The First Hopefuls List

Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

dws1982 wrote:No, it's not prejudice. Anyone who had taken a few minutes to read the play (and it can probably be tossed off in under an hour) would understand what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with acting abilities. Hoffman is every bit as wrong for the male role in Doubt as Jackie Earle Haley would be. They both have a certain persona, and bring a certain baggage to their performance that will do this film no favors.
In addition to the baggage that Hoffman brings to the role from his persona, the priest in Doubt must be charismatic, someone to whom kids would gravitate. However highly one might rank Hoffman as an actor, he's not exactly a bubbling cauldron of charisma. Youngsters would see him and run the other way.

Matt Damon would have been a far better choice (as would have been Billy Crudup, Patrick Wilson, John Cusack, Sean Penn, Peter Sarsgaard, Ewan McGregor, Mark Wahlberg (who probably comes closest to the stage version's Brían F. O'Byrne) and so many others).
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Hoffman is a good actor, but he has a certain smarmy look about him. You expect him to be not quite what he seems.

Of course, the idea of a priest being a child molester today is about as dramatically shocking as the genteel murders in an Agatha Christie novel so without having seen or read the play I would have expected him to be guilty.

Had this been made in the 40s or 50s the priest would have been played by Henry Fonda or someone of equal stature and been innocent.

In the 70s or 80s he would have been played by Jack Lemmon and you wouldn't know until the end whether he was a good guy or a bad guy, but nowadays a priest as a good guy is about as likely as a Bill Condon movie starring Roberto Benigni.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

dws1982 wrote:They both have a certain persona, and bring a certain baggage to their performance that will do this film no favors.

And along these lines, casting, say, Tom Hanks would bring baggage on the opposite end of the spectrum that would be equally wrong for this film.




Edited By The Original BJ on 1216654353
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3791
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Post by dws1982 »

No, it's not prejudice. Anyone who had taken a few minutes to read the play (and it can probably be tossed off in under an hour) would understand what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with acting abilities. Hoffman is every bit as wrong for the male role in Doubt as Jackie Earle Haley would be. They both have a certain persona, and bring a certain baggage to their performance that will do this film no favors.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Of course it's a prejudice, Hustler - and a rather tiresome one by now. But luckily, despite this board, Hoffman keeps making movies, giving sometimes great performances, and being one of the best American actors of this period.
Hustler
Tenured
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires-Argentina

Post by Hustler »

dws1982 wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:But Hoffman, I think even for those who never saw Happiness, is skeezy from the word go, which'll push the balance even further off.

I agree. Everyone will think he's guilty from the minute he appears onscreen. And I don't think there's any way Hoffman can convincingly portray someone who would choose the priesthood as his vocation.
Why not? Don´t you think this is a prejudice?
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

dws1982 wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:But Hoffman, I think even for those who never saw Happiness, is skeezy from the word go, which'll push the balance even further off.

I agree. Everyone will think he's guilty from the minute he appears onscreen. And I don't think there's any way Hoffman can convincingly portray someone who would choose the priesthood as his vocation.

I couldn't stand the shallow and anachronistic play, and the moment I heard that my least favorite contemporary actor was (ludicrously mis-) cast, I knew that it was nothing I'd want to see on screen. All that's missing is Sidney Lumet as director.




Edited By Damien on 1216596896
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3791
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Post by dws1982 »

Mister Tee wrote:But Hoffman, I think even for those who never saw Happiness, is skeezy from the word go, which'll push the balance even further off.
I agree. Everyone will think he's guilty from the minute he appears onscreen. And I don't think there's any way Hoffman can convincingly portray someone who would choose the priesthood as his vocation.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

The Original BJ wrote:
Okri wrote:Plus, the play is not very good and I think it's flaws will be magnified upon inspection on the big screen.

I meant to add that I came to Doubt rather late -- I liked the play but couldn't remotely begin to understand what all the fuss was about. Like you, I totally felt like the play was not nearly as ambiguous as it had been made out to be, and I also think the big screen won't do this issue any favors.
THIS IS IN SPOILER TERRITORY
.
.
.
.
.
.
I completely agree, BJ. As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY thing that makes Doubt "balanced" -- which so many critics claimed it was -- is the nun saying that last line. I sat there in the theatre and thought, That's IT -- that's what's supposed to make this deep? It struck me as an exceedingly glib, shallow if entertaining play (about on the level of PSH's last vehicle, Charlie Wilson's War). I also agree about the casting -- Adams might bring some believable innocence to a role that was hopelessly shrill onstage; Davis is a whale of an actress (her Tony totally deserved, even for a play I didn't much like); and Streep should be fne. But Hoffman, I think even for those who never saw Happiness, is skeezy from the word go, which'll push the balance even further off.

As for Ed Zwick...Once again I'm in complete agreement with BJ. Zwick's films are the sort everybody THINKS are Oscar bait, but you can't find many if any that actually get nominated for best picture. This of course isn't to say voters make wonderful choices year after year, but often their selections are either surprisingly good (Sideways, Good Night and Good Luck, Letters from Iwo Jima, last year's top two) or, if mediocre, mediocre in different ways, like Juno, Ray, Capote, Little Miss Sunshine, or even Seabiscuit. I can't argue against Zwick's actors and tech folk being over-rewarded, but the fact that he's stayed short of the film/director category so many times (despite being in constant contention) suggests we're over-simplifying what makes a film Oscar bait.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

Okri wrote:Plus, the play is not very good and I think it's flaws will be magnified upon inspection on the big screen.
I meant to add that I came to Doubt rather late -- I liked the play but couldn't remotely begin to understand what all the fuss was about. Like you, I totally felt like the play was not nearly as ambiguous as it had been made out to be, and I also think the big screen won't do this issue any favors.
kaytodd
Assistant
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 10:16 pm
Location: New Orleans

Post by kaytodd »

Okri wrote:There is no way Charlize Theron is lead for The Road. Hell, there's a strong possibility she won't have enough screentime to be a major contender for supporting. If it turns out they've beefed up her role, I'm gonna be majorly pissed (the book is so brilliant, why screw it up.). I have no idea how the academy will take to the film, though. It makes last year's "dark nominees" look sunny.
I agree there is no way Charlize can be considered lead. They may expand her role as part of giving more details about that family's earlier life and more details about the catastrophe that changed everything. There are a lot of hints in the book as to what happened but it is never really clear. I think that works well in the book that we have to speculate: nuclear war?, environmental disaster, man made or natural?, meteor strike?

Maybe in the film they will tell us what happened and have some cool special effects. It will also give Charlize more screen time as both the loving wife and mother and as the victim of a catastrophe who cannot take the consequences. I hope not and I am not expecting it. But imdb.com does show a long list of credits in the special effects and visual effects departments. The bulk of their work will probably be creating the devastated landscape through CGI but you never know.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
paperboy
Temp
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 10:52 pm
Location: melbourne, oz

Post by paperboy »

The Oscars by Year page currently lists the selections as "81st Academy Awards for films from the year 1997" - that ain't right.

Josh Brolin as Dan White in Milk seems a more likely Supporting Actor candidate than Emile Hirsch.




Edited By paperboy on 1216550708
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

re: I don't know, Original BJ. Zwick consistently surprises me with how well he does, truth be told. I mean, Blood Diamond out nominated some best picture nominees that year, stole two acting nods from other films (how the hell did Dicaprio get nodded for Zwick's film and not The Departed?). Zwick's television work is often first rate, so I don't get how he's so awful with film, but I sorta expect him to get nominated sooner or later.

That said, I totally agree with you regarding Doubt (SPOILER WARNING). I already think the play tips the balances towards the priest commiting the act, and casting Hoffman pretty much seals that deal. Plus, the play is not very good and I think it's flaws will be magnified upon inspection on the big screen.

I really don't know how AMPAS/the world is gonna respond to W. I'm sorta dreading the film, truthfully. That said, it does seem Brolin's gonna cap off his magnificent 2007 with a nod this year, though I think it'll be for Milk.

There is no way Charlize Theron is lead for The Road. Hell, there's a strong possibility she won't have enough screentime to be a major contender for supporting. If it turns out they've beefed up her role, I'm gonna be majorly pissed (the book is so brilliant, why screw it up.). I have no idea how the academy will take to the film, though. It makes last year's "dark nominees" look sunny.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

The question with Ed Zwick -- why HASN'T he been nominated for Picture/Director when his films are so Oscar-baity? -- is also the answer -- his films are SO Oscar-baity that's all they are. Bait. Not actual movies anyone likes, not even the blandest of white elephant-lovers in the Academy. His films always look good on paper, but always fall short of the top categories simply because they're all dressed up with no where to go, and I expect his latest to be no different. (When the Academy finds ways to nominate Seabiscuit and Dead Poets Society so they don't have to recognize your films, you know you're in trouble.)

I may have said this before, but I have my doubts about, well, Doubt. I understand the play has been expanded in scope, but there would have to be some major expansion in order for a play with four characters, two locations, and mostly two-person dialogue scenes to become something cinematic. Also, while Streep, Adams, and Viola Davis seem perfectly cast (the latter has already proven herself an actress who can make a striking impression with only a scene), I have my misgivings about Hoffman. It's not that I dislike him as an actor -- I just don't think he fits this role at all. (Perhaps it's his Happiness/Boogie Nights persona that's coloring my view, but, quite frankly, if I saw Hoffman as the priest under fire, I'd think -- no doubt about it, he molested the kid, case closed.)

I think Heath Ledger is a pretty likely nominee, and, as I said in the Dark Knight review thread, I invoke the bird-in-the-hand rule in thinking this. Often when performers early in the year receive rave reviews in non-award-bait films, people doubt their award chances, citing the popcorn nature of their pictures, as well as the fact that the year will have many more possible contenders we haven't seen in. Fact is, a lot of those contenders don't amount to much, and by year's end, those beloved performances become widely-predicted nominees (Streep in Prada, Depp in Pirates, Diane Lane). We have seen Ledger's work, and it's clearly beloved (I honestly think he'd be getting Oscar buzz had he lived), and though the fanboy hype will die down considerably by next January, I still think he'll ride these rave reviews to a nomination.
rain Bard
Associate
Posts: 1611
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:55 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by rain Bard »

It wouldn't be my pick either, but at least it'd be a better choice than Juno, Little Miss Sunshine or Crash...
Post Reply

Return to “81st and Other 9th Decade Discussions”