OscarGuy wrote:I'll agree that Epps is good, but a case could be made for her as a Supporting character. After all, while she does have her important story arc, she still seems a catalyst for the certain lead of the pic: Ryan Gosling. Though, if Anthony Hopkins could be considered lead for Silence of the Lambs, Epps could be considered lead for Half Nelson. It's a gray area for sure, but I, personally, would place her in support.
You know, it really is a shame that there couldn't have been a surprise nod for Shareeka Epps this year in the Best Actress catgory. She was truly a revelation in Half Nelson. An incredible, seamless performance and a bold clarion call for recognizing all players in the war on drugs. She was in my fifth spot.
Edited By flipp525 on 1170681993
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
British monarch Queen Elizabeth II will never watch Oscar nominated movie The Queen because she doesn't want to watch someone else depict her on screen. The 80-year-old isn't keen to relive what is arguably the most painful week of her 55-year reign, the period after Diana, Princess Of Wales' tragic death in August 1997 - which is the subject of the film. A friend of Queen Elizabeth II tells British newspaper the Sunday Telegraph, "It's hard enough for her to have to look at a video of herself after an event. But to try to watch somebody else being you is almost impossible. The Queen is not a great film person. There are small cinema rooms at (her homes) Buckingham Palace, Sandringham and Balmoral, but the Queen rarely takes advantage of them." Peter Morgan, the film's scriptwriter, said, "If the Queen hasn't seen it, that's very, very sensible. It speaks hugely in her favor." Dame Helen Mirren is Oscar nominated for her portrayal of the British royal.
I think what's refreshing about Mirren's work in The Queen being recognized is that for years, the Academy and critics alike have recognized the most showy, outrageous and dramatically hefty roles for awards.
For once, a sublime, small, farthest-from-showy, understated performance is getting the mass of attention and awards. I think it shows great restraint on the part of critics, and hopefully the Academy, to choose such a performance when you have far more showy performances from Judi Dench or Meryl Streep to champion.
I'll agree that Epps is good, but a case could be made for her as a Supporting character. After all, while she does have her important story arc, she still seems a catalyst for the certain lead of the pic: Ryan Gosling. Though, if Anthony Hopkins could be considered lead for Silence of the Lambs, Epps could be considered lead for Half Nelson. It's a gray area for sure, but I, personally, would place her in support.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I agree with Sonic's 'Sideways' comparison. If I concede jumping at least somewhat on board Alexander Payne's road movie bandwagon, it's that I'm more partial to its 'Sideways'-ian charms. But both movies seem to be receiving excessive amounts of praise for what is to me just an outward display of competence. The movie itself is fine. Peter Morgan's screenplay is one of the funniest of the year, and really a marvel of economy, bringing us up to speed with the monarchy through elemental means. Stephen Fears' direction is modest yet controlled. Alexandre Desplat's score is pretty marvelous. And Michael Sheen gives a fascinating portrait of Tony Blair.
Then there's Helen Mirren. She's perfect, yet I can't help but wonder if The Performance of the Year ought not have more vibrancy to it. Mirren proves entirely capable of this role, I can't fault it by any means, but could we see one critic's group laud Penelope Cruz's work in 'Volver', another piece of acting with nary a misstep? Or Maggie Gyllenhaal in 'Sherrybaby'? Or the year's best LEADING female performance, Shareeka Epps, who makes it look like the most natural thing on the planet at what can't be past 14 years of age? She's a fantastic actress who certainly deserves to win an Oscar and her win will certainly be remembered as a fine one, but this is not to me the performance of the year.
flipp525 wrote:Good comments, rain Baird, however, I found this logic to be a bit flawed. Would you have said the same thing if you were asked your opinion of a film that featured, say, Hitler in 1945, Hussein in the 1980's, or even, heck, Queen Elizabeth I after she offed her sister? That you don't have the right to an opinion about them because you're not German, Iraqi, or Elizabethan English, respectively, comes off to me as an untenable position.
It's okay to abstain from making a judgmental on the Royals, but they're not these untouchable figurines in a box to look at under glass only to be judged and commented on by their British subjects. They're people with human frailties making mistakes just like everyone else, a point I think the film was trying to make.
It's less "logic" than just the reaction I personally had. I'm not trying to judge others who have an opinion on the Royals, only to express my own mild resentment at feeling like the filmmakers were trying to manipulate me into taking a position on something I'm wholly indifferent to. Certainly I'd care about them a lot more if they were up to something more heinous than the elites in most other nation-states. I do have opinions on the governments of other countries, but generally only the ones I've closely studied or the ones that are obviously really horrible (like Myanmar, for example).
I agree with your last paragraph wholeheartedly. My problem with the manipulative vibe I got from the film was not with the way it showed the human fralties of these people, but that they way they did it was to try to take me on a ride of opinion on whether the institution should even exist. I wish I could cite specific examples from the film right now but it's been three months since I saw it.
Sonic, I noted that same critic/audience divide you did some years ago (I called it Critics' Syndrome; same difference) -- actually, with an earlier Frears film, My Beautiful Laundrette, which got rapturous reviews from a cold-viewing festival audience, and which struck me as fine but nothing worth tossing a hat in the air.
I also -- risking some umbrage here -- thought it applied marginally to Unforgiven. I thought the film was solid, and I never begrudged its best picture win. But I thought the "great great film" reaction had at least some roots in a critical fraternity that had endured a horrific summer and thought (based on their long-standing attitude toward Eastwood movies) they'd be ending it with a dreary western. To them it had to appear a miracle. To some of us who went in expecting the "great great" movie, it fell just a bit short.
Oh, but I have to say...not everyone found Sideways such a disappointment. I've watched large sections on HBO over and over, and I continue to think it's one of the great comedies.
flipp525 wrote:or even, heck, Queen Elizabeth I after she offed her sister?
flipp, by "sister," I'm going to assume you mean Mary of Scotland, better known as Mary, Queen of Scots, who a lot of people confuse with Mary I of England, Elizabeth's half-sister. Mary of Scotland was Elizabeth's cousin. And although this may be a mute point, her execution was supposedly carried out secretly by Elizabeth's counselors without her knowledge.
"I can't stand a naked light bulb any more than I can a rude remark or a vulgar action." -- Blanche DuBois
rain Bard wrote:But to sit in judgment of them or of British society for feeling one way or another about them? That's not really my place as an outsider, and I kindof resented the filmmakers' obvious attempts to try to get me to do it.
Good comments, rain Baird, however, I found this logic to be a bit flawed. Would you have said the same thing if you were asked your opinion of a film that featured, say, Hitler in 1945, Hussein in the 1980's, or even, heck, Queen Elizabeth I after she offed her cousin? That you don't have the right to an opinion about them because you're not German, Iraqi, or Elizabethan English, respectively, comes off to me as an untenable position.
It's okay to abstain from making a judgment on the Royals, but they're not these untouchable figurines in a box to look at under glass only to be judged and commented on by their British subjects. They're people with human frailties making mistakes just like everyone else, a point I think the film was trying to make.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
Nice reaction and analysis, Sonic. I saw the film at what was probably an on-the-late-side-of-things critics screening in mid-September (after Italiano's review was posted here, but before Manohla Darghis's was published).
I have to admit that the film, at least at that point, already didn't feel like a blank slate; it was already exceedingly clear that this film was getting a big Oscar push. There was a 40-page press packet, nearly half of which took the shape of interviews with various cast and crew members. Someone mildly skilled could easily write a glowing review based just on this press packet, without having even seen the film.
I agree with your assessment of the film as extremely witty, and think you're spot-on in comparing it (favorably) with television. But my main resistance to the film does not lie in its lack of a "cinematic" quality, but from a sense I got that it was trying very hard to make me think a certain way about the British royalty and the entire British governmental system. Sure, the filmmakers push and pull, trying to get me to try on various thoughts about the worthiness or lack thereof of modern monarchy, then try on a different, conflicting one. But I didn't like this manipulation, probably because my real opinion on the Royals is that: they're not really any of my business. I'm not a citizen of a Commonwealth country, so why should I really have an opinion at all? Sure, I'm curious to know who these people are, and what their unique position in their society might mean to them as human individuals. Which is why I was interested in seeing the film. But to sit in judgment of them or of British society for feeling one way or another about them? That's not really my place as an outsider, and I kindof resented the filmmakers' obvious attempts to try to get me to do it.
But it's definitely an intelligent film, though not a brilliant one. I'm glad I saw it and I begrudge nobody any awards or nominations they may earn from it.
I saw "The Queen", and it's very interesting to come back and read the reviews and then the reactions here. Underwhelming, not a great film, doesn't burst the bounderies, not dazzling. It reminds me of the "Sideways" reactions. Critics and the respective voting bodies they participate in declared "Sideways" an outstanding comedy, and everyone here is all "Um, what? I mean, it's fine, but..." (Which was my reaction.) There's a very interesting dynamic at work here. Critics are the ones who get to see "The Queen" first at the festivals. The movie is essentially a blank slate. All the critics have to fill up that slate with their pre-conceptions is a cast list, the director's reputation and the subject matter. They don't know what to expect, and some are probably dreading a well-acted, well-produced, respectable bit of stuffiness. What they get is a highly engaging two-character study, with the close proximity of recent events to give the film added friction. Frears managed to pull it off. The critics applaud this unexpected gold-spinning, the numbers in Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic grow to ridiculous heights, and we salivators are stricken with a severe case of Heightened Expectation Syndrome. Now we bear the burden of pre-conceptions that are much more difficult to overcome.
That's too bad. The thing is, within the strict bounderies of the two person character back-and-forth with a current event backdrop, it's very, very good (if a little formulaic). If this were a television production, I don't think we'd have any druthers with it. No, it's not ultra-cinematic. Frears seems to have taken Stanley Donen's Honorary Oscar advice to obtain a great cast and a great screenplay, "and you get out of their way." No, it's not an emotional powerhouse. How can it be when the story isn't Diana's, but that of her emotionally repressed former mother-in-law? It's not a comedy, but I thought it was the wittiest film I've seen all year, and from the get-go. When Elizabeth states (to one of her subjects, who happens to be both black and a devoted loyalist) that she wishes she were allowed to vote so she could celebrate the joy of being "partial", I laughed out loud. And along the way, it perceptively touches on such topics as the importance of behind-the-scenes political machinations, the tenuousness of authority, the power of the image and mass hysteria. Did it tell me anything I didn't know already? Of course not. But how often do I get to see such things used in the service of a film?
We saw The Queen over Thanksgiving and it has become the first **** film of the year for more. Previous to this, the last best film I had seen was V for Vendetta. I must say the year has been rather disappointing in terms of quality output...then again, the low quality output issue has been buzzing around for the last few years, so I don't think that I'm really surprised at all.
Mirren is absolutely fantastic and ranks in my list of top Monarchic performances which include other British queens Judi Dench in Mrs. Brown and Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth.
Michael Sheen is quite good as Blair, despite his passing resemblance to Tony Blair (much cuter than the real Blair anyway). Cromwell does have a showy enough role to merit a mention, as does Sylvia Syms. I think that if the quality output of the next month remains poor, we could see an amazing nomination total for The Queen. However, we've still got a lot of films to see before declaring that over.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Penelope wrote:also, about the stag--perhaps it's about her being able to express her grief for Diana, but I also think it symbolizes the Queen herself more than Diana--the stag is being hunted by her family just as Elizabeth is being hunted by the tabloids--her (and thus, the monarchy's) survival is a near-thing, and that's where her emotions swirl as she observes the stag.
I just saw The Queen yesterday, and I must say the stag scene really was sublime acting there. Overall, I thought Helen Mirren's effortless portrayal - part stately, part divaesque - is worthy of all the praise she's getting.
I've been a fan of hers since Prime Suspect and cannot wait to view its final installment this month.
I haven't yet seen Little Children to compare Kate Winslet (another superb actress whom I've admired since Heavenly Creatures), but right now I'm sold on Helen Mirren taking the trophy.
I just got back from finally seeing The Queen. Much to say, but first let me tell you that I have a close connection to the events portrayed in the film.
In 1994, when I was working at Disney World, specifically the day in question, at the Grand Prix Raceway, Princess Diana came to the attraction with William and Harry in tow; I stood only 20 feet away from Diana (and her large retinue) and was dazzled by her beauty, her charisma and her obvious adoration of her children.
In August of 1997, I was working at Continental Airlines; myself, my mother and my friend Tim had already arranged to spend our vacation in London the first week of September. Four days before our departure, she died. We managed to get the last 3 seats on that flight from Houston to London (Tim was even interviewed at the gate by the local news, as was a young lady who was taking her first flight ever just to be there for this event). That Friday night, myself, Tim and my friend Fred from Paris took flowers to Kensington Palace, where I cried like a baby in Tim's arms; the next day, we were at Hyde Park Corner when the cortege passed. That day London was astonishingly quiet and peaceful--unforgettable. I suppose it's one of the contradictions of my character that I was so emotionally affected by this event and yet I am a vehemently ardent anti-monarchist.
Which is perhaps why The Queen was such a frustrating film for me. As somebody who experienced this historical event up close, I had hoped that it would trigger another emotional reaction; it didn't. Having seen (but, for the most part, only skimmed) all those glowing reviews, I was hopeful that it would be an exquisite cinematic experience; it isn't.
Oh, it's a very fine film: Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen, in fact, the whole cast, are wonderful; Frears' direction is solid and strong; the script does a fine job of balancing different perspectives; and Desplat's score is marvelous. But I was rather underwhelmed--as others say, it's a fine film, but not a great film.
But do let me say this: I think this is as much a story of Elizabeth II as it is the story of Tony Blair (Sheen is a Lead Actor contender, as far as I'm concerned, even though he'll end up in Supporting for the Academy); also, about the stag--perhaps it's about her being able to express her grief for Diana, but I also think it symbolizes the Queen herself more than Diana--the stag is being hunted by her family just as Elizabeth is being hunted by the tabloids--her (and thus, the monarchy's) survival is a near-thing, and that's where her emotions swirl as she observes the stag.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
