Oscarology: Vol. 2, pt. 1 - Best Actor nominees

Welcome to Oscarology, the study of the Hollywood awards season culminating with the presentation of the Academy Awards in March 2014. I am Trevor Kirkendall, your resident Oscarologist. I’ve been studying the tendencies of the Oscars since 1993 and have since earned my PhD in this study. The following series of articles will cover the landscape of the upcoming awards season from now until the nominations are announced on January 16, 2014.

Much like the best picture nominees this year, the leading role acting categories are also very crowded. There will be many snubs and people will wonder why that happened. I hope the shed some light on that with this new volume of Oscarology. Listed in this volume will be ten actors and ten actresses who I believe have the best chances of securing an Oscar nomination this year. I’ve ranked them one through 10 on confidence. One through five are the people who I believe will be the nominees while six through 10 have the next best chance. Let’s first look at Best Actor in a Leading Role.

Best Actor frontrunner Chiwetel Ejifor as Solomon Northup
in 12 YEARS A SLAVE

1. Chiwetel Ejifor – 12 Years a Slave
As it is with my current pick for Best Picture, Chiwetel Ejifor will remain my pick as the person to beat for Best Actor in a Leading Role for his role in “12 Years a Slave” until further notice. Again, I have not seen this film; it just opened in limited release so it’ll be a while before the majority of moviegoers have a chance to see it. Based only on the buzz being generated from the film’s screening at the Toronto International Film Festival and the subject matter of the film, Ejifor seems to be the man who will walk away with the Oscar in March. This isn’t much of a surprise to anyone familiar with Ejifor’s performances. I remember his roles in “Children of Men” and “American Gangster”. I also remember one of his early leading role in Stephen Frears’ “Dirty Pretty Things” in which he delivered a very powerful performance. The only surprise should be that it took Ejifor to find a role that would earn him this kind of well deserved recognition.

Matthew McConaughey as Ron Woodroof in DALLAS
BUYERS CLUB

2. Matthew McConaughey – Dallas Buyers Club

The Academy has a tendency to be one of the most predictable organizations when it comes to performances they like. If you’re an actor who really wants to win an Oscar, there are three things you need to look for when selecting roles: the character must be real, the character must be seen as out-of-the-ordinary (through some kind of disability, illness or alternative lifestyle - which I hope is a very P.C. expression) and finally you must go through some kind of overwhelming physical transformation (either though literally changing one's physical appearance or utilizing makeup effects). Find these three things, play the roll well and you will almost certainly earn a nomination. Matthew McConaughey in “Dallas Buyers Club” hits all these items. He plays Ron Woodroof, a real person, who was infected with HIV in the mid-1980s. He smuggled AIDS drugs into the US from Mexico that weren’t approved by the FDA and sold them to other AIDS patients. McConaughey also went through a dramatic physical transformation, trading in his traditional good looks for a gaunt and sickly appearance, shedding 38 pounds for the role. McConaughey proved earlier this year with “Mud” that he can do more than flash his million dollar smile and take his shirt off in every role; he absolutely has the talent to pull a role like this off. He will at least earn a nomination this year, and could very well take the award home.

3. Bruce Dern – Nebraska

Cannes' Best Actor winner Bruce Dern in NEBRASKA

Bruce Dern has been around for many years in film and television. He’s been nominated before, for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar in the 1978 film “Coming Home”. He’s always reliable in his roles, but his role as an aging man in “Nebraska” might be his best chance to win the award. He’s already won one award for this role, Best Actor at the Cannes Film Festival. Director Alexander Payne is always good for at least one acting nomination from his films too. George Clooney earned one for “The Descendants”, Thomas Hayden Church and Virginia Madsen were up in “Sidways”, and Jack Nicholson and Kathy Bates were nominated for “About Schmidt”. Payne knows how to get great performances out of his actors, and he’s an Academy favorite. Sometimes, the director plays an important part in who earns a nod. Also, seasoned veterans who have never won also get a little bit of a sympathy vote too. I think all these factors all but guarantee a nomination for Dern.

4. Tom Hanks – Captain Phillips

Tom Hanks as Richard Phillips in CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

No actor is more loved amongst the Academy than Tom Hanks. When he appears in great films and puts on a decent performance, he scores Oscar nominations. I didn’t find his performance in “Saving Private Ryan” to be all that mesmerizing. Was he good? Absolutely he was. Was he Oscar worthy? Not in my opinion. He’s been nominated five times, winning two in consecutive years. I’m sure he’ll be up for many more nominations in his career. “Captain Phillips” is a great movie and his performance is one of the best he’s ever given. Since he’s Tom Hanks and he’s giving a great performance, that’s enough for me to assume that he’ll earn his sixth Best Actor nomination this year.

5. Robert Redford – All is Lost

Robert Redford going solo in ALL IS LOST

Robert Redford is an Oscar winning producer and director, but he’s never been nominated for an acting Oscar. Redford has done so much for the film industry and he might earn a sentimental vote from Academy members this year. Let’s also go back to Tom Hanks for a moment. His fifth nomination came from “Cast Away”, a film he largely did on his own. “All is Lost” is similar for Redford since he is the only actor in the film. Sandra Bullock will no doubt earn a nomination for “Gravity” for this same reason, but more on that later. I don’t think Redford will in an Oscar for “All is Lost” but I’d be surprised if he wasn’t nominated.

Michael B. Jordan as Oscar Grant in FRUITVALE STATION

6. Michael B. Jordan – Fruitvale Station

Michael B. Jordan is not a name many people know. “Fruitvale Station” might not have been a movie many people saw. But those who did are very well aware of Jordan now. Jordan puts on a harrowing performance of a young man on his fateful last day of life. The role is tragic and his performance is captivating. I could easily see him walking away with a nomination, but I think he might barely miss the cut in such a crowded field this year.

7. Hugh Jackman – Prisoners

Hugh Jackman in the thrilling film PRISONERS

I was surprised by the ferocity that Hugh Jackman brought to the surprisingly well done “Prisoners”. As surprising as it sounds, Jackman has only been nominated one other time (last year for “Les Misérables”). He’s a well respected member of the Hollywood elite and has already hosted the Academy Awards before. Everyone loves him. Why wouldn’t they want to honor him for a role that’s such a departure for him? I think he’s passed over, but his performance in this film is spectacular. He should be nominated, but he’ll probably just miss the cut.

Forest Whitaker in LEE DANIELS' THE BUTLER

8. Forest Whitaker – Lee Daniels’ The Butler

With as much attention of “Lee Daniels’ The Butler” has received from the media and being such a huge box office draw, it wouldn’t surprise me to see it receive numerous “just because” nominations. I still have not seen this one, so my opinion of Forest Whitaker receiving a nomination is based purely on speculation. His character isn’t a real person, though he’s based on someone real. He’s one of the only consistent faces in an ensemble picture, which helps his chances. Having not seen the film, I can’t say much about his performance. I think “The Butler” will be one of the most nominated movies of the year, and it makes sense that the film’s star would be one of the nominees. The crowded field this year could make it difficult though.

Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordan Belfort in THE WOLF OF
WALL STREET

9. Leonardo DiCaprio – The Wolf of Wall Street

Leonardo DiCaprio is becoming the butt of Oscar jokes much like his favorite director Martin Scorsese once was. Scorsese earned six Oscar nominations from 1981 to 2004 before finally winning one in 2006 for “The Departed”, which still seemed like a sympathy award. DiCaprio has only been nominated for three Oscars, which might come as a surprise to some. But he does seem to choose roles that might earn Oscar nominations. He wasn’t nominated for “J. Edgar”, but doesn’t that just seem like a role Oscar voters would love? In that case, they didn’t. “The Wolf of Wall Street” seems like a more modern role for DiCaprio, despite it taking place in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This doesn’t seem like a typical Oscar role for him, even though Jordan Belfort is a real person. I’m not certain that DiCaprio will see his fourth nomination for this film, but he’s worth keeping an eye on since it’s a Scorsese picture.

10. Christian Bale – American Hustle

Christian Bale (right) in AMERICAN HUSTLE

There are many different names that have occupied this final spot, but I’ve settled on Christian Bale for his role in “American Hustle”. Bale is already an Oscar winner for his supporting role in “The Fighter” which was directed by “American Hustle” filmmaker David O. Russell. Russell also directed Bradley Cooper to a nomination in last year’s “Silver Linings Playbook” and directed Jennifer Lawrence to a win in the same film. Russell knows how to get phenomenal performances out of his actors. “American Hustle” is a huge ensemble film and I could see multiple nominations for many different people. No one has seen this film yet, so that’s why I’m a little apprehensive to list anyone else as a possible nominee, or putting Christian Bale higher than this. We’ll see what the next couple months bring.

For the 2013 Best Actress contenders, check out PART TWO HERE

Review: Escape Plan

by. Joe Moss
★★1/2

"Escape Plan" (2013) directed by Mikael Hafstom is a classic 80's style action flick, starring 2 iconic 80's actors; with a cliche double-cross thrown in to boot. I'm not saying the movie wasn't entertaining, but it was as about as complex a plot as a Nicholas Sparks' novel (no offense to those who love the sappiness of Nicholas Sparks).

Ray Breslin (Sylveter Stallone) is the go-to guy when it comes to the Bureau of Prisons needing to double check their maximum security facilities. He has written the bible for prison wardens' on fail-safes and strategy after having broken out of 17 or so prisons across the country. He is tasked to break out of a new "private funded" prison by CIA operative Jessica Miller (Caitriona Balfe) and his business Partner Lester Clark (Vincent D'Onofrio)--but this time is is to go "off the grid" with complete whereabouts unknown much to the chagrin of his security team, Abigail (Amy Ryan) and Hush (Curtis Jackson).

Once inside the prison (after numerous drug induced black-outs), Ray meets who will become his favor-man on the inside, Rottmayer (Arnold Schwarzenegger). With his help, Ray is able to formulate a plan of escape that will involve a conspiracy of many--including a cameo appearance by Sam Neill as Doctor Kyrie--to outsmart the nefarious Warden Hobbes (Jim Caviezel) and his masked police force lead by Drake (Vinnie Jones). I do not want to give too much of the plot away here--as this is truly meat of the movie! (pun intended...yes)

The original story (by Miles Chapman) and the accompanying screenplay written by both Chapman and Jason Keller (Mirror, Mirror) seems very anemic at times, and relies on the brute force, and dynamic screen presence, of both Stallone and Schwarzenegger to carry the entire concept forward. In fact, without these 2 in the movie, it would have been a complete bust. Their innate ability to play off of one another as heavy-weight contemporaries--works as well as it did in "The Expendables" and "The Expendables 2."

I did laugh at many parts of the movie, but I can safely say that there was not a single thing that happened that I had not already anticipated. That being said, does anyone really go to see a Stallone/Schwarzenegger movie with the hopes of seeing the next big Oscar winning film....I think not. Enjoy the brute force for what it is, a trip back down memory lane of classic 80's action pics.

Review: Carrie

by Trevor Kirkendall

★½

One day, moviegoers are going to realize that remakes really are a gigantic waste of time. Not only a waste of the moviegoer’s time, but a waste of the studios’, the directors’, the producers’ and the talents’ time. Yet, people still pay money to watch the same movie that they probably already own in their DVD collections. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Now, we have a remake of the classic 1976 horror film “Carrie”. The studio even knows it’s doomed because they’ve advertised it as a “reimagining” of the original novel rather than a remake. Their slick advertising techique is quite transparent, and its pretty evident from the beginning that this is nothing more than a simple remake.

Carrie White (Chloë Grace Moretz) is a shy, quiet and troubled teen in high school. Most of the other students don’t really care for her. Carrie’s mother Margaret (Julianne Moore) is a very strict and religious woman, and she doesn’t even want Carrie attending the public schools. One day after gym class, the other girls in the locker room ridicule and embarrass Carrie.

The bullying is lead by one of the popular girls, Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday). Her friend Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) also participates, but quickly realizes how wrong this is and stops. Gym teacher Ms. Desjardin (Judy Greer) breaks up the commotion and sides with Carrie.

Chris is banned from the upcoming prom for her stunt. Sue, feeling sorry for Carrie, asks her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to take Carrie to prom instead. Carrie reluctantly agrees despite her mother’s insistence that she doesn’t go. Chris plans for vengeance against Carrie with her boyfriend Billy Nolan (Alex Russell). What her classmates don’t know is that Carrie has a special ability where she can move things with her mind. And what would any sane person with this ability do when someone gets on his or her bad side? I think most people know what happens next.

Nothing new is brought to the table in this version of “Carrie”. I wish I could say this wasn’t a remake of the 1976 film since the source material is based on a Stephen King novel, but it’s hard to see it that way. The book has been readapted, but it’s far from a reimagining. It’s not a shot-for-shot remake but it might as well have been. More inspiration seems to have been drawn from the 1976 film than the novel.

It’s disappointing to see someone as talented as Moretz participate in a remake and bring nothing new to the role. Remakes probably wouldn’t be so awful if they find some way to make it different and unique. Moretz as Carrie White is no different than Sissy Spacek in the same role. Spacek’s portrayal is one of the classic performances in the history of horror films.

Too watch Moretz copy Spacek’s performance is egregious. She’s talented beyond her years and is one of the most gifted teen actresses working in Hollywood today. She wastes her time with “Carrie” and utilizes none of her talent in bringing this role to life. To say her presence here is a disappointment is an understatement.

Moore is the only bright spot. She does portray the role a little differently than Piper Laurie. Moore is always solid in everything she does; not surprisingly she shines here. She’s evil, but doesn’t believe what she’s doing and how she’s raising her daughter is wrong. It’s difficult for someone to successfully pull off an evil role like this, but Moore is such a great and rare talent. She has no issues here.

Director Kimberly Peirce (“Boys Don’t Cry”, “Stop-Loss”) is just as guilty of copying from the original as Moretz. Brian De Palma helmed the original and really brought the horrific imagery of the original King novel to life. He deserves all the credit for the famous scene everyone knows from the original. Peirce tries to make that one famous scene her own. While the effects might be a little sharper (thanks to 2013 CGI), it’s not as effective. Outside of that, everything else feels bland and very similar to the original.

As a reimagining, “Carrie” fails. As a remake, it still fails. There’s nothing new that we haven’t seen before. I don’t understand why there’s a market for remakes these days. It seems that if Hollywood isn’t making a sequel to something, they’re remaking old properties. Was this remake really that necessary? Most aren’t but this one certainly wasn’t. It’s a lazy attempt at remaking yet another horror film. What’s really disappointing is waiting the entire film until the prom expecting something massive and getting nothing different.

To me, remakes are for people who want to see the same story they’ve already seen before, and for studios too cheap to buy new ideas from writers. If that’s the case, studios need to find property that’s good but not well known. At least then we’d be treated to something different. It’s hard to remake something everyone has seen. And if moviegoers really want to see the same story they’ve already seen before, why not just watch the original? In this case, that might be a wise decision. 

Review: Captain Phillips

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★½

Hollywood action films would be so much better if Paul Greengrass directed them all. He’s proven his ability already with “The Bourne Supremacy” and “The Bourne Ultimatum”. He’s also proven he can take a chilling real life event and make it into a brilliant film worth seeing, thanks to his 2006 masterpiece “United 93”. With “Captain Phillips”, Greengrass teams with Tom Hanks to bring us the true story of the first American ship taken under pirate control since the nineteenth century.

“Captain Phillips” follows the real events as they occurred in April 2009. Richard Phillips (Hanks) is the captain of the MV Maersk Alabama. After some brief back story between him and his wife Andrea (Catherine Keener), he’s headed out to sea. While moving freight off the West African coastline, the ship is boarded by four Somali pirates, lead by Muse (Barkhad Abdi). Most of the crew hides from the pirates in the ship’s engine room. Phillips remains on the bridge with other crew members as the pirates take over the ship. They’re elated to have captured an American ship, but don’t want to settle for the small amount of cash in the safe.

Muse goes in search of the crew and ends up getting caught. The crew strikes a deal with the other pirates to leave the ship on a lifeboat in exchange for their leader. This is accepted with Phillips offering to show them how to operate the lifeboat. Unfortunately, the pirates aren’t completely satisfied with the plan and end up taking Phillips along with them in the lifeboat after Muse is handed back over.  The Alabama follows the lifeboat which is headed back to Somalia. They call the hijacking into the United States Navy. It doesn’t take long for them to show up and begin the negotiating process of getting Phillips back unharmed.

“Captain Phillips” is a relentless thrill for almost the entire duration. Greengrass has mastered every aspect of these types of films. His handheld camera style and razor sharp editing, courtesy of his longtime collaborator Christopher Rouse, gives the sense that you’re just as much a part of this event as the characters on the screen.  His characters are all very realistic and empathetic, even his villains.

Much of this can also be attributed to the brilliant screenplay from “The Hunger Games” writer Billy Ray (who also wrote and directed the brilliant and much underappreciated 2003 film “Shattered Glass” featuring a brilliant performance from Peter Sarsgaard). Ray adapted his screenplay from Phillips’ own book about the ordeal called A Captain’s Duty: Somali Pirates, Navy SEALs, and Dangerous Days at Sea. The most remarkable aspect of this script is the humanizing elements that are given to the pirates, especially Muse. The pirates are not soulless, one-dimensional monsters; they are people with a very real goal and a justifiable reason – at least in their minds.

That’s what makes a great villain: when they believe in what they’re doing, believing the cause is just. We, as an audience, won’t agree with the villain and that’s point. Without any reason or justification, a villain’s plan is simply chaos for the sake of chaos. This is not true in “Captain Phillips”. The pirates get their own screen time in Somalia before they even board the ship, setting up back story and showing us the conditions in which they live. Our sympathy is not expected, but we need to know that these are real people and not just angry monsters. Evil is real, and its bred from the environment.

Greengrass has already explored this element before in “United 93”. He made the daring decision to open the film with the hijackers preparing for the day rather than the passengers. He shows their fear and anxiety leading up to the hijacking. He shows the lead hijacker making one last phone call – presumably to loved one – before boarding his plane. Is he trying to make us feel sorry for them? Not at all. But he wants us to know these are more than just one-dimensional monsters known only to the public by black-and-white photocopies of passport pictures on every cable news network. They’re following a plan they believe is completely justified. The same is shown here in “Captain Phillips”. We know Muse and his cohorts better, we know where they’re coming from, and that makes them more terrifying.

Abdi portrays Muse and he steals the spotlight away from Hanks in every scene they share. He’s a Somali American with zero acting experience who won the role at an open casting call in Minnesota. He’s sensational. He portrays the character with such a wide range of emotions that are absent in some of the most seasoned actors. Due to the amount of back story given to Muse, Abdi brings him to life and easily makes him one of the best villains on screen in a long time.

In the end, this is Hanks’ film and he turns in yet another stunning and unforgettable performance. He plays the average-Joe character better than anyone else. There’s not anything extraordinary about Richard Phillips. He’s a family man making his living the best way he knows how. Hanks never tries to make Phillips into something he’s not. He’s a demanding boss, but looks out for the best interests of his crew, including keeping them safe after the boat is boarded. When kidnapped, Hanks shows fear but never overdoes the emotions. The last five or ten minutes of this film, however, he takes the performance to a whole new level. This is one of Hanks’ finest performances in his already long and decorated career.

“Captain Phillips” is a harrowing true story that will leave you gasping for air throughout its thrilling final act. It’s one of the better films to come out of a Hollywood studio this year, thanks to the brilliant direction of Greengrass, a masterfully written screenplay from Ray and stunning performances from Abdi and Hanks. Hollywood creative liberties are no doubt employed here, but I have a hard time believing that Greengrass drifted too far from the actual events. With that thought in mind, that makes this film and the story even more astonishing. 

Review: Gravity

by Trevor Kirkendall
★★★★

With so many movies opening every year – and an increasing amount of those films being remakes, reboots, sequels and franchise installments – its easy to see why so many people have become disillusioned with the state of cinema. The creative minds are migrating to television, and the studios are too hung up on the business side of filmmaking. What makes money these days? Comic book heroes, sequels to films that performed well during their initial run and remakes of films that weren’t even worthy of the celluloid on which they were originally filmed.

Yet, no one seems to embrace original ideas when they come around. That’s because original ideas don’t always appear that original in advertisements. Filmmaker Alfonso Cuarón knows this. When it came time for him to make his latest film, “Gravity”, he needed to innovate in order to give audiences something they really have never seen before. The end product is something spectacular and truly original that will forever change filmmaking and the entire movie going experience.

In “Gravity”, astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) is on his final mission into space to assist in the repair of the Hubble Space Telescope. Making her first trip into orbit is biomedical engineer Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock). While working on the Hubble, they’re alerted by Mission Control in Houston that the Russians have test fired and anti-satellite missile into space. While the missile does what its intended to do, the debris from the satellite sets off a chain reaction of destruction, destroying everything around it. A debris field forms and starts racing around the earth.

The space shuttle is hit with debris and it’s destroyed leaving Kowalski and Stone stranded in orbit with no ride home. Not only that, but all communication satellites have been destroyed leaving no contact between Houston and the astronauts. Stone is left tumbling for several minutes until Kowalski finds her. He tethers them together and using his Manned Maneuvering Unit thruster pack, they make their way to the International Space Station hoping to use the Soyuz capsule on board in an effort to return home. Kowalski estimates they only have 90 minutes before the debris field completes its orbit of earth and comes back around to them.

What director Alfonso Cuarón has accomplished with “Gravity” is nothing short of spectacular. With this one film, Cuarón has single handily done away with the old confines of cinema, and has shown us how many endless possibilities this art has. In this current age, when films continue to rehash old ideas or are nothing more than franchise installments, “Gravity” comes along and puts all other filmmakers and studios on watch. It is the most innovative film to come along in years.

This is hardly Cuarón’s first time showing his innovative skillset; he was also the director of the 2006 sci-fi masterpiece “Children of Men” which showcased numerous sequences of long single-take shots. The shots last several minutes during highly choreographed action scenes. They’re not all done in one take, but everything is seamlessly integrated using the cameras, the film editing and CGI to make it look like one solid shot.

This has become Cuarón’s signature style. Not only does he bring that style into “Gravity”, he improves on it. There has been much study given to the initial shots in films, and the first shot in “Gravity” will be discussed and studied for years. By the time Cuarón makes his first cut, almost twenty minutes of screen time has ticked by and the second act has begun. It will also be the first time you’ve taken a breath since the film started.

This is the most visually striking and beautifully photographed film in this age of digital and 3D movies. There are more than enough movies opening these days that are unnecessarily presented in 3D. “Gravity” uses the possibilities of 3D technology to enhance the experience. There hasn’t been a better looking film since 3D became a big part of the movie going experience.

While a lot of the photography comes from visual effects, there is still a great deal of actual cinematography, courtesy of Emmanuel Lubezki who has worked with Cuarón before. Lubezki’s photography is integrated with massive amounts of visual effects. Combine that with the 3D and you truly feel that you’re not just watching this film, you’re right up there with them. This isn’t just a film; it’s an experience.

Cuarón wrote this film with his eldest son Jonás. While there may be a need to suspend your disbelief, this isn’t a film that’s supposed to be technically accurate. The screenplay is more about survival and trying to make it home. We’ve seen that particular story line numerous times before. Originality doesn’t come just from the storyline, but it also comes from setting. It would be terrifying to be stranded in any isolated area, but outer space? That’s unimaginable, except for Cuarón.

The tension created by this screenplay is unmatched. It’s only 90 minutes, yet its one tense moment after another for the entire duration. Even if you have a hard time empathizing with astronauts (since, lets be honest, how many of us have been – or will ever go – into space), the film still carries enough tension that could cause you to gnaw your fingernails right off.

Bullock is sensational in this role. It’s a film she does largely by herself and at times with very little dialogue. She shows us her fear and her isolation by the look in her eyes and her body language. She’s had many great roles in her career, but this might be her best. The screenplay gives us a little of her character’s backstory which helps to make her more relatable. That’s an attempt to bring out empathy toward characters in a profession and a setting none of us will ever see. Even without that backstory, Bullock still sells her character to the audience and pulls off this very challenging roll with great ease.

“Gravity” is nothing short of a masterpiece. It’s a film that demands to be seen in 3D and on the largest screen possible. It transcends a typical movie going experience and takes you on a breathless and pulse pounding journey you’re sure to never forget. How “Gravity” will change filmmaking remains to be seen, but Cuarón has made sure something will be changing.