For years I had stayed away from Boys Don’t Cry, fearing that
the drama level is gonna make it really uncomfortable to watch. As I was
contemplating what year from the 1990s to select, this felt attractive, as I
hadn’t seen any of the films in a long time. I knew it wasn’t gonna be an
excellent year, but that it had easy films to go through (other than Boys).
So the mostly unknown Hilary Swank won for a very independent film, beating out what
would’ve been the safe choice: Annette Bening, the more experienced, Hollywood
based actress, pregnant while campaigning, married to Warren Beatty and acting
in the Best Picture winner. I think I also chose ’99 to prove that my love for
Meryl Streep is objective enough in order to call her out for her worst Oscar-nominated
performance.
Here is how I would have voted:
The role: Hilary plays Brandon Teena, a female-born transgender trying to find love as a man and risking his life by hanging around with the wrong kind of people.
The film: It’s
important, but selective in what it decides to show, heavily dramatized and a
bit exploitive.
The
performance: People have been building up this performance as being
something amazing and a game changer for this category. I don’t know if it came
down to expectations, but I found it to be great and strong, yet not
mind-blowing. While you can’t deny Hilary’s commitment and dedication to the
role, my first problem was the believability: to me there was no way Brandon
would’ve passed as a man. Putting this technical
issue aside, I didn’t always connect with the character or understand his
actions. It wasn’t until the more dramatic scenes that I found the richness of
the performance: the police interrogation scene is strong and Hilary’s acting
in the medical checkup scene is heartbreaking. While the performance has
difficulty in finding a balance between trying too hard and unconvincing
moments, it’s impossible to deny A) the extreme difficulty level and B) that
she mostly pulls it out. A performance I can respect and support, but not love.
The role: Julianne plays Sarah Miles, a married woman who has a passionate affair with a possessive writer, but chooses to suddenly end the romance.
The film: It takes
itself a bit too seriously. It’s very watchable and I loved the subtle twist,
but not a film I could care too much about.
The
performance: I am not objective enough as to not give bonus points for
the coolness of the performance. Never had Julianne looked better on screen:
she is sensual, sexual and eventually a tragic figure. There are scenes where
she just looks away silently and I am mesmerized and a bit fascinated, just
like the jealous lover. The emotional scenes are properly played and sold to
the viewers, but as I hinted it’s mostly about the mood her acting and her
presence create. The performance is believable despite the lack of a real
backstory and she is the only touch of interesting in quite of a boring film. I
approved.
The role: Annette plays Carolyn Burnham, a highly ambitious real-estate agent with professional problems and an unhappy marriage.
The film: I was a
bit doubtful about watching it again after 15+ years, but I enjoyed it quite a
lot. The screenplay does the job and it’s beautifully directed.
The
performance: It’s no easy task playing the bad cop in a relationship, especially when the film is focused on
your male co-star. Adding to the problem, the character is quite uncool,
uptight and not very likeable. So while I can’t love the performance, I like
the comedic route that Annette is going for – sure, there are dramatic facts
and scenes to care about, and they’re played quite well, but what I appreciated
the most were the unintentional comedic tones she chose for the character, that
it all fits the film’s requirements and that it’s quite the solid work. But
this is not a scene-stealing performance and her co-star steals the spotlight.
The role: Janet plays Mary Jo Walker, a woman going from one town and bad relationship to another, bringing her teenage daughter along the way.
The film: Very
simple, very basic, kind of forgettable. Not much to it beyond the leading
performance.
The
performance: There’s at least half a star bonus for the fact that Janet,
an English actress, is playing the most distinctive type of American: a
Southern woman; who’s also a bit trashy – so as far from Shakespeare as it
gets. I had no problem in finding the performance to be convincing, but was put
off a bit by the quality of the film and the lack of too many meaningful
scenes. Specifically, there is just one scene (when the daughter runs away)
that justifies the ranking, which happens to be one of the least loud of the
character’s, but it’s one where I could find an emotional connection to Mary
Jo. The overall loudness of the character didn’t bother me, it’s just something
that I expected. An almost 3.
The role: Meryl plays Roberta Guaspari, a single mother who starts teaching violin to children from a rough neighborhood.
The film: It’s
totally boring and predictable. You’d think that if Wes Craven finally directed
a family film, it would have some edge to it.
The
performance: It’s one of the few situations where one could say I am
sorry they cast Meryl Streep in this, and not Madonna, as originally intended. No
one is immune to my critique, not even Meryl, who is quite bad in this. First,
there’s the questionable casting, with 49 year old Meryl playing an early 30s
Roberta for half of the film. Even beyond the age, it truly feels like a bad
call – Meryl is too pompous, too precious, too loud here for the part. And it
ends up with a fake feel to it. It’s where Meryl’s overacting doesn’t work the
right way – every reaction, every look she gives is SO dramatic, so obvious, so overcooked. The intention of youthful
energy translates as the edge of hysterical. Sad to report it’s one of the
worst 2’s I’ve ever given. We can’t hand out nominations for just learning the
violin.
Conclusion: The race for my #1 was closer than I expected,
but I tried to stay objective. I thought Hilary would win by a landslide, but
hard not to get lost in Julianne’s looks and sensibility. From then on, it was
quite clear.
How the voting went: I am sure Annette gave Hilary quite a
run for it. I am also convinced that the two of them gathered about 80% of the
votes and there was no real chance for any of the other three to win.
Funny enough, the only actress who stole some critics’ awards
from Hilary was Reese Witherspoon, whose performance in Election must’ve been too young-ish
in tone for the Academy to nominate. But undoubtedly she was 6th.
What’s next: Not fully decided yet. Maybe 2004. I haven’t
seen Maria Full of Cocaine… I mean Grace.
5 comments:
Hmmm. I've only watched three and I'm not gaga on anyone yet.
1. Meryl Streep - Was expecting the worst, but took me by surprise on an emotional and technical level. She makes it look so easy and the film moves on broad strokes, but she thrilled me.
2. Annette Bening - Brings on A-game on a role that doesn't give her much (screentime, depth). She's fun to watch, she's ferocious and vulnerable, but would have been a disappointingly thin winner.
3. Hilary Swank - Memory fades (haven't seen it in like seven years), but I remember not feeling much for this despite being aware of the difficulty of the role. Haunting, but something didn't click.
I'm excited for 2004. :)
@Deiner,
don't watch End of Affair, I tend to be less impartial to beautiful ladies/men :D
I thought Chloe was right for the part (her entrance is the best), but rather superficial; could've digged more. That supp actress race is still a mystery to me, with no favourites.
I can see where you're going with Annette, I just felt like I really know this woman (in real life).
@JCO,
ugh nothing good about Meryl. :)
I've only seen Bening, so can't really provide for much feedback here :)
That said, I did really like Bening when I first watched her. Then less so after some time had passed. Agreed that she'd have probably been one of the less stellar winners had she won.
2004 will be a solid one! Fun that you're doing back to back Hilary v. Annette years.
I don't remember exactly why I chose 2004 :P maybe wanted to see Julie & Julia again. and Eternal. Hadn't seen any of them in 10+ years.
I think I liked Annette more as well back in the day. Still think she's a solid 3 now.
Post a Comment