Best Actor Preview – 2016 Oscars

Full disclosure: I am yet to see Trumbo or The Danish Girl, so sections involving those movies will focus on the awards buzz instead of the performances.

Well it’s about time.

While some don’t completely agree he deserves it, it’s time.

Unfollow your favourite topical meme page because Leo is winning a statue.

It may not be his best performance, or really in his best handful, but a combination of factors which is mostly lack of real competition, means Leo will have to make space on his mantle piece.

Who does this leave us as the perennial loser then?

Bradley Cooper has fallen short a couple of times recently, Amy Adams has done enough to become a loser and Joaquin Phoenix has tried, even if he denies he even knows what the Oscars are.

My hope? Brad Pitt makes another run at an actor win and crashes and burns.

Who else could have been nominated:

Will Smith and his wife staged a protest because he wasn’t nominated (and because of the lack of diversity in the nominees, but really), while Al Pacino and Mark Ruffalo were both nominated for comedy/musical Golden Globes but weren’t really in the frame here.

Christian Bale and Steve Carell were both nominated in that above a category as well, but Bale was downgraded to a supporting actor and Carell was campaigned for in that category too.

Tom Hanks made another excellent movie this year and didn’t get a look in, Tom Hardy played two people in one movie and Johnny Depp stays on the outside after his role in Black Mass.

Who was nominated:

Bryan Cranston for playing Dalton Trumbo in Trumbo

Matt Damon for playing Mark Watney in The Martian

Leonardo DiCaprio for playing Hugh Glass in The Revenant

Michael Fassbender for playing Steve Jobs in Steve Jobs

Eddie Redmayne for playing Lili Elbe/Einar Wegener in The Danish Girl

The nominees:

Bryan Cranston

Why he will win: The dark horse in this race, Cranston is a much loved, award winning figure in Hollywood. He knows how to win over votes and is a hit on the social side of things around the awards season. Could he pull enough votes away out of sheer good will?
Why he wont win: Probably not. DiCaprio likely has a stronger pull of well wishers and Trumbo was a little seen, forgetting movie that hasn’t won anything. Cranston may be everyone’s second choice, but there are no votes for second in this award.

Matt Damon

Why he will win: Damon is the only other nominee to have any serious silverware to show off this season with his Golden Globe win, and DiCaprio aside, he had to carry a film and play off nobody more than anybody else.
Why he wont win: Damon is another contender to take the throne as the win less joke of the Internet, because he isn’t going to win here.

Leonardo DiCaprio

Why he will win: He’s cornered the market in terms of good will and general love from Hollywood this season. DiCaprio is part of a film that is roaring into the final week of the awards season and his performance is at least on par with everyone else.
Why he wont win: Um, maybe people are going to tick the wrong box?

Michael Fassbender

Why he will win: Before the season officially commenced, Fassbender was probably the front runner. He carries Steve Jobs terrifically and is probably the best performance in the category.
Why he wont win: Once awards season began, Steve Jobs took a nosedive in consideration and Fassbender’s chances went with it.

Eddie Redmayne

Why he will win: Redmayne is obviously a recognised award winner and his character certainly makes the biggest transformation of any in this category.
Why he wont win: Only Tom Hanks and Spencer Tracy have won consecutive Best Actor awards and Redmayne doesn’t yet have the accepted brilliance to break into that category. Winning again recently is extremely rare at the Oscars and Redmayne just doesn’t have the power to pull it off.

Who could win: Michael Fassbender
Who should win: Michael Fassbender, Leonardo DiCaprioWho will win: Leonardo DiCaprio

Steve Jobs – Review

“Computers aren’t supposed to have human flaws. I’m not going to build one with yours.”

Ambition and hubris flawed a man considered often among our greatest innovators.

The same can be said about the latest film based on him.

Aaron Sorkin‘s vision in attempting to create a portrait of a man basically within a three act play is admirable, but it stunts the range this film could have reached.

Steve Jobs is always on a deadline and that doesn’t allow for any room to breath.

The collection of talent is right. Sorkin’s dialogue is a quick and sharp as ever, Danny Boyle brings enough trademark vibrancy to endless corridors and backstage hide always.

Michael Fassbender is terrific and Kate Winslet goes with him stride for stride, but if this film shows anything, talent doesn’t equal perfection.

Split into three acts, focusing on the launch of the Macintosh in 1984, the Black Cube in 1988 and the iMac in 1998, Steve Jobs deals with the constant interruptions the title character (Fassbender) has to deal with before stepping on stage, or as Jobs puts it “five minutes before every launch, everyone seems to get drunk and tell me what they really think”.

This would be a great concept if the acts were aided by some exposition.

At times, Steve Jobs feels like an episode of Sorkin’s The West Wing, where characters are already in their groove and decide to solve some problems by saying smart and humorous things.

That’s not a totally bad thing. The West Wing is one of televisions greatest shows and Steve Jobs carries that same confidence and gravitas, but unlike a seven season series, the characters need some movement within two hours.

Jobs is forced to jump around from total cold dick to warmed up dick without much background, aside from some enjoyable montages.

The reasoning for Jobs’ desperate need for control is explained briefly in conversations with mentor/father figure/executioner John Sculley (Jeff Daniels) but not enacted in anything other than arguments with Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogan) and his demeanor.

Unlike Sorkin’s previous troubled genius triumph, The Social Network, the key scenes in Steve Jobs don’t carry the same pay offs as a MacBook being smashed.

All of this isn’t to say that Steve Jobs is a bad film, it just gets stuck in its own head.

Perhaps it’s a deliberate ploy to reflect the titular character.

What’s with the categories? Find out here.

Direction/cinematorgraphy

In similar fashion to 127 Hours, Boyle finds himself trapped.

The corridors and back rooms of opera houses allow for more interesting visuals than James Franco with his hand under a rock, but the consistent artificial lighting and dull colours force some inventiveness from the director.

This pays off in montages between the three acts to catch the audience up on what has occurred between launches and Boyle’s need to show the audience filing into whatever auditorium the launch is in.

There isn’t really much else that Boyle can achieve within the verbal-heavy script, but he does the best he can and it certainly helps break up the tension of the constant talking.

1.7/2

Writing

The big flaw and the best part of Steve Jobs is the script.

Attempting tho show the variances of a man within three scenes is as Sorkin as walk and talks and sarcastic dialogue.

Sorkin often makes things harder than they need to be with flashbacks and multi-dimensional conversations. It worked mostly in The Social Network, it didn’t really come off in The Newsroom, but the three scene gimmick here limits character development.

I guess the father-daughter relationship between Jobs and the ever aging Lisa is supposed to be the heart of the film, but really it’s about a man so singularly driven in his belief that his way is right that in one way or another he had to change the world.

Sorkin relays that well, particularly in the three scenes with Wozniak that vary from what he actually does and why he needs to do it and that should be the center of things.

Instead, with other characters bringing in other themes (trust – Sculley, fatherhood – Lisa, self-identity – Andy Hertzfeld (Michael Stuhlbarg)) the focus of the film is never truly established.

Steve Jobs is so Sorkin it might have well been meta.

It’s great, but it’s also too much.

1.2/2

Acting

Fassbender is perfect to play an egomanical, rage-fueled control freak.

Maybe it’s because I’m not sure he can be nice on screen, but Fassbender is just excellent at “playing the orchestra”.

He’s quickly becoming a forgotten treasure of the film industry, much like Stuhlbarg who is terrific in everything.

Winslet is good as the warmth to Jobs’ ice and nails her seemingly unnecessary emotional scene.

Rogan is also well cast as the off center Wozniak, allowing him to yell in Rogan ways, but also in a Rogan way be the only one who tells the truth that Jobs will really listen to.

1.8/2

Re-watchability

The broken up nature of the film allows for easily dropping in for a third, but also makes it easier to drop out after a third.

It’s a pretty even film in respect for the thirds and which is better, so it’s easier to get hooked rather than drop out after a certain launch.

Steve Jobs is a film that will get better in memory and certain slower sections can be forgotten, even when re-watched.

1.2/2

Zeitgeist

Sorkin is genuinely building a collection of underrated films.

The complex and brilliant nature of Moneyball is easy to forget, The Social Network is one of the best films of the past decade and A Few Good Men is only remembered for one scene rather than a brilliant all-round drama.

For that reason, Steve Jobs is likely to be pushed back into the shadows as a smart, yet flawed film.

But hey, at least it doesn’t star Ashton Kutcher.

1.1/2

Steve Jobs – 6.8 out of 10

2014 Oscars – Best Supporting Actor

This is part of a series previewing the 2014 Academy Awards. To find the home page for that series, click here.

As with most of the major categories this year, Best Supporting Actor is stuffed with terrific performances. While some recent years have thrown up some iffy nominees (Alan Arkin, Max von Sydow) this current crop can truly boast to deserve the award. Ultimately though Jared Leto is the one in line for the award, as he is scooping the pool during awards season.

Who else could have been nominated:
I’ll say this a lot, but things are crowded. James Franco was given a semi-large campaign for Spring Breakers to no avail, Will Forte could have been in the conversation for Nebraska, Daniel Bruhl (Rush) was Golden Globe nominated before being replaced by Jonah Hill for the Academy Awards, Casey Affleck and Woody Harrelson both put in great turns in the ignored Out of the Furnace and any other year a left field suggestion like John Goodman in Inside Llewyn Davis could garner merit, while Kyle Chandler’s performance in The Spectacular Now was one I particularly enjoyed.

Who was nominated:
Barkhad Abdi – As Abduwali Muse in Captain Phillips
Bradley Cooper – As Richie DiMaso in American Hustle
Michael Fassbender – As Edwin Epps in 12 Years a Slave
Jonah Hill – As Donnie Azoff in The Wolf of Wall Street
Jared Leto – As Rayon in Dallas Buyers Club

Barkhad Abdi.

Why he will win: Abdi has the best story of all the acting nominees for quite some time. I mean, come on, limo driver with no acting experience turns in a compelling performance alongside Tom Hanks? That is the American dream. Adbi might win some votes from people who haven’t even seen the film for his fairytale story.
Also, just quietly, Abdi outdoes freakin’ Tom Hanks. That is an award perhaps greater than an Oscar (probably not really).
Abdi also won a BAFTA for his role, so he has some form in the awards season.
Why he wont win: Unfortunately Abdi picked the wrong year to accidentally become a movie star, with such a log jam in this award. Voters may not warm to him because of his inexperience and give it to somebody who “deserves” it more, as they aren’t sure whether Abdi has a future in the industry.
Abdi is the dark horse in the race because the is the feel-good-story-of-the-year and could possibly win a lot of votes for that sole aspect.

Bradley Cooper.

Why he will win: Everybody likes Bradley Cooper. And everybody especially likes Bradley Cooper when he has curls.
There might also be a feeling that Cooper was deserving of more praise for his terrific performance in Silver Linings Playbook, and vote for him in that movie as much as American Hustle.
David O. Russell has developed a great record of directing Oscar winning performances with three in his previous two films (and Jennifer Lawrence looking good for this one), and Cooper’s desperate plunge into the conning underworld as Richie DiMaso was a great performance.
Why he wont win: While his performance was great, Cooper had a couple of average scenes that seemed more like watching Bradley Cooper than Richie DiMaso. Cooper may suffer from a general feeling that while American Hustle had some great performances and was a great movie, it just isn’t the right time to cash in with the Academy. Russell, Amy Adams and Christian Bale are possibly going to suffer from that feeling, while Lawrence is just suddenly an awards freak.

Michael Fassbender.

Why he will win: Because he put in the best performance of the lot. Fassbender just about plastered over the cracks of 12 Years a Slave by being so impossibly memorable. His maniacal feverishness for the role was clearly evident and held the film together. 12 Years a Slave is shaping up to win the Best Picture and that would be a little unsual without an acting win (although I do kind of denounce this point below).
Why he won’t win: Fassbender hasn’t won anything notable yet (apart from an AACTA award, but yeah, notable) and seems to me to be the 2nd place every time.
Looking back over recent winners of Best Supporting Actor of the last 20 years, only two of the winners have been in the Best Picture of the year. With 12 Years a Slave looking so strong, that strangely doesn’t bode well for Fassbender.

Jonah Hill.

Why he will win: Hill is nominated for the second time in this category and perhaps voters will feel it is his time, though not likely. Hill does seem like a good guy (a statement based on 0% actual knowledge) and his performance as such an all-round bad dude like Donnie was a great transformation. Plus, he sports a prosthetic penis, so that could get bonus points?
Why he wont win: Really, Hill’s is the least expansive performance in the category this year. Hill plays an asshole and plays it like an asshole, and Donnie doesn’t get much more else to do. Hill wasn’t nominated at the Golden Globes, and stands out as the extra in this field this year.

Jared Leto.

Why he will win: And this brings us to Leto, a man destined to win. He will win because he is winning everything else, and a great performance as a transgender person with HIV/AIDS is hard to ignore for voters. It is a quality transformation for the rock star, and his talents have lead to an overwhelming tidal wave of momentum during awards season.
Why he wont win: Well, Leto’s isn’t the best performance of the group. It is an undeniably great turn, but not the greatest. Other than that (kind of important aspect), it is hard to find an area that wont lead to a Leto win.

Who will win: Jared Leto
Who could win: Barkhad Abdi
Who should win: Michael Fassbender

Photo credit: BradWeasley123