices are legal, leading to an FBI investigation. Belfort has the money to fight it, but will his ego allow him to skate under the radar?

With The Wolf of Wall Street, director Martin Scorsese has made a new kind of gangster film, one that somewhat adheres to the genre conventions (the rise from nothing to become powerful, not being able to walk away, and the eventual fall), but plays so much more audacious. In some ways, the film feels a lot like Casino (minus all the violence). It is essentially the story of a man who can see all the angles (in this case the ability to sell anything to anyone) but is ultimately pulled down and betrayed by those closest to him.

It works very well in this way as a character piece, but what makes it so electric and engaging is that Scorsese brings the audience into a world and into the psyche of a man that are held as the ideal in popular culture (extreme wealth and privilege and all that comes with it – who does not dream about being grotesquely rich) only to twist it revealing the drug and sex fueled cultural underbelly of Wall Street, and the men and women who operate seemingly without morals to make as much money as possible while exploiting their most exaggerated desires, degrading humanity with the power of their cash. It is a world that seems so enticing, even in its darkest, most dehumanizing moments. The audience is as much thrilled as they are shocked and/or incensed by what Scorsese shows them. This wildly inappropriate lifestyle (compared to their normal average daily lives) just seems too much fun (even if they hate to admit it), despite being utterly shallow and vain. If only for a moment, the audience is swept up by the striking charisma of Belfort and lose themselves in the never-ending party (much like Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby).

What makes the film so much different than Scorsese’s past gangster films however is that The Wolf of Wall Street, while structurally abiding to the formula, plays as a comedy – an insane and amazing comedy. The film is probably the funniest film of 2013. Scorsese is also completely fearless with the material. He allows scenes to be milked for every piece of comedic gold (something that often pays off with great and wonderful rewards – for example the whole sequence following Belford’s consumption of the lemon Quaaludes). Scorsese also goes big with the performances he garners, which fits the tone fantastically. Everything feels a bit over the top, yet everything works perfectly within the context of the tone and the narrative. Scorsese is able to find the perfect balance of comedy and character.

However, the film is not going to work for everyone. It is extremely graphic and crude, which will have a polarizing effect. Belfort is also a mostly unlikable character. He is downright despicable, in fact. And yet, Scorsese’s direction and Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance create a man who completely commands the screen, and like with the best antiheroes in film history the audience cannot help but find themselves rooting for him (despite disagreeing with everything he is). Belfort is charismatic and charming – and even though the audience knows he is destined to fall (as that is what the genre dictates must happen), part of them wants to see him win. Although, some will find him unredeemable and will be unaffected by his charm, and for those viewers the film will likely lose a lot of its infectious appeal.

Something that is also very interesting about The Wolf of Wall Street is what it says about America (and really the rest of the world that is now also beginning to buy into the culture of materialism, consumerism, and plain greed). Really, there is nothing to like in these characters. All of them are awful people, but again the audience cannot help but find them and their lifestyle magnetic and alluring (even if it is soulless and empty). Have we as people become so consumed with greed that we want the world at the cost of everyone else? That is what Wall Street is founded on. It is an industry built on getting rich on clients’ money without regard for their wellbeing, yet clients continue to line up in droves. Trading stocks is no different than gambling for the average investor, and many brokers will say anything to push their product because all they care about is the commission (as the clients are already hooked by the thrill of the roll of the dice). The whole financial industry really is just a cesspool of greed, allowing the rich to great richer at the cost of everyone and everything else. Scorsese’s film clearly details the people and culture of this industry. As exaggerated as the film may appear, this is what Wall Street is actually like, what the people are actually like – and yet people continue to give them their money, because they too want their chance to be rich. Each stock holds the promise of something spectacular, just like the turn of each new card or throw of the dice. Humanity very well may already be lost – Scorsese is just reminding us how we got here.

The Wolf of Wall Street is completely entertaining. It is contagiously funny. Using charm and the allure of the American Dream, it pulls the viewer in, exposing them to the crazy world of the Wall Street broker – a world that is at the same time unbelievable, engrossing, and disgusting.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: The Wolf of Wall Street is everything one has come to expect from a Martin Scorsese gangster film, yet unlike anything else the director has done to date. The film grabs the viewer from the start and does not let them go until the credits – whether they are watching with giddy joy or shocked disgust. It is probably premature to say this (being that I have only seen the film once), but it might be my favorite Scorsese film (my other favorites are Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and The Departed). I just found it to be incredibly funny, captivating, and thoroughly compelling (and maybe it makes me deplorable, but I loved every minute of it).

Scorsese uses music extremely well in his films, and The Wolf of Wall Street is no different. The film features a fantastic soundtrack, with iconic songs that give the viewer a sense of the time period of each sequence and sets the stage tonally. Rodrigo Prieto’s cinematography is fantastic as well (probably the best work of his career to date). His collaboration with Scorsese gives the film a heightened feel, as if the characters and their world exist on a different plain of reality (which in many ways it does). Bob Shaw’s production design is also top notch. While the characters feel very big and maybe even overblown at times, his work seems to ground everything in reality, as everything looks and feels honest to the world.

The performances in the film are brilliant. Jean Dujardin is a lot of fun in a small supporting role, while Kyle Chandler brings a dose of ‘everyman’ to his supporting role as the FBI agent investigating Belfort. Jon Bernthal is great as Brad, a member of Belfrot’s inner circle. He plays the quintessential New Jersey meathead type. Matthew McConaughey is also fantastic as Belfort’s mentor and inductor into a world of loose morals and unbelievable greed (continuing his very strong year, which also includes Mud and Dallas Buyers Club). Newcomer Margot Robbie is wonderful as Belfort’s second wife Naomi. She almost steals every scene she is in – scenes opposite other brilliant actors and great performances – as she just pulls attention towards her (and not just because of her looks). She has a great energy epitomizing a person using whatever they have to socially climb. Jonah Hill also steals scenes as Belfort’s best friend and business partner Donnie (it is his best work to date). Hill plays Donnie to be just a complete asshole, constantly presenting himself as an antagonist in every situation. He is utterly unlikable, and yet so dynamic. Leonardo DiCaprio turns in one of his best performances as well as Belfort. At first he seems like a sincere, nice guy – but once he gets a taste of the lifestyle that money can afford him, the complete abandoning of morals is intoxicatingly freeing. He can do whatever he wants, literally (or so he feels). DiCaprio just has a lot of fun with the character, which in turn translates full on for the audience who also has fun with him.

Summary & score: The Wolf of Wall Street jumps off the screen, forcing the viewer to experience something powerful (be it sheer jovial excitement, utter amazement, scornful shock, or discernment). It is a modern masterwork that showcases the dark side of the American Dream. 9/10 

Movie of the Week – Revolutionary Road

This week’s movie: Revolutionary Road (2008).

Frank and April Wheeler have the life they thought they always wanted – a beautiful family, a nice suburban home, and a good job in the city. But each feels lost, the abyss of mundane life has swallowed them up. They desperately need a change. This story takes place in 1950s Connecticut.

Director Sam Mendes made what is probably his best film to date with Revolutionary Road. It is a scouring look at the myth of the 1950s’ ideal American family. Mendes is one of the great directors working today to come out of theatre – his other notably films include: American Beauty, Road to Perdition, and Skyfall. Mendes worked with a brilliant group of technicians on the film. Thomas Newman provides a strong score, while Roger Deakins delivers his patented wonderful photography (both are frequent collaborators of Mendes). Kristi Zea’s production designer is good as well.

The film stars Kate Winslet (who was Mendes’s wife at the time) and Leonardo DiCaprio each giving one of their career best performances. The film marks their on-screen reunion following Titanic. David Harbour, Kathy Bates, Kathryn Hahn, Zoe Kazan, Dylan Baker, and Michael Shannon (who is also electric) feature in support. Revolutionary Road is quietly one of the best acted films of the last decade, and yet only saw one Oscar nomination for acting (for Shannon, who lost to Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, who gave maybe the best performance of the decade; meanwhile Winslet was nominated and won that year for The Reader, but I would argue that she is even better in this).

Revolutionary Road is emotionally draining and deeply affecting, but it is also a must-see for fans of brilliantly directed and acted dramas.

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray and Video On-Demand

The Great Gatsby (2013) – Review

Review: The Great Gatsby is a lot of flash, and while that makes it entertaining it is not quite enough. The film is about Nick Carraway, a fresh face new to New York City who is enchanted by his wealthy mysterious neighbor Jay Gatsby. Carraway decides to help Gatsby try to win the love of his relation Daisy, who had an intimate fling with Gatsby before the war (WWI) but lost track of him. In the five years since, she has married a wealthy man from old money, Tom Buchanan, but does not seem completely happy. Carraway sees hope in Gatsby, which is important to him in the wake of a war that left many forever scarred and the world darker. He needs something to believe in, and for him it is Gatsby.

Going in, director Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby was expected to be big, brash, and audacious – one giant party – exuding the opulence of the roaring twenties. Luhrmann delivers on this promise. The film is wonderfully colorful, frenetic, and grandiose in its visual style. The sets and costumes are lavish. The whole thing is a visual treat. But, this is both its greatest asset and weakness.

Luhrmann captures strong performances across his cast. Gatsby is an especially compelling character, due to Leonardo DiCaprio’s stellar work. Whenever Gatsby is on screen, he draws all the attention his way, which only seems to make sense given his mystic in the context of the narrative. Carraway is the other character that the audience is able to connect with, both as narrator and as voyeur. He is never central to the action, but he is always around watching – becoming a foil for the narrative to play off, and therefore an in for the audience.

However, Luhrmann does not seem as interested in the other characters, and thus the strong performances are mostly wasted. Even Daisy, who is an important part to the dramatic tension and arc of the film, is narratively curtailed. He treats them as simple genre caricatures, using them only to convey the plot or a sense of the times – Daisy is nothing but a trapped delicate flower, Tom is just a brutish villain, and Gatsby is the tragic hero, nothing more. Thus, scenes not featuring Gatsby often feel a bit overlong, because the characters are not as interesting (probably the best example is the scene in which Buchanan takes Carraway to his mistress’s flat – the scene is painfully inefficient in its storytelling). Carraway is merely the method by which the audience is introduced to the world, but from there the narrative revolves around Gatsby. Yet, Luhrmann takes too much time to get to Gatsby.

The film overall suffers from being too long for the same reason. Luhrmann is far more interested in the visual spectacle than the dramatic narrative, which is fine but diminishing the characters and drama should be subdued by structuring a tight narrative that moves briskly and efficiently. This helps avoid lulls in the pacing caused by boring scenes with otherwise uninteresting characters.

There is a disconnection between the characters and the audience. Luhrman has created a superficial world in which things are there purely for their splendor, but void of real meaning. Thus, when the audience is presented with characters, connecting to them is difficult because they too seem to be all part of the show and not real people worth an emotional investment (though, DiCaprio’s performance is strong enough to draw them in a bit). As the narrative progresses, it starts to become more about the characters and their drama (Gatsby’s relationship with Daisy), but by then it is too late. Luhrmann has already lost the audience, and the film starts to feel even slower. The film is built on spectacle, so when the drama starts to replaces it in the second half it lands with a thud.

Luhrmann’s narrative set up for Carraway also feels very odd (and pointless). He is not just the narrator, but a psychiatric patient who is retelling his story about the summer he spent with Gatsby by writing it down as a way of working through his issues – as he is now a broken man in the wake of the tragedy. It is as if Luhrmann needed a visual way to explain to the audience why Carraway is the narrator (given that his character is fairly thin in the film). And, by having him write the story down, Luhrmann could have famous passages from the literature appear on the screen – which feels very cheap and further separates the audience from the characters. On top of this choice seeming not to serve any good purpose, it also drags the narrative’s pacing down, as these scenes are essentially meaningless to the audience because Carraway is not given any true dramatic moments. This is just another example of Luhrmann’s inefficiency as a storyteller.

However, despite these issues, the film is rather entertaining too. Luhrmann’s visuals are often quite engaging and his use of music works surprisingly well. While everything is designed to looks more or less period (though maybe a bit exaggerated), the film feels very modern at the same time (and all the period stuff ends up feeling like a big costume party). This is due to Luhrmann’s frantic editing and camera and his use of modern hip hop and pop music to highlight the soundtrack. The whole visual experience is very noisy with a lot going on, but it works creating a fun frivolous experience.

The Great Gatsby is not emotionally engaging. It does not have well developed characters. But, that is not Luhrmann’s intention – or at least it does not seem to be. It is grand display of decadence (which plays well against today’s social strife regarding the widening gap between classes in America) and a visual foray into exuberant costume and set design. Luhrmann wants to create an entertaining visual experience, and to that degree the film is a great success.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Baz Luhrmann is well known for his visual eye, his ability to mix modern music with period settings, and his handling of tragic romance (his most famous prior films are Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rogue! – for which The Great Gatsby fits the same mold). However, again, he squanders the potential of rich characters (from Fitzgerald’s source material) in favor of showy superficial art. This is not a good adaptation of The Great Gatsby, just as his Romeo + Juliet is a gaudy and inelegant treatment of Shakespeare’s work. And yet, it is probably Luhrmann’s most entertaining film (and certainly my favorite). He never meant it to be a true adaptation (and really, films and the books they are based on are two completely different things that should be taken as such – comparisons are more or less pointless – rather each should be looked at on their own merits, completely separate), but rather a story for him to build a visual spectacle of the 1920s on.

The music in the film sets the tone well, but never has an emotional impact. Thus, it is fair to say that Craig Armstrong’s score is unsuccessful. Additionally, it is completely overshadowed by Shawn Carter’s (Jay-Z) soundtrack that he put together for the film. Luhrmann’s best moments come when he blends Carter’s soundtrack with his vibrant visuals (which is why the trailer for the film is so fantastic). Simon Duggan’s cinematography is beautiful and mesmerizing. Along with Catherine Martin’s production design, it gives Luhrmann’s world such a tremendous polish and allure. Martin’s design is probably the film’s best attribute. Everything looks fantastic, given Luhrmann’s vision.

As said in the review, the performances are good throughout despite the weak characters. Amitabh Bachchan and Joel Edgerton are both good in support (undeterred by playing caricatures). Newcomer Elizabeth Debicki is brilliant in the film playing Jordan Baker (a friend of Daisy’s). Again, she is not given much character wise, but brings a lot of energy to her performance and steals almost every scene she is in. Carey Mulligan is good as Daisy – she plays a woman trapped in a bad marriage who longs for her great lost love. Mulligan’s Daisy is naïve and innocent, but it works in the context of Luhrmann’s narrative. Tobey Maguire is good at playing someone who is both within and without, which seems to perfectly fit Nick Carraway. He is in the middle of all the action in the film but never central to it, making him a good observer. Leonardo DiCaprio almost saves this film, or to say it another way he almost elevates this film from being purely a visual feast to something that actually dramatically resonates. His performance is the best part of the film. He actually tries to bring humanity and complication to Gatsby, who Luhrmann casts as being merely the tragic hero – when there is so much more to him.

Summary & score: Come for The Great Gatsby’s flashy style, narcotic visuals, and broad dramatic strokes, but do not expect anything deeper. 6/10

LeapBackBlog 2012 Film Awards – Part 2: Supporting 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 3: Directors

Part 4: Leading Performances

Part 5: Films

Amy Adams – The Master

Playing Peggy, Amy Adams at first seems to be a quiet doting wife to Lancaster Dodd, kind and gentle, but as the film progresses it becomes clear that she is really the one with the control and power behind The Cause. Adams’s work in The Master is therefore sort of misleading. She does not seem to have much dramatic work, and yet is a commanding presence in many of the scenes (most of which she is just sitting and watching – it is only near the end of the film where is vocally asserts her true authority). And thus, her performance is a key component to the film. It is one of the year’s more difficult subtle performances (and best).

Javier Bardem – Skyfall

Villains seem to make up a lot of 2012’s best supporting work, and Javier Bardem’s Silva in Skyfall is maybe the best of the lot. James Bond villains have always been amplified and sort of comically evil (and we love them for that reason). Bardem captures the essence of the typical Bond villain but also does something new. Silva actually makes Bond uncomfortable (as well as the audience to some extent), because he is much more than Bond’s equal. He is a real threat to Bond, more so than any villain in the franchise’s history. The performance is completely magnetic – the scene in which Bond and Silva first meet is among the year’s best.

Alison Brie – The Five-Year Engagement

Alison Brie is hysterical in The Five-Year Engagement playing the sister (Suzie) of one of the film’s leads (Violet). Along with Chris Pratt (who is also killer in support), she delivers much of the film’s funniest moments (as the leads are given most of the drama). Brie is particularly fantastic giving a speech at her sister’s engagement part, on the verge of tears, and giving her sister a pep talk later in the film in an Elmo voice (maybe the film’s best scene). Comedy is always overlooked, but Brie just radiates too brightly to be ignored.

Leonardo DiCaprio – Django Unchained

Django Unchained is full of great and fun performances. Jamie Foxx is at his best in the lead as Django and Christoph Waltz (who very easily could have made this list, and would have in most years) is top-notch in support. But, it is Leonardo DiCaprio who shines the brightest. He is thoroughly insane as Calvin Candie, a cruel plantation owner. While Waltz is funny and engaging, DiCaprio is forcibly dynamic as he seemingly by sheer will takes over every scene commanding the attention of the audience (and the other characters). He is the focus of all his scenes. Villains often have the latitude to go big with their performances, and DiCaprio goes huge. He is an absolute blast to watch.

Tom Hardy – The Dark Knight Rises

Tom Hardy had the impossible task of following Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight playing Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. The role is also particularly challenging as Hardy’s face is almost altogether obstructed by a mask. Yet, he is brilliant. Using his body language and the way he moves, along with his menacing eyes, Hardy constructs Batman’s most brutal foe. Bane also very much lives in the gypsy voice that Hardy gives him – his line delivery (though, it does take some getting used to – but it does become easily understandable eventually) is playful and authoritative, an odd combination but it completely works. Every scene that Hardy is in is a pleasure to watch. He certainly lives up to Ledger’s Joker.

Anne Hathaway – Les Miserables

After seeing The Dark Knight Rises, Anne Hathaway seemed destined to make this list for her fantastic work as Selina Kyle (essentially giving the definitive performance as the character). However, her work in Les Miserables as Fantine is even better. She is heartbreaking, leaving every viewer emotionally touched. Her rendition of I Dreamed a Dream is magnificent, perfectly capturing the dismal low that Fantine finds herself in, having lost everything. The viewer forgets that they are watching an actress and a performance. It is probably the best performance of the year (at least in support).

Philip Seymour Hoffman – The Master

Philip Seymour Hoffman’s work in The Master is among his best. As Lancaster Dodd, the man at the head of The Cause, he has a wonderful duality to his performance. He is completely infatuated with himself and utterly oozing with confidence, and yet he also seems completely lost and alone, shackled in solitude by the farce he has created around himself. Whenever Hoffman is on screen, he demands the attention of the audience, as the center of it all – and the audience completely obliges him as they cannot look away. His work is just too compelling. The scenes between Hoffman and lead Joaquin Phoenix are especially electric.

Ezra Miller – The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Following up on his brilliant work in We Need to Talk About Kevin, Ezra Miller turns in another phenomenal performance in The Perks of Being a Wallflower as Patrick. Miller has so much energy and intensity in the film that he pulls the audience’s attention towards him in every scene (which is the mark of truly great work – the viewer cannot look away). Patrick burns almost too brightly, that when he gets low there almost seems to be a lull or void, and Miller is able to capture these darker emotions of sadness and loneness incredibly well. While 2012 was full of great supporting work by male actors, Miller might just turn in the year’s best performance in the category (a performance that has been shamefully overlooked).

Kelly Reilly – Flight

Flight has a number of wonderful supporting performances in it – namely from John Goodman, James Badge Dale, and Kelly Reilly – however, it is Reilly that serves as the film’s heart playing Nicole, a vital role given Whip’s fall (the film’s lead character). Her work in the film needed to be strong, as she allows the audience to get behind Whip, even despite himself and his vices, because she believes in him and is behind him. Reilly is also a ray of hope in Whip’s life as she too is an addict, but a recovering one who is determined to start her life anew. As good as Denzel Washington is in Flight, the film would just not be the same emotionally without Reilly’s excellent supporting work.

Emma Watson – The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Emma Watson grew up before the eyes of cinemagoers playing Hermione Granger for over a decade in the Harry Potter franchise. Starting as a newcomer to acting, she got better with each film devolving into one of Hollywood’s great young stars (her work in the Deathly Hallows Parts 1 and 2 is especially strong). In The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Watson has the difficult role of playing both the ‘dream girl’ and a well-drawn realistic character as Sam, and she pulls it off beautifully. She wins the audience and Charlie over with her charms, but is not without flaws and struggles – once again presenting young women with a female character they can relate to and care about (when Hollywood seldom offers good female characters).

Django Unchained (2012) – Review

Review: Django Unchained is a highly entertaining action drama with some western aspects, full of references and throwbacks. The film is about a slave Django who is freed by a bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz who needs his help identifying a bounty he is looking for. Django and Schultz become friends and partners. Schultz decides to help Django rescue his wife from a Mississippi plantation Candyland, whose owner Calvin Candie is notoriously wicked – a dangerous mission to say the least going into the belly of the beast.

Django Unchained is the second in writer-director’s Quentin Tarantino revenge fantasy trilogy, following Inglourious Basterds. And like Inglourious Basterds (as well as most of his films), it is packed with references to many of Tarantino’s favorite films in the genre. Homage is most prevalently paid to the films of the spaghetti western director Sergio Corbucci (who directed Django), a filmmaker in the genre that Tarantino loves (even more than Segio Leone who gets most of the praise in today’s cinema criticism). Corbucci’s films often tackle harder issues like racism, slavery, and class warfare (which are themes that Tarantino also addresses with Django Unchained).

Tarantino also seems interested in addressing the grandeur of the southern plantation – tearing it down as a myth and exposing the sheer inhumane cruelty and abuse slaves endured on these plantations (even with simple things like remarking that none of the whites have ever seen a black man riding a horse). This is not necessarily new ground, as media has focused on this topic many times (as historical revisionism aimed at exposing many of the horror before shaded over in history has been a popular academic pursuit since the late twentieth century), but maybe with not so much style and panache as Tarantino who does not pull his targeted punches.  One these such punches seems to be directly aimed at Gone with the Wind (when Django and Schultz travel to Mississippi they are met with a title in big bold letters tracking across the screen from right to left that is very reminiscent to Gone with the Wind’s opening title), a film that very much propagates the South and its way of life (forwarding the myth of the grandeur and elegance of the southern plantations for worldwide audiences, skipping over the brutality suffered by the slaves).

The violence in the film, for which there is a lot, is purposely overdone and almost cartoony. This was maybe done as an attempt by Tarantino to keep the film from being NC-17 or to keep the film fun, as the tone is mostly light. However, the violence suffered by the slaves in the film feels different. While the gunfights in which Django blows away whites are exaggerated, scenes in which violence is done to black characters are presented in a much more realistic and even horrific manner. This is a clear choice by Tarantino to create a deeper feeling of sympathy for the black characters by making their pain real, while white characters being blown up, shot and otherwise massacred is all in good fun.

This choice also firmly puts the audience behind Django, as they actively care about him and want to see him rescue his wife, and more so reap vengeance upon those that deserve it. The film also profoundly creates a sense of revelation in the audience at the true stakes for Django’s mission. While lots of films have created an emotion and revelation in their audience regarding the true plight of the slaves, Django Unchained does it while still playing as a mostly light action western. Thus, the revelation in the audience might be more profound, as they were not expecting to feel something about the film and the characters. However, the light nature of the film might also allow the audience to excuse the deeper emotional impact and forget it as the credits roll focusing on the comedy and exciting action.

Tarantino brings his style of brash dialog to the film as well. However, here with this topic, the juxtaposition of the way characters talk also plays into the emotional feeling the audience experiences. The physical violence in the film is extreme, but the verbal violence the slaves are subjected to is maybe even more damaging, as it is a coat of insults that just seems to lay upon them wearing them down and dehumanize them. The language of the characters is striking as it really exposes the clear disregard, even above hate, that many of the white characters have for the black characters. They are nothing to them, at least nothing human.

Overall, Tarantino gets across his message of exposing what slavery really was – not so much in the hardships suffered by slaves, as that is only briefly addressed, but in the relationship between blacks and whites in the South.

Narratively, Django Unchained is much more a straightforward story than Tarantino usually employs in his films with a clear three-act structure. Though, it still has sort of an episodic feel differentiating between Django and Schultz’s work in Texas and Tennessee as opposed to their venture into Mississippi to rescue Django’s wife. The film can almost be viewed has having two parts – the prologue in which Django and Schultz become friends and partners pre-Mississippi (act one) and the main narrative in which they go to Mississippi (acts two and three). However, the prologue is really more as a lot of character work is done in that section, which later allows Tarantino to focus on other narrative areas (like creating a fantastic villain with Calvin Candie); and it also allows Django to play a different character in disguise for a large portion of the Mississippi episode because he is already established with the audience. Even though the three-act structure is apparent, pre-Mississippi and Mississippi do have a different feel, which Tarantino clearly intended. Pre-Mississippi feels like a western, while Mississippi is much more an action drama with the hero deep in enemy territory. Django cannot merely ride off and hide if he gets in trouble, like characters often do in westerns; he is either going to rescue his wife or die; he is completely committed, which is what makes the drama so compelling.

Tarantino also does a masterful job with the tone. This is a very fun and entertaining film, even given the intense nature of its subject material. It is often very funny, as well. Tarantino is able to get across the drama and have the audience experience something real, but leaves them feeling light, as they have chiefly been entertained. He does this by having most of the violence play bigger (like a cartoon) and having the film packed with intended comedy (which all works).

For the most part the film is free from major issues, but the narrative does not quite have the dramatic impact it could. This is the choice Tarantino made. The film could not be both light and fun while still also fully engaging the audience dramatically, because this would have left the tone and ultimately the film feeling very disjoined and nothing would have worked quite as well as it does. Tarantino chose to primarily entertain. Though, even with the film’s fun tone, with multiple viewings the intended impact resonating from the narrative choices (such as the juxtaposition between the violence on whiter characters versus black or the way these characters speak) will ingrain itself in the viewer, thus having the same lasting impact that a strong dramatic take on the material.

The narrative is also a little loose in the first act (and maybe overly long). It does not really get going until Django and Schultz get to Mississippi and the stakes are raised, which is again why the film feels episodic.

Another possible issue is that the graphic nature of the violence and langue will not appeal to all viewers, as in both cases it is extreme (but also in both cases completely serves the narrative).

Django Unchained is not a great western in the classic sense of the genre, as it is not really a western for most of the film. However, it is a great action drama with the purpose of again exposing the villainy of slavery and the people that subjugated others to be their slaves.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Auteur Quentin Tarantino started off making great crime dramas and is now making great genre films. While he brings a great nostalgic style to his films (as a massive cinephile – especially for ‘B’ films), his own ability as a filmmaker has matured. His writing is brilliant, but with Inglourious Basterds (my favorite of his films) and now Django Unchained he directing seems equal to his words. The level of performances he is garnering is phenomenal as well. I cannot wait to see the final piece of his revenge trilogy.

Robert Richardson’s cinematography accomplishes the look and feel of a western while also complimenting the style of Tarantino’s direction (as this is there fourth collaboration). J. Michael Riva’s production design is great as well, as it both fits the tone of the genre and has fun with it (especially the Cleopatra Club set).

Django Unchained is visually impressive and has a fantastic directorial flair, but the strongest aspect is its impressive performances. Kerry Washington and Walton Goggins are good in small supporting roles. Samuel L. Jackson is hilarious, biting, and dramatically interesting (a compelling combination) as Stephen. It is his best role and performance from him in a long time. Leonardo DiCaprio is an absolute riot. He is wildly insane and having a blast as Calvin Candie. Looking at him, the viewer really gets the sense that they are starring at the devil. Villains often get to be played big and they often are the juiciest character roles – this is a great one and DiCaprio takes full advantage commanding every scene he is in. Christoph Waltz is great as Dr. King Schultz, a bounty hunter with a moral conscience and abhorrence towards slavery. Waltz plays Schultz to be quite playful with his words and delivery, often bringing the most effective comedy to the film. Jamie Foxx is very good as Django. He brings a quiet strength and willful disobedience to the role, while still giving off a clear soulful humanity (which allows the audience to fully connect with his character). The performance is among his best work.

Summary & score: Django Unchained unapologetically and boldly attacks the malice and repugnance of the people that propagated slavery by owning slaves raining vengeance with merciless graphic violence and complete distain. And as a revenge fantasy should be, it is very satisfying and enjoyable. 8/10