There is good acting and there is Oscar acting and the two are not always one and the same. Good acting is hard to define as acting encompasses so many techniques and comes from such varied intentions. Oscar acting, however, is a narrower category of performance – and not necessarily always a means for creating great work.
It’s hard to pinpoint the exact moment the idea of the “Oscar Performance” happened as the ceremony has always favored performances made up of “visible” acting (acting that draws attention to performance itself). The appeal of this in theory is watching an actor “disappear” into a role, but what you’re often watching is rather an actor putting on a performance.
Oscar Performances tend to feature exterior elements like extensive makeup, weight gain or loss, or even the massively problematic “uglification” of an actress (this is best exemplified by Charlize Theron’s transformative role in Monster, for which she won an Oscar, but is also as simple as Mariah Carey’s role in Precious, which simply saw the superstar dress in frumpy clothing and not wear makeup). Physical transformation, to the Academy, signifies a dedication to the craft. Look how hard they worked, they exclaim!
Roles like these also tend to feature a couple of scenes in which the film hones in on the actor and provides for them a platform to PERFORM. It’s usually not a literal monologue but often functions like one regardless. These moments tend to feature raised voices, if not outright yelling, or a measured, quiet tone so on-the-nose it ironically becomes deafening. Think about Mark Ruffalo’s now-infamous, “They KNEW!” speech from 2015’s Best Picture winner Spotlight as an example of how easily this can go wrong (Ruffalo was nominated for his performance but did not win).
Because of this there’s no surer bet for an Oscar Performance than an actor playing a real-life figure. Oftentimes this provides a tangible point of reference for how “good” their acting was. There’s loads of archival footage of Winston Churchill, for example, which means it’s theoretically all the more impressive to see how well Gary Oldman replicated the man’s physical appearance and demeanor at large in The Darkest Hour – Gary Oldman doesn’t even look like that in real life! He doesn’t talk like that either! You can hardly tell the difference between the two men and that’s how you know the acting is good!
That is not how you know acting is good. In fact, Oscar Performances often contain comparatively little merit to great performances that aren’t so outwardly athletic in their attempt at winning acclaim. You’d be hard-pressed to find someone who knows a thing or two about acting who finds Oldman’s take on Churchill to be “better” acting than that of Timothee Chalamet in Call Me By Your Name (a performance nominated for the award that Oldman’s won). However, there are exceptions. There are performances that embody everything the Academy values in acting that contain depth and nuance beneath the theatrics. Heck, Daniel Day Lewis’s Best Actor wins all fall under this category. Sure, they’re blatantly performative and feature physical transformations, but they’re paced and natural as well, operating perfectly in the world and tone established by the films in which they’re set. Performances like these are perfect for the Oscars and warrant nominations.
This is why it’s so confounding that Jake Gyllenhaal never received one for his work in Nightcrawler.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED FOR: Best Actor in a Leading Role
Once you get past the disappointment over realizing it’s not a solo spin-off for everyone’s favorite blue mutant, Nightcrawler is kind of undeniable. Written and directed by Dan Gilroy, it does for Los Angeles what Taxi Driver did for New York City: paint a portrait of the city’s underbelly so simultaneously revolting and magnetic that it can change your relationship with the place even if you’ve never set foot in it. The film follows Gyllenhaal’s Lou Bloom, a sociopathic grifter looking for his next hustle in Los Angeles. He soon finds himself navigating the world of freelance photojournalists who document the aftermath of crime scenes (the titular “nightcrawler”). His journey as documented stands as a scathing look at gig economy and the unethical relationship between journalism and tragedy.
Nightcrawler’s script is top-notch and it’s a remarkable directorial debut for Gilroy. Rene Russo and Riz Ahmed make great impressions in their supporting roles as well. But it’s Gyllenhaal’s performance that ties the whole thing together – a performance that embodies everything the Academy tends to value in acting.
There’s an aggressive physical transformation (Gyllenhaal lost 30 pounds for the role, running 15 miles every day and eating nothing but kale salad for months) and a particular voice and physicality he takes on as Lou. It’s hard to believe it’s Gyllenhaal underneath the performance at all, considering his reputation as a handsome leading man (there’s that “uglification” the Academy seems to love so much). There are Oscar Clip moments and even a moment when he yells into a mirror, which is some extremely Oscars shit. Somehow though, it never descends into parody. Lou is such a fully realized character, containing legitimate complexity that never skews into hackneyed “moral gray area” territory. He’s a wormy nightmare who still manages to exemplify what the product of a predatory system looks like.
It is shocking – genuinely shocking – that it wasn’t recognized in any way by the Academy (though the film did receive a nomination for its screenplay). It’s only more shocking when you look at what did receive nominations that year. 2014 wasn’t a bad year for film at large by any means but it was certainly a bad year at the Oscars. While some gems like Boyhood and Whiplash took home notable awards at the show, the nominee pools are mostly filled by lousy biopics that you probably forgot existed until now.
The nominees for Best Actor included winner Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Hawking in
The Theory of Everything, Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle in American Sniper, Steve Carrell as John DuPont in Foxcatcher, Benedict Cumberbatch as Alan Turing in The Imitation Game, and Michael Keaton in Birdman – the only actor not playing a historical figure. This is, let’s be honest, a pretty sad slate of nominees that in almost every way exemplify the worst in Oscar-nominated roles. They’re often more imitations than anything, which makes Gyllenhaal’s loss all the more frustrating – his performance is one of pure creation. There is more to the way Lou looks at someone when they aren’t making eye contact with him than there is to almost the entirety of Redmayne’s performance.
Gyllenhaal should have been nominated. Gyllenhaal should have won. If you have to replace him with someone else let’s go with Redmayne but honestly, it’s interchangeable. 2014 was a bad year for the Oscars, but it’s frustrating to know that it didn’t have to be.
from Geek.com https://ift.tt/2OogfqS
via IFTTT
0 comments:
Post a Comment