The Favourite reviews

User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by Precious Doll »

Very enjoyable stuff and great to see Yorgos Lanthimos stamp he idiosyncratic style all over the film. Technically its perfection plus and Lanthimos manages to tease out the shifting dynamics of his three leading ladies with the politics of the day taking an interesting but decidedly back seat.

I don't know who I thought shone the most, all three are excellent and all three are without a doubt equals leads, though Stone probably has slightly more screen time. Like Sabin, I'm going to have to sit on this for a few days. And whilst it hasn't sent me buzzing to the high heavens I had a jolly good time with it.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by Sabin »

I found this film completely diverting from beginning to end, but I can’t ignore the fact that this year has had me starving for a full meal. Best Supporting Performance of the Year, whatever category she’s in. Full review to come. Or perhaps not. But I’ll co-sign the praises below. This is good shit. My only quibble: is it truly more than a lark?

(NOTE: it must be. I’ve edited my post because I can’t stop thinking about it days later)
"How's the despair?"
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by Reza »

Uri wrote:I'm sure your tongue was so deep in your cheek while you were typing this, it actually poked a hole there.
:D
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by Uri »

Reza wrote:
Uri wrote:
Reza wrote:Best to take it all with a pinch of salt and move on.
Why?
Too much to do. So little time.
I'm sure your tongue was so deep in your cheek while you were typing this, it actually poked a hole there.
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by Reza »

Uri wrote:
Reza wrote:Best to take it all with a pinch of salt and move on.
Why?
Too much to do. So little time.
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by Uri »

And Reza, I'd accept your reasonings on sites such as Awards Daily or Gold Derby, but here I still have higher expectations.

And I know I'm a self righteous pompous ass, though I prefer the term "morally superior", if you don't mind.
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by Uri »

Reza wrote:Best to take it all with a pinch of salt and move on.
Why?
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by Reza »

Uri wrote:You do realize that seriously discussing this stuff, without fully insisting how ridiculously cynical it really is, is rather degrading, don’t you?
It's how the world in general works. Going all a flutter over cynicism is actually the degrading part. Gotta be tough and move on when things don't go according to one's conceived plan.

There are far too many factors working behind the scenes of the Academy's choices. Some are blatantly obvious but I'm sure there are some we mere mortals are unaware of. Best to take it all with a pinch of salt and move on.
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by Uri »

I always bring up this example, for it perfectly illustrates the post Thelma & Louise Awards logic, lead vs. support wise. The first year ER was aired, there were only 6 actors featured in its opening credits. All of them were nominated for the Emmys that year. The 3 white doctors as leads, the nurse, the student and the black doctor as support.

So, the logic is, when there’s an issue of category placement, the higher the character is placed on the conventional social hierarchy, the higher the actor playing the character is placed in the Awards hierarchy, regardless of the actual dramatic and narrative hierarchy within the film one is featured in. So, when Jamie Foxx’s PR team concocted his double nominations back in 2004 for his two big fat leading roles, the celebrated, rich entertainer was lead, the humble cabby was support. Authoritative, commanding glorified supporting turns (by big stars) in Training Day or Devil Wears Prada are leads while the actual apprentice protagonists of these films, if nominated, are in the “lesser” category. (Not to mention the top/bottom situation of you-know-who).

What a pity this common sense hasn’t been applied earlier so some of Oscars injustices could have been mended. Had Becket been released nowadays, Burton, though the bigger star and playing the title (bigger) role – just like Stone in The Favorite – would have been nominated (and won) as support and O’Toole would have been nominated (and, alas, lost – no one was beating Harrison that year) as lead. Only Hudson as lead, Dean winning posthumously as support. Reflecting the fuckability status of the characters they were playing, Taylor winning her first leading Oscar a year earlier, (preventing the Butterflied 8 disgrace), Hepburn giving a fight to Winters in support (and probably losing to the Holocaust gal). Finny – lead, Courtney - support, both with much better chances of winning. Sarandon – lead, Davis – support. Both winning. And so on.

You do realize that seriously discussing this stuff, without fully insisting how ridiculously cynical it really is, is rather degrading, don’t you?
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by Reza »

Mister Tee wrote:The three lead actresses were all very good. Stone seems to me, by focus/size of role, the only truly logical candidate for best actress categorization. I loved the way she could make her phony moves ("Ooh, I'm so sick") in a way that instantly let us know she was play-acting but that wasn't apparent to the other characters (unless they were on to her). Rachel Weisz does nothing to ingratiate herself with the audience -- she's truly an awful, manipulative person throughout. Yet one can't help feeling a bit of sympathy for her fate, which I guess is tribute to her talent. As for Olivia Colman: I'm a long-time fan (I think she does extraordinary things on Broadchurch), so I'm not surprised she's so superb here. She has the richest role of the three -- more or less a toddler queen, on some level aware of all her shortcomings but too vain to openly acknowledge them, and too narcissistic to give up any of her privileges (remind you of any current world leader?). But even starting with that advantage, I think she outpaces her co-stars with the sheer variety and imagination she displays within that framework. However...as I've noted elsewhere...I don't think the fact that she's the best of the three correlates to her being the lead actress. I felt throughout that Stone and Weisz were the motor of the story, with Colman kind of the MacGuffin around which the story was constructed. She'd be my clear choice, based on what I've seen, for best supporting actress.
If the studio is pushing Colman in the lead category is there still any chance the Academy nominates her in support? If that were to happen it might play havoc with placements in support for both Weisz and Stone. Unless there is a 1963, 1972 or 1974 replay which I seriously doubt.
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by Greg »

Mister Tee wrote: What I like most about the film is the way it takes all these pristinely costumed characters and figuratively (or literally, in Stone's case) rubs them in the mud. Hitchcock always said his problem with costume pictures was he couldn't imagine any of the characters going to the bathroom. Here, I think you can -- you certainly see them physically compromised (Colman's gout, Weisz's scars), as well as in sometimes grubby sexual encounters (notably Stone/Alwyn's wedding night). I don't think it's accidental we see each of the three actresses looking unattractive: Stone's mud-face, Colman's "badger" make-up, Weisz's disfiguring facial injury. All of this has the effect of bringing the characters down to earth, where, in most films of the genre, they would seem to float above it. This is of a piece with the narrative, since the character's setbacks/pains are not just ethereal -- they suffer real pain, both physical and emotional, as a result of their court machinations. It's why the film's outcome moves the audience in a way that goes beyond that of a standard "palace dirty tricks" film.
This made me think of The Lion In Winter.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by Mister Tee »

There are a lot of aspects of The Favourite, that to be frank, don't interest me much. I'm not big on period pieces, royalty, or scheming palace intriguers. What makes The Favourite a worthy film, despite all that, is the sensibility provided within those trappings by the writers, actors and director. This is a funny, cynical, off-center take on all those things, and it makes for a film that's largely entertaining, surprising, even moving in the end. I still must confess that my general lack of affection for the genre prevents me from loving it the way some of you have. But it's a solid piece of work, and, in a year where I haven't found much to adore, one of the better candidates for year-end prizes.

What I like most about the film is the way it takes all these pristinely costumed characters and figuratively (or literally, in Stone's case) rubs them in the mud. Hitchcock always said his problem with costume pictures was he couldn't imagine any of the characters going to the bathroom. Here, I think you can -- you certainly see them physically compromised (Colman's gout, Weisz's scars), as well as in sometimes grubby sexual encounters (notably Stone/Alwyn's wedding night). I don't think it's accidental we see each of the three actresses looking unattractive: Stone's mud-face, Colman's "badger" make-up, Weisz's disfiguring facial injury. All of this has the effect of bringing the characters down to earth, where, in most films of the genre, they would seem to float above it. This is of a piece with the narrative, since the character's setbacks/pains are not just ethereal -- they suffer real pain, both physical and emotional, as a result of their court machinations. It's why the film's outcome moves the audience in a way that goes beyond that of a standard "palace dirty tricks" film.

I can't say I found the film as teeming with quotable quips as you guys. Perhaps if I read the screenplay, I'd be refreshed on that score. The only one I particularly remember slaying me was Stone's response to Alwyn's "I'm a gentleman". But I did admire the film as a piece of construction -- it economically set up a long series of thrusts and parries, carried out to a logical and surprisingly heart-rending conclusion -- and I thought the dialogue, avoiding tiresome period-piece trappings, was generally lively.

The three lead actresses were all very good. Stone seems to me, by focus/size of role, the only truly logical candidate for best actress categorization. I loved the way she could make her phony moves ("Ooh, I'm so sick") in a way that instantly let us know she was play-acting but that wasn't apparent to the other characters (unless they were on to her). Rachel Weisz does nothing to ingratiate herself with the audience -- she's truly an awful, manipulative person throughout. Yet one can't help feeling a bit of sympathy for her fate, which I guess is tribute to her talent. As for Olivia Colman: I'm a long-time fan (I think she does extraordinary things on Broadchurch), so I'm not surprised she's so superb here. She has the richest role of the three -- more or less a toddler queen, on some level aware of all her shortcomings but too vain to openly acknowledge them, and too narcissistic to give up any of her privileges (remind you of any current world leader?). But even starting with that advantage, I think she outpaces her co-stars with the sheer variety and imagination she displays within that framework. However...as I've noted elsewhere...I don't think the fact that she's the best of the three correlates to her being the lead actress. I felt throughout that Stone and Weisz were the motor of the story, with Colman kind of the MacGuffin around which the story was constructed. She'd be my clear choice, based on what I've seen, for best supporting actress.

And, yes, as others have said, Nicholas Hoult is also good, and I'd throw in a word for Joe Alwyn, as well. Is this a big enough cast to qualify for SAG Ensemble? It certainly rates on quality.

The fact that people are so high on the film's script might make it to easy to overlook Lanthimos's contributions. There are more perfectly framed shots in this film than you can count. And god bless him for giving us that demented dance number between Weisz and Alwyn.

And one more thing I can't neglect: Sandy Powell's costumes. Wowwowwow. Most thrilling since at least Anna Karenina, maybe The Duchess. Breathtaking stuff.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by flipp525 »

Just saw The Favourite last night at a private screening in NYC. Wow. I want to co-sign much of BJ’s reaction below, especially his thoughts on the screenplay which would seem like a very easy winner this year. All three actresses (Rachel Weisz, Emma Stone, Olivia Colman) are giving career-best performances. I have seen a lot of the main contenders this year and I have to say that Emma Stone, in particular, was giving a ferocious performance and I would heartily endorse her for awards consideration for her performance (she really should probably be competing in Best Actress though to be honest). Olivia Colman is a force to be reckoned with and infused her Queen Anne character with some real unexpected strokes of humanity. The last two minutes of this film are insane and virtually inscrutable. I would love to hear reactions to it as more UAADBers see this in the coming months

I feel like they are all co-leads with Emma Stone getting slightly more screen time than the other two. I think the trailer makes it look like a lot more of a comedy than it ultimately turns out to be. Don’t get me wrong - there are several laugh-out-loud moments throughout but the film and particularly Colman take on a distinct level of pathos as the film progresses. It seems like the perfect movie for this “year of the woman” too as the men in the film are prissy, impotent fops for the most part. (Nicholas Hoult is always so sexy to me though, even in his frippery and wigs).

One of the best movies I’ve seen this year. I haven’t seen any of Lanthimos’s previous films but I’m excited to check them out now.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by The Original BJ »

What a hoot. This strikes me as a very strong candidate for screenplay prizes -- the dialogue essentially amounts to one deliciously nasty quip after another, often coming in unexpected moments. The writers do a pretty terrific job of making the set-ups to punchlines not FEEL like set-ups -- a character will ask a pretty mundane question, for instance, and have it answered with a surprisingly funny response. The memorable zingers come so often, and sometimes so quickly, I lost track of all the ones I wanted to remember (and wouldn't spoil them here).

Yorgos Lanthimos -- this time working only as director -- also deserves credit for pulling off the movie's tricky tone. The frequent use of wide-angle lenses and whip pans play up the ridiculousness of the material -- as if to signal that, despite all the period refinery, this is no stuffy affair. But I never thought the movie tipped into silly at any point, which in less confident hands it might have easily. In fact, the film balances its sense of humor with moments of genuine sincerity and heartbreak quite deftly -- the multitude of rabbits that the Queen owns, for instance, initially seems like yet another ridiculous quirk of her character, but is ultimately revealed to have a more poignant and humanizing purpose.

And of course the movie wouldn't work without the cast's skill at pulling off the deadpan quality of the humor. Emma Stone once again shows her knack for wringing extra laughs out of already clever dialogue. Rachel Weisz, not an actress I generally think of as a comedienne, brings out the same sense of dry humor she brought to Lanthimos's earlier The Lobster. And while most of the attention has gone to the women at the center of the story, I also think Nicholas Hoult is clearly having a ton of fun as yet another self-absorbed schemer in a film full of them.

But best in show honors, as has been reported, go to Olivia Colman, whose emotionally fragile, physically ailing, regally obtuse Queen Anne is a clear showcase role, performed by an actress who imbues it with great wit and humanity. Again, I don't want to spoil her best moments, but I'll just say there were a couple that had my audience howling with laughter.

I thought the movie dipped a bit toward the end. It's been described as a "tragicomedy," which I guess is true, but that descriptor had me thinking it would build to something more dramatic than the relatively softer conclusion we get. (Presumably, given that it's loosely based on a true story, the writers were constrained from taking this story in the more horrifying direction you'd imagine Lanthimos would have been happy to go.) And the last shot, I imagine, will have many interpretations, though it's obviously clear none of the characters end the story in any place resembling happiness.

Gorgeous costumes -- Sandy Powell does it again! And wonderful use of (non-original) music throughout, which really helps bring out the movie's tone.

I think most people will really get a kick out of this one.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: The Favourite reviews

Post by Okri »

The woman Colman replaced in The Crown, Claire Foy, is also in the race for First Man.
Post Reply

Return to “2018”