La Loren, was by far more consistent.ITALIANO wrote:Big Magilla wrote:Her performance has been rightly compared to Sophia Loren's in Two Women
By whom? They don't have anything in common, except that the American film industry wants us to believe that they do.
Volver
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
I just watched this for the first time today. What an incredible film anchored by a revelatory performance by Cruz. I was simply riveted by Raimunda. More after turkey and a couple Cape Cods, I'm sure.
Edited By flipp525 on 1195776423
Edited By flipp525 on 1195776423
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
I found very little to gripe about in this year's nominations and awards, certainly nothing to complain about in either female acting category.
Penelope Cruz's transformation from girl-next-door or whatever her image was to earth mother in Volver was astounding. Her performance has been rightly compared to Sophia Loren's in Two Women, but even if we had never seen her before we would and should be amazed by presence in this film. She, Mirren, Dench and Winslet all gave Oscar caliber performances, any one of which could have won in a year with weaker competition. Only Streep, whose role is marginally a lead wouldn't likely win this category in any but a really bad year for actresses. Perhaps she and Blanchett should have swtiched places, in which case Streep may well have given Hudson a run for her Oscar, but that wasn't the case.
The line between lead and support has been muddied since supporting awards were first given. In 1936, Stu Erwin was in practically every frame of Pigskin Paade but was nominated as a supporting actor because he was not a "star". Spencer Tracy, on the other hand, who was billed below the title in San Francisco despite his star power was nevertheless nominated as a lead for his supporting role in that film because he was a "star".
Placement issues really didn't cause an uproar until 1954 when Columbia positioned Eva Marie Saint as a supporting actress for what was clearly the female lead in On the Waterfront. She won anyway. The following year when Columbia tried to do the same thing with Rosalind Russell in Picnic, she complained and ended up not being nominated in either category. Had she swallowed her star pride she would likely have won the Oscar that always eluded her.
Not having seen all the foreign film nominees, I can't comment on the exclusion of Volver, but as much as I enjoyed it I can't say it deserved a nod over the two I have seen: Pan's Labyrinth and Water.
Penelope Cruz's transformation from girl-next-door or whatever her image was to earth mother in Volver was astounding. Her performance has been rightly compared to Sophia Loren's in Two Women, but even if we had never seen her before we would and should be amazed by presence in this film. She, Mirren, Dench and Winslet all gave Oscar caliber performances, any one of which could have won in a year with weaker competition. Only Streep, whose role is marginally a lead wouldn't likely win this category in any but a really bad year for actresses. Perhaps she and Blanchett should have swtiched places, in which case Streep may well have given Hudson a run for her Oscar, but that wasn't the case.
The line between lead and support has been muddied since supporting awards were first given. In 1936, Stu Erwin was in practically every frame of Pigskin Paade but was nominated as a supporting actor because he was not a "star". Spencer Tracy, on the other hand, who was billed below the title in San Francisco despite his star power was nevertheless nominated as a lead for his supporting role in that film because he was a "star".
Placement issues really didn't cause an uproar until 1954 when Columbia positioned Eva Marie Saint as a supporting actress for what was clearly the female lead in On the Waterfront. She won anyway. The following year when Columbia tried to do the same thing with Rosalind Russell in Picnic, she complained and ended up not being nominated in either category. Had she swallowed her star pride she would likely have won the Oscar that always eluded her.
Not having seen all the foreign film nominees, I can't comment on the exclusion of Volver, but as much as I enjoyed it I can't say it deserved a nod over the two I have seen: Pan's Labyrinth and Water.
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Cruz was terrific in Volver; it's an absolutely luminous performance and I never thought she had it in her. I was yelping alongside Salma Hayek when I heard her name read.
Blanchett is of course the superior actress, but I agree with Sabin: while she does fine work in Notes on a Scandal, I think a less commanding screen presence would have been a better fit for the character's flightiness.
Blanchett is of course the superior actress, but I agree with Sabin: while she does fine work in Notes on a Scandal, I think a less commanding screen presence would have been a better fit for the character's flightiness.
What's wrong with Penelope Cruz's performance in 'Volver'? I thought she was wonderful, whereas Cate Blanchett was actually fairly miscast. She's not terribly believable and really too overly earnest in a flightily written role. I love Cate Blanchett but this is one of my least favorite turns by her, whereas Cruz knocked me out with her poise.
But make no mistake about it: Cate Blanchett is a lead in 'Notes on a Scandal'. And Jennifer Hudson is a lead in 'Dreamgirls'. And the sooner we get past this Oscar-politicking bullshit, the sooner we can see luminous character actors justly rewarded.
But make no mistake about it: Cate Blanchett is a lead in 'Notes on a Scandal'. And Jennifer Hudson is a lead in 'Dreamgirls'. And the sooner we get past this Oscar-politicking bullshit, the sooner we can see luminous character actors justly rewarded.
"How's the despair?"
Just watched the actress who should have been nominated in the best actress lineup instead of Cruz.
Cate Blanchett in Notes on a Scandal.
Blanchett was a lead and should have been in this category alongside Dench. If this had happened then Catherine O'Hara could have possibly received a nod in the supporting category.
Cate Blanchett in Notes on a Scandal.
Blanchett was a lead and should have been in this category alongside Dench. If this had happened then Catherine O'Hara could have possibly received a nod in the supporting category.
Mister Tee, thanks for creating a thread for this. I loved Volver - it was my favorite film of the year and I'm glad at least a few others seemed to enjoy it almost as much.
Sonic Youth, don't be embarrassed at all - I have been called emotionally distant by any number of girls and I can be very unsentimental and yet I was profoundly moved by this film as well. There is such a palpable sense of community here - female yes, Almodovar's Lysistsrata but why not? (The New Yorker's Anthony Lane criticizes the film for this, narrowly suggesting that gender progress is the burden of anything outside patriarchy by accusing the film of being equally "too female" as some films are "too male." But of course this criticism doesn't occur for "too male" films like say The Departed. So Lane is full of gender bias sh*t) Almodovar suggests that these particular women not only create a community but create a kind of communal narrative as well.
A number of characters ask the truth to be told, but then add, "Someday, you will tell me everything" the whole truth, the whole story is being put off so that the community can reinvent it. Narrative creation is an act of recreation Dead bodies don't stay dead but come back for their rewrite and their redemption, stories are added to and altered with time, a character goes on television with a singular purpose and then rethinks it, the protagonist rethinks the fate of a closed restaurant and then comes clean about it - over and over, Almodovar refuses to see the story straight through but rather filters it through a kind of memory process. Memory isn't just what happened but what we think happened, and what we'd like to have happen. And so new voices are brought in to add their gossip, to rewrite or essentially, to return.
And of course female bodies figure prominently in this. Cruz is gorgeous but Almodovar is not just looking lasciviously at her. He insinuates that the body politic can be mapped unto the female body as something powerful, regenerative, amd self-defensive. Kisses between women are fired sharply like bullets (terrific work on the Sound Mixing!) and shedding a man's blood is figured coterminously with menstrual blood so that offspring (adding to the community and the story) is just as natural as an "offing" (taking away from the community and the story). These women can make and unmake the world around them.
And the ending which I will not reveal is so beautiful, redemptive, satisfying and yes moving...I mean, I'm surprised that so many people are describing this film as "slight" Almodovar and some have even accused him of becoming provincial. I really don't see that in this film, I just think the Almodovar elements are subtler. If anything I'm grateful that his work is so consitently rewarding and prolific.
Sonic Youth, don't be embarrassed at all - I have been called emotionally distant by any number of girls and I can be very unsentimental and yet I was profoundly moved by this film as well. There is such a palpable sense of community here - female yes, Almodovar's Lysistsrata but why not? (The New Yorker's Anthony Lane criticizes the film for this, narrowly suggesting that gender progress is the burden of anything outside patriarchy by accusing the film of being equally "too female" as some films are "too male." But of course this criticism doesn't occur for "too male" films like say The Departed. So Lane is full of gender bias sh*t) Almodovar suggests that these particular women not only create a community but create a kind of communal narrative as well.
A number of characters ask the truth to be told, but then add, "Someday, you will tell me everything" the whole truth, the whole story is being put off so that the community can reinvent it. Narrative creation is an act of recreation Dead bodies don't stay dead but come back for their rewrite and their redemption, stories are added to and altered with time, a character goes on television with a singular purpose and then rethinks it, the protagonist rethinks the fate of a closed restaurant and then comes clean about it - over and over, Almodovar refuses to see the story straight through but rather filters it through a kind of memory process. Memory isn't just what happened but what we think happened, and what we'd like to have happen. And so new voices are brought in to add their gossip, to rewrite or essentially, to return.
And of course female bodies figure prominently in this. Cruz is gorgeous but Almodovar is not just looking lasciviously at her. He insinuates that the body politic can be mapped unto the female body as something powerful, regenerative, amd self-defensive. Kisses between women are fired sharply like bullets (terrific work on the Sound Mixing!) and shedding a man's blood is figured coterminously with menstrual blood so that offspring (adding to the community and the story) is just as natural as an "offing" (taking away from the community and the story). These women can make and unmake the world around them.
And the ending which I will not reveal is so beautiful, redemptive, satisfying and yes moving...I mean, I'm surprised that so many people are describing this film as "slight" Almodovar and some have even accused him of becoming provincial. I really don't see that in this film, I just think the Almodovar elements are subtler. If anything I'm grateful that his work is so consitently rewarding and prolific.
I think this is Maggie Gyllenhaal.Reza wrote:I have mixed feelings about this film. The film, itself, didn't do anything for me but for the first time I actually liked Penelope Cruz in a film. I must add that it was not as much for her performance (although she is good) than it was for her overall look of the character she portrays. Almodovar models her look on the earthy Sophia Loren of the late 1950s/early 1960s (Two Women comes to mind).
I'm trying to figure out who nabs the 6th spot in this year's best actress race. That person, I feel, could easily have supplanted Cruz for the nod.
I have mixed feelings about this film. The film, itself, didn't do anything for me but for the first time I actually liked Penelope Cruz in a film. I must add that it was not as much for her performance (although she is good) than it was for her overall look of the character she portrays. Almodovar models her look on the earthy Sophia Loren of the late 1950s/early 1960s (Two Women comes to mind).
I'm trying to figure out who nabs the 6th spot in this year's best actress race. That person, I feel, could easily have supplanted Cruz for the nod.
I'm trying to figure out who nabs the 6th spot in this year's best actress race. That person, I feel, could easily have supplanted Cruz for the nod.
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
I am so embarrased to admit this - I swear I never do this - but I cried throughout Volver. I've finally found my "Imitation of Life", albeit twenty years too late to leave an imprint.
Life affirmation is so hard for movies to pull off. It looks so contrived when they make the attempt. But Volver is bursting with compassion and love. Almodovar has become such a deft filmmaker, he can incorporate comedy and melodrama and Hitchcockian suspence and a too-credible ghost story and even a musical number, all into a seamless blend and without losing sight of his overriding theme. To me, it doesn't feel like, as some have suggested, a throwback to his earlier films, but a natural extension to this current stage in his development. (I am relieved he's shedding his recent necrophilia tendencies, though.) And Penelope Cruz is stunning, as is the entire cast. I loved this movie.
Life affirmation is so hard for movies to pull off. It looks so contrived when they make the attempt. But Volver is bursting with compassion and love. Almodovar has become such a deft filmmaker, he can incorporate comedy and melodrama and Hitchcockian suspence and a too-credible ghost story and even a musical number, all into a seamless blend and without losing sight of his overriding theme. To me, it doesn't feel like, as some have suggested, a throwback to his earlier films, but a natural extension to this current stage in his development. (I am relieved he's shedding his recent necrophilia tendencies, though.) And Penelope Cruz is stunning, as is the entire cast. I loved this movie.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
I've searched high and low, but find no pre-existing thread for this film. How can we have threads for the Lake House and All the Kings Men, but nothing for Volver?
Boy, Pedro does make the damnedest movies, doesn't he? Throughout his last three efforts (and what a roll they represent), I've sat there blissfully wondering where he was taking me. All three -- Talk to Her, Bad Education and this -- do eventually fall into approximate familiar categories (love story, noir, and melodrama, respectively), but not till they're nearing their conclusions, and by then the sheer pleasure of having experienced surprise/novelty overwhelms the slide into genre. (In this film, actually -- I'll say it cryptically, to evade spoiling -- the story slips OUT of genre: a story-element flips on its head, and makes it a different sort of narrative entirely).
I have to say I rate Volver slightly below the other two recent efforts. It's inventive and funny, but some parts seem scattered to the wind (Cruz's potential relationship with the film-guy is raised and then ignored); I also felt things sagging a bit in the second hour (though it did revive for a stirring finish). And whatever the opposite is to misogynist, this film could be accused of it: the male characters are pretty much all... well, I don't want to spoil it, but it's not a positive thing. Also, the piling up of coincidence in the story's explanation is a bit much. These are flaws.
But then again, the film is extremely funny (for just one example, Soledad's repeated loud "Good to see you, Raimunda"). It's full of great images, starting with that first shot at the cemetery. And, whatever its shortcomings re: the male gender, it's another of Pedro's great panorama displays of woman-ness.
As far as the acting...Cruz is clearly way better than she's ever been in English, but I don't find the performance as revelatory as expected. It strikes me the role does somewhat more for her than vice versa; she's quite solid/strong as the center of a good female-dominated film, but she doesn't reach the individual heights of Winslet in Children or, despite my slight disappointment there, too, Mirren in Queen. I think, in fact, the Cannes jury was quite perceptive: the whole cast deserves the best actress award more than Cruz alone.
We should really note what an extraordinary career Pedro has carved out for himself. Back in the 50s/60s, we grew used to overseas directors having one major film after another: de Sica, Bergman, Fellini, Truffaut, Godard (all except the latter even managed Academy recognition). But, since then, most subtitled-workers have been lucky to achieve one truly big success in America. In that regard, All About My Mother looked like the peak for Almodovar -- but, it turns out, it was just the springboard. He's having the kind of career that didn't seem possible in the current American environment. And he deserves every bit of his success.
Boy, Pedro does make the damnedest movies, doesn't he? Throughout his last three efforts (and what a roll they represent), I've sat there blissfully wondering where he was taking me. All three -- Talk to Her, Bad Education and this -- do eventually fall into approximate familiar categories (love story, noir, and melodrama, respectively), but not till they're nearing their conclusions, and by then the sheer pleasure of having experienced surprise/novelty overwhelms the slide into genre. (In this film, actually -- I'll say it cryptically, to evade spoiling -- the story slips OUT of genre: a story-element flips on its head, and makes it a different sort of narrative entirely).
I have to say I rate Volver slightly below the other two recent efforts. It's inventive and funny, but some parts seem scattered to the wind (Cruz's potential relationship with the film-guy is raised and then ignored); I also felt things sagging a bit in the second hour (though it did revive for a stirring finish). And whatever the opposite is to misogynist, this film could be accused of it: the male characters are pretty much all... well, I don't want to spoil it, but it's not a positive thing. Also, the piling up of coincidence in the story's explanation is a bit much. These are flaws.
But then again, the film is extremely funny (for just one example, Soledad's repeated loud "Good to see you, Raimunda"). It's full of great images, starting with that first shot at the cemetery. And, whatever its shortcomings re: the male gender, it's another of Pedro's great panorama displays of woman-ness.
As far as the acting...Cruz is clearly way better than she's ever been in English, but I don't find the performance as revelatory as expected. It strikes me the role does somewhat more for her than vice versa; she's quite solid/strong as the center of a good female-dominated film, but she doesn't reach the individual heights of Winslet in Children or, despite my slight disappointment there, too, Mirren in Queen. I think, in fact, the Cannes jury was quite perceptive: the whole cast deserves the best actress award more than Cruz alone.
We should really note what an extraordinary career Pedro has carved out for himself. Back in the 50s/60s, we grew used to overseas directors having one major film after another: de Sica, Bergman, Fellini, Truffaut, Godard (all except the latter even managed Academy recognition). But, since then, most subtitled-workers have been lucky to achieve one truly big success in America. In that regard, All About My Mother looked like the peak for Almodovar -- but, it turns out, it was just the springboard. He's having the kind of career that didn't seem possible in the current American environment. And he deserves every bit of his success.