My ridiculous attempt to predict the NBRs is here…

.

.

.

The NBR is one of the maybe 4 critics groups I care about, the other 3 being New York, Los Angeles & National Society! I like NBRs especially because they have a veeeeeery long history, so it’s fun to see winners like Sunset Boulevard or Citizen Kane, because we have little award material from that era, except for Oscar and (sometimes) Golden Globes.

As with any critics award, it’s very very hard to predict them, but I’ll give it a try for the fun’s sake, justifying each prediction. [yes, I did sign up in the AwardsDaily NBR contest]. So here we go:

.

.

.

.

.

Best Film
previous winners: Slumdog, No Country, Iwo Jima, Good Night and GL, Finding Neverland, Mystic River and so on. It’s a mixed bunch, either very serious and historical or emotional dramas.

My prediction: Precious

Such a cliché, right? :) but I think they’re going for it, continuing the Slumdog trend. I see it as the perfect heartbreaking drama they need, with a hopeful end. The Hurt Locker is a bit too complicated for them. I was tempted by The Lovely Bones (I’ll justify in Director) and Up in the Air (just because of Clooney). However, my runner-up is: A Serious Man – I just have a feeling the liked it a lot, and they do appreciate the Coens.

Alternative: A Serious Man.

.

.

.

.

Best Director
previous winners: Benjamin Button, Sweeney Todd, Departed, Brokeback, Collateral, Last Samurai… Their director winners rarely make it in Oscar’s 5 and as you can see they went for flashy lately.

My prediction: Peter Jackson, for The Lovely Bones

I still have faith that The Lovely Bones will be even more influential than Avatar. It might now work well with Oscar in the main categories, but I hear technically it’s a masterpiece. The NBR likes that. And I think the movie has enough drama to really catch their interest. So I’m risking it; they might feel guilty for never rewarding him. Other options: The Hurt Locker and Precious (I can’t even put it runner-up because NBR rarely picks the same film for Film and Director). But:

Alternative: Coens for A Serious Man.

.
.
.
.

Breakthrough – Actor
previous winners: Dev Patel, Emile Hirsch

My prediction: Jeremy Renner, for The Hurt Locker
Don’t be fooled, they don’t care how old you are or how many movies you’ve done. It’s their consolation category. My prediction is strictly instinct.

.
.
.
.

Breakthrough – Actress
previous winners: Viola Davis, Ellen Page

My prediction: Gabourey Sibide, for Precious
I think they’ll reward her here and not in the Actress category. They did the same with Hilary Swank back in 1999. But if I’m wrong and they go with her for Best Actress, this will be the perfect seat for Carey Mulligan.

.
.
.
.

Best Actor
previous winners: Clint Eastwood, George Clooney, Forest Whitaker, PS Hoffman, Jamie Foxx, Sean Penn… The only obvious common thing is that they’re dramatic performances. [for those who don’t know: Clooney won in 2007 because they hadn’t seen There Will Be Blood]

My prediction: Colin Firth, for A Single Man

How can I predict against Jeff Bridges? Because I don’t think he’ll win this one. My instinct told me Firth, because it’s a serious performance, dramatic… and a stylish film. It can’t be Day-Lewis or Freeman (too light). Viggo? The movie is kind of strange. So Jeff Bridges might happen, but my alternative is:

Alternative: George Clooney, for Up in the Air.
Why? Because they love him, Michael Clayton AND Good Night, and Good Luck

.
.
.
.

Best Actress
previous winners: Hathaway, Julie Christie, Mirren, Felicity Huffman, Annette Bening, Diane Keaton… They like comedy divas, dramatic legends and heavy drama.

My prediction: Meryl Streep, for Julie & Julia AND It’s Complicated

They have no problem in awarding an actor for more than one movie. NBR is not the biggest Meryl fan, but she fits in the Nancy Meyers, light but dramatic segment that Keaton has. And Annette is also relevant for this choice. And really now: I didn’t have who to go with: Mirren is too soon and just not it, they’re not going with Abby Cornish, Marion is supporting… I really believe Gabby is getting the Breakthrough and Carey Mulligan, she might be it, or just not dramatic enough. Meryl seems right. But:

Alternative: Saoirse Ronan, for The Lovely Bones
I wasn’t crazy enough to go with her as prediction, but you know she’s better than we think.

.
.
.
.

Best Supporting Actor
previous winners: Josh Brolin, Casey Affleck, Djimon Hounsou, Jake Gyllenhaal, Haden Church, Baldwin… As random as it gets.

My prediction: Stanley Tucci, for The Lovely Bones AND Julie & Julia

It seems to me like the obvious choice. Especially if they also go with Meryl; especially if they like The Lovely Bones and award Peter Jackson. Alec Baldwin also seems strangely right, but I guess the obvious runner-up would be:

Alternative: Christoph Waltz, for Inglourious Basterds.
I dare to say that if he win the NBR, he can say goodbye to Oscar, cause NBR is the kiss of death in this category :) just like in the Actress one, I guess.

.
.
.
.

Best Supporting Actress
previous winners: Penelope, Amy Ryan, Catherine O’Hara, Gong Li, Laura Linney, Patricia Clarkson, Kathy Bates… and if you continue the list, you notice very few actually got Oscar noms. But here, I’m going with the obvious.

My prediction: Mo’Nique, for Precious

This will definitely happen if Precious wins Best Film. And doubt they can ignore this performance. The Nine ladies are too thin to win here, same with the Up in the Air ones. So I guess the only spoiler could be a strange unexpected indie performance. However:

Alternative: Julianne Moore, for A Single Man
It won’t happen, unless they really-really liked the movie.

.
.
.
.

Best Original Screenplay
previous choices: Gran Torino, Juno & Lars and the Real Girl, Stranger Than Fiction, Squid and the Whale, Eternal Sunshine… They have some crazy ass choices and they like comedy.

My prediction: A Serious Man
I don’t see a runner-up. 500 days of summer could be there, I dunno…

Alternative: Inglourious Basterds
But I don’t think so.

.
.

Best Adapted Screenplay
previous choices: Slumdog & Benjamin Button, No Country, Painted Veil, Syriana, Sideways… Very mixed, goes through all the genres.

My prediction: Precious
The Lovely Bones might also happen.

Alternative: Up in the Air

.
.
.

[this is getting waaaaaay too long :P ]

.
.

Best Animated: Up
Best Foreign Language: The White Ribbon [they like obvious choices. Except for last year’s Mongol]
Best Ensemble Cast: Nine. Obvious. Alternative: Precious.

.

.

Hew… Wow, if I get one or two right, I’ll be lucky. The NBR are announced this Thursday!!! Are you also an NBR specialist? Do they interest you?

Best Actress 1980

Time has come for a new Best Actress year… The 30s and the 80s were the ones not discussed at all until now. And I picked the 80s, and from this decade: a year I had a moral obligation towards; because I had postponed it since forever and it deserved to be talked about [I also have the choice for the 1930s prepared ever since before switching countries. Since next spring, I’m reactivating the draws]

Obviously (from the title): 1980. Not glamorous, but quite different performances. I have seen 3 and 1/2 movies :) and I’m anxious to (re)discover them. There WILL be controversy. But no reason for much talking…

I give you the 5 ladies that Oscar had chosen for 1980:

from left to right, I have the pleasure to introduce:

• Goldie Hawn, in Private Benjamin
• Mary Tyler Moore, in Ordinary People
• Ellen Burstyn, in Resurrection
• Sissy Spacek, in Coal Miner's Daughter
• Gena Rowlands, in Gloria

.

.

.

Sissy will be first (probably next week, I dunno) because she’s the winner. I am announcing now that I don’t judge singing when it comes to a movie; to me, it’s all about the emotion you display while lip-synching or actually singing. This doesn’t suggest that I like or dislike the performance (as I haven’t finished seeing it again yet), just that Grammy noms won’t affect my judging. We’ll see…

Final conclusions - Best Actress 1947

And now… the end is near… and so I face… the final conclusions! Yay! :)

It was an interesting line-up; but then again, it always is. Many/most of these performances are unknown to general public. Many Oscar fans (me included 2 months ago) know about these 5 performances just by reading about them, hearing extreme opinions (Loretta’s case) or seeing them written in an Imdb line-up. That’s why this blog is so great for me: because I get to discover them and Oscar movie knowledge is always power! :D

We had 3 heavy drama performances, 1 drama-romantic and 1 comedic-wannabe – romance-wannabe – drama. All had something special and just a couple (2 to be exact) managed to cross the finish line and create performances most worthy of this category. However, it was an easy win for me! In this 1947 ranking, the emotional connection was an essential factor for me, probably like in no other year. This criterion is what pushed a performance up to a deserved 4 and another one down to 5. And it’s this criterion that made the winner decision so obvious.

Here is MY ranking. Unlike in any other conclusions, I’m just quoting from the actual analysis done for each of ladies. [you can click on the name for the full-stuff or just scroll down]. The ladies:

1. Susan Hayward, Smash-Up: The Story of a Woman

"When she’s ready for a drink or talking about how to make one, you can feel the passion in her words and most of all: the thirst! (…) Angie might get smashed-up, but Susan is always in control of the character, lifting it from standard writing to a human being. (…) Because Susan makes it look so believable, you can’t help but admire the talent and get caught in the story of a woman."

2. Rosalind Russell, Mourning Becomes Electra

"The staginess of her performance is in the spirit of the material. And what Rosalind adds is honest emotion, making Lavinia the only relatable character of the film. (…) It really is a journey for her character and Rosalind manages to underline such changes in Lavinia. Even with the overacting at times, it’s still impressive to watch and I felt a relief every time she entered a scene, as I knew something real was finally happening."

3. Joan Crawford, Possessed
"When she’s good, she’s terrific, warming our hearts and creating a relatable character! But when she’s bad… she forgets about the character and what she created before. (…) I keep going back to the beauty of the piano scene, but then remember the awful decisions in the end… "

4. Loretta Young, The Farmer's Daughter

You can find some “small elements of greatness in her performance: not in the flashy Swedish accent or the boring humor, but in the quiet scenes where we finally see some heart and (almost) true emotions. It’s mostly where the screenplay doesn’t f*ck it up and Loretta, using acting experience, is able to give us a warm, natural character.”

5. Dorothy McGuire, Gentleman's Agreement

"An intelligent performance, just not a thrilling one. (…) There are a couple of good things to be said about it, mostly about its consistency. But truth is: even though I can understand the character, I still didn’t have an emotional connection with Dorothy’s performance. ”

The Academy’s choice is not difficult to read if you look carefully. I don’t agree with it, but I definitely don’t hate it. There’s a strong emotional connection that Loretta creates in the last 20-30 minutes that is hard to forget. I still think about it and this are the highest 2 stars I’ve given so far. If only there would’ve been more of drama in The Farmer’s Daughter… In the end, it was also a popular choice.

Anyway: the runner-up for the win was probably Rosalind due to popularity, with Hayward because of quality on 3rd, Joan as 4th and Dorothy last.

Other Best Actress years discussed so far:

1957

1965

1977

1992

2000

2007

2008

What’s next?

In a couple of days I’ll announce the year I’ll do next, and finish hopefully just in time for the 2009 Best Actress nominations. Getting back to it, it’s a year from the 2 decades unexplored, and I was meant to deal with it for a long time now. It’s just as I like them: low-key and not the most glamorous. :)

Dorothy McGuire, in Gentleman's Agreement approximately 43 minutes and 36 seconds
37.2% of the film

The film

A reporter pretends to be Jewish in order to cover a story on anti-Semitism, and personally discovers the true depths of bigotry and hatred.

You can find my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

I did enjoy this Best Picture winner. It’s easy to watch and uses good tricks to make you want to see more, even though you can anticipate at times what will happen. Slower in the last 20 minutes, it’s still an essential movie (for its time) about discrimination.

Dorothy McGuire as Kathy Lacy

While thinking about this performance, the word coaster came into mind (I think Stinkylulu invented it), referring to a performance that received Oscar attention just because it was part of a big Best Picture movie and probably would’ve been ignored otherwise. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad performance, but it’s not flashy enough or… excellent enough to stand by itself. To me, Dorothy’s performance is not a full success, but I blame my subjectivity a bit. At the end of the movie, I almost didn’t remember her…

Dorothy plays Kathy, a high-class New York divorcee, but with a kind heart, who falls in love with a journalist. His investigation strategy to pretend to be Jewish becomes a burden on their relationship. Judging by screentime, the role qualifies as a leading one, but the film is mostly about Peck’s journalist. Dorothy gets a couple of good scenes, even though she’s mostly playing supportive and reassuring, until true colors pop-up.

Dorothy’s Kathy benefits from probably the most difficult dialogue of the film. She does it justice for most part, even though some of her acting choices feel strange. Like in the proposal scene; it wasn’t bad what I was seeing, just a bit too melodramatic, unexpected and not as dynamic as the scene could’ve required. That being said, Kathy is not the most exciting character; not just because she’s a device for the leading man but also because she’s a bit sleepwalking through the film. I am not seeing the energy to keep me interested, and I guess this could also be Dorothy’s fault.

It IS an intelligent performance, just not a thrilling one. To Dorothy’s credit, she manages to tell us a bit about Kathy even when the screenplay didn’t really ask for. Her presence is reassuring throughout the film, but the key moments are in 2 big fat (potential-wise) scenes. As minutes go by, the viewer is suggested to start asking himself: is Kathy anti-Semitic? We know she’s not a hateful person, and she’s open-minded, but does she consider Jewish people inferior?

The answer comes in the scene by the door, in her big speech telling her fiancé that she can’t take his accusations anymore. It’s a nicely written monologue and she does admit that she was happy not being born Jewish, just as someone’s happy for being beautiful and not ugly, young and not old. It’s an honest confession and Dorothy’s acting is convincing, actually good. But I still felt like it could’ve been more.

Her best scene is unfortunately one of the film’s worst: a restaurant conversation between her and John Garfield’s character where she’s faced to admit that not taking action against discrimination is almost as bad as being the hateful person. The dialogue is too explanatory and the scenes lack subtlety, but even so Dorothy is her ok self, bringing some tears which are a nice twist.

There are a couple of good things to be said about this performance, mostly about its consistency. But truth is: even though I can understand the character from the perspective on discrimination, I still didn’t have an emotional connection with Dorothy’s performance. It might just be me, but I didn’t care; and I always need to be at least a bit emotionally moved by the acting. It’s a performance that could really work for others and in essence it’s an intelligent one, but for me: .

In a couple of days I’ll post the final conclusions for 1947.

Reassuring Marion of my love…

It has started again fellow, bloggers. People bitching about her Oscar win almost 2 years ago! It’s a trend encouraged by a certain blogger and I’m posting this just to make my perspective clear.

.

Say what you want, but to me it’s simple. Marion’s Oscar winning performance as Edith Piaf is one the best this category has EVER seen. The makeup helped a lot, but look beyond that: it’s a heartbreaking, emotional, well-balanced, efficient performance! The scene where she realizes her lover had died is one of the most emotionally devastating scenes this decade had given us!

.

I don’t know how good she is in Nine and I’ll be as objective as I can when time comes! And yes, Julie Christie was great in Away from Her but that’s no reason to hate Marion’s win! To me, she REALLY deserved it!

.

Thank you, Marion for your inspiring performance! And let’s hope the bitching slowly goes away as people realize what a magnificent performance you’ve given us!

.

.

[this post has no intention to upset people. :) just fighting back, with love, as I feel there’s not enough support out there]

Dear reader,

I just wanted to say Hi from Athens (where it looks like I'll stay till January). I'm also posting a photo of mine taken today (true, not for this blog) to put a face on Alex in Movieland, in case u forgot how I look like :)

Have a great Sunday!
And 1947 is continuing...

Joan Crawford, in Possessed

approximately 77 minutes and 17 seconds
72.4% of the film

The film

A woman is found wandering Los Angeles, unable to say anything other than "David". Admitted to hospital she is coaxed into recounting her recent life.

You can find my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

The movie has some serious story problems. It starts great and the direction is fine throughout the film. But Possessed can’t really decide what it’s about: a love story, a murder, schizophrenia? So it ends up messy, especially the last 30 minutes or so.

Joan Crawford as Louise Howell

I’m trying to remember a performance I talked about here in the past year and a half which gave me as much trouble as this one! Joan Crawford is terribly good here, but also annoyingly bad. She hits the excellent note and then falls in a screenplay trap, over-abusing the clichés. I’m thinking Angelina in Changeling or Cate Blanchett in The Golden Age, but still they can’t beat Joan. So writing about this performance is quite frustrating for me.

Don’t get me wrong, I know Joan had her own style of acting: rigid and exaggerated. And it worked for her many times. It even works a bit here, until she loses control of the performance. Joan plays Louise, a nurse who can’t get over the playboy that dumped her. And no wonder, as it proves that Louise’s overbearing attitude is a result of schizophrenia, or bipolar as it would probably be called today. The biggest challenge of the role: keeping it believable as Louise slowly surrenders to her mental disease and making us understand the process.

I’ll start with the good stuff: Joan makes a hell of entrance in the film, surprising me with the simplicity of her acting. We all know Joan was a great crier and she uses it wisely in the break-up scene, never forcing it and creating a relatable character ever since the first frames. [Oops, and I didn’t mention the first scenes where she walks around like a crazy person: same thing – achieving a lot through surprising simplicity and understanding of the character].

Joan is great at underlining the ups and downs of Louise. We understand her battle trying to get over this man and trying to fight her instinct which tells her to keep harassing him. Joan is excellent in expressing the vulnerability of the character, both the heartbreak part of it and also in the hospital scenes, and how insecure Louise is around David.

And even as the haunting thing starts happening and she sinks more into schizophrenia: Joan does it well at first. It’s not what we’d want for the story, but we get it. She hears stuff that’s not there, imagines things that didn’t happen, Louise starts mixing reality with images created by her own mind. Joan’s haunted look is delicious and she’s always great at playing with the camera (you can feel the acting experience!). But then she takes it too far…

As the story goes less believable, so does Joan’s acting. She goes for crazy, when she should’ve toned it a bit. Joan goes from a natural drama to B-series horror movie performance. The shooting scene alone at the end is ridiculous in many ways. Joan falls for the cliché of the screenplay and loses her biggest asset: the connection that she had with the audience ever since the beginning. Why, Joan? Why? It could’ve been your best performance!

Joan said it was the toughest role she ever had to play. And I agree it’s not easy especially considering the little accurate information about mental illness back then. When she’s good, she’s terrific, warming our heart and creating a relatable character! But when she’s bad… she forgets about the character and what she created before. How can you rate it? I keep going back to the beauty of the piano scene, but then remember the awful judgment from the end… Mixing a 2 and a 4, or maybe a 1 and a 5, I get . Wow, the potential. I’ll probably go one way or another in a couple of years.

Rosalind Russell, in Mourning Becomes Electra

approximately 88 minutes and 51 seconds
56.9% of the film

The film

An adaptation of Eugene O'Neill's play. As an updated Greek tragedy, the film features murder, adultery, love and revenge. All taking place after the American Civil War.

You can find my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

It’s a hard movie to decide on: on one hand, it’s a costume drama with an interesting cast and a lot of tragedy to keep it fun. But unfortunately it also has infinite dialogues and shaky acting. Great potential, though.

Rosalind Russell as Lavinia Mannon

I actually believe this is the first drama I’ve seen Rosalind Russell in. I guess many of us are aware that she was an excellent comedy actress; I much enjoyed The Women, His Girl Friday and Auntie Mame. But getting to this performance… nothing funny about her character. As the film is constructed as a tragedy, there’s nothing left for Rosalind to do than to bring the finest overacting to the stage… excuse me: screen. The role is tricky, as the text requires theatrical without making excuses.

Rosalind plays Lavinia, the daughter of a wealthy family during civil war. Her long devotion for her father and resentment towards her unfaithful mother provoke the tragic events of the film. Though true leading only in the second half, her presence on screen is always remarkable and necessary as she is the one always pushing the movie forward and disconnecting the rest of the stars from their zombie-like acting.

It’s a bit hard to see her as this innocent young lady in the first part of the film (in all fairness, the role might’ve required a younger casting), but she totally sells the frigidity of Lavinia, her passive anger towards the fact that her mother stole her man, the stiffness of her reactions. To some, it might look like bad overacting and it’s true that during the film I myself had some problems with small details like much-too-sudden head movement and over-interpretation of stuff that could’ve gone subtly.

But as I said in the beginning, the staginess of her performance is in the spirit of the material. And what Rosalind adds is honest emotion, making Lavinia the (only) relatable character of them all. For example the scene where she’s looking at her father’s window with a strange anxiety and maybe childish jealousy. And as the tragedy starts happening, there’s always a silent sneakiness about her and the eyes acting is very good / suggestive for the most of it.

In the last part of the film, the role requires for her to step into the shoes of her mother (who’s played terribly by Katina Paxinou) – I don’t understand this direction, meant probably to show that Lavinia is growing into a woman as charismatic and secretive as her mother was. But considering how lousy Katina did her job, Rosalind easily manages to elevate all those features, shaping a believable, mature & charming Lavinia.

There are a lot of monologues that Rosalind has to do. She gets to play innocent, arrogant, guilty, she is stressed by her brother who exploits her vulnerability (a nice decent chemistry with Michael Regrave) while at the same keeping her claws on all of his actions. It’s a fierce character and Rosalind benefits of the fact that she’s easily the best of the acting group; so by comparison, she’s gold. It really is a journey for her character and Rosalind manages to underline such changes in Lavinia. Even with the overacting at times, it’s still impressive to watch and I felt a relief every time she entered a scene, as I new something real was finally happening. .

Oh yeah, and let’s not forget that tour-de-force in the ending, when she wonderfully chews all those scenes. And that line: I don’t need God or anyone else to forgive me. I forgive myself! :) brilliant.





Ps.: I have posted the film on youtube. If you want to check it, click here. Also, her screentime was calculated for the 159 min version that I have (just saying, cause I know they’re many different editing versions out there).