Remember When... We Didn't Know Who Would Star in "Gravity"?
Sunday, October 20, 2013 at 1:49PM I've been spending a great deal of time thinking about Sandra Bullock in Gravity lately. It's only natural when an actress is headlining an unqualified blockbuster that I'd do that but some of the time spent making like a contemplative Rodin-statue is my disconnect with the performance. I didn't love it or dislike it. I fall right in the middle. She's up to the task but no more or less.... to me. It doesn't remotely feel like an actor's movie to me -- though in all honesty I actually expected it to be given its one character focus. As a result I've been rather at a loss for explaining all the performance raves that have flown 'round ever since. And I've been stubbornly reluctant to concede that she was an Oscar lock. [Updated Best Actress chart]
My disconnect was aggravated by the fact that on the day it premiered and the explosion of "give her a second Oscar!" tweeting began... I had such a hard time imagining Cate Blanchett's hurricane force work in Blue Jasmine as a runner-up in this "versus!" contest in terms of quality. What's more Sandra's star turn wasn't even among the five best performances I had seen that month... let alone the whole of the year. While everyone was enjoying Sandra's survivalism on opening weekend I was still: reeling from Luminita Gheorghiu's savage mom in Child's Pose which would be a film-carrying nomination threat if it were in English along the lines of a Anjelica Huston in The Grifters (...and if it were being released in time); marvelling at Marion Cotillard's technique in The Immigrant which would be a threat if Oscar had shown any interest in Marion post-Oscar win (...and if it were being released in time); and falling head over heels in love with Paulina Garcia in Chile's Oscar entry Gloria, a performance so good that it'd be a threat to win the statue if it were in English, and if Oscar loved leading ladies over 50 (they don't)... and, say it with me now... if it were being released in time. That's too many "if"s, I know.
So I asked on Twitter, Guy Lodge thought too aggressively!, what people saw in Sandy's performance that I was missing. Why were they so enthused? (And I probably should have asked the lot of you as well!)
The most common answers I received were for 'selling the illusion' and for her 'game physicality'... both of which are valid points, I concede. But I find that the performance is lacking in vocal nuance and in the eyes (beyond terror). I just didn't feel like it transcended the simplistic characterization in the screenplay in any way and when you're talking FIVE BEST OF THE YEAR you'd better transcend! Otherwise just enjoy solid respectable "we love you, you superstar" reviews and leave it at that. Joe Reid was teasing me earlier today with the internet's binary thinking that this makes me a Sandra hater and no one should ever believe that i've ever enjoyed her in anything. But I have! I've just never though she was a "great" actor, only -- and this is not an insult -- a super likeable and talented one. She's the kind of star for whom global popularity and bottomless coffers of gold coin feel like just rewards.
This is all a long way of saying that I'm happy for Sandra's success since she seems like such a good person and she's so likeable, but that I still don't get why she's now an "Oscar Actress" as opposed to a Beloved Movie Star. Sometimes those things should go totally hand in hand of course, don't misunderstand. But in this case...?
Why am I bringing this up now, three weeks after Gravity has conquered the world and has the loudest Oscar fanbase this year?
Well, while looking for something else entirely in the Vaults of The Film Experience I came across this old post about the casting of Gravity after Angelina Jolie passed in 2010 and this strange "what if" visual detail...
actual reported studio interest when they were trying to find Gravity's female lead in 2010
IT'S SUCH A TIME CAPSULE.
These women were all actually mentioned in the trades as viable Angelina Jolie replacements! It's hard to imagine Gravity with most of these girls (if not quite all of them) in the role. Funny, right, that the studio were so invested in the futures of Blake Lively, Abbie Cornish, and Sienna Miller... or that they thought Scarlett or Natalie were old enough to play a scientist with expertise that the space program needed, or that they allowed for the possibility that Naomi Watts or Marion Cotillard might be bankable enough?
Now that Gravity has settled in as our possible nomination leader, how are you feeling about it? And Sandra's place in the Best Actress race? Whether you think I'm crazy or only half-agree, do chime in.
Reader Comments (74)
MN - every year I say my piece on all the major candidates. I think this is a ridiculous claim that I only comment about Sandra... seriously?!? and as for the Academy feeling differently than me? You are 1000% correct!
TB: The Academy has fallen for Mike Leigh's process multiple times and HASN'T petitioned for the creation of a special award for improv, so I don't know if writers really obsessively look this stuff up.
@Volvagia--True, I didn't think about it like that. But I just don't think anyone leaving Blue Is The Warmest Color is thinking about the writing. It's so simple and unadorned in every way. Part of the wonder of the movie really is figuring out how it could possibly be so affecting when the story is so straightforward and the style is so plain. Mike Leigh's movies at least have the feeling that you've never heard this story told before about these people. This film is not like that.
I am will forever be saddened that Delpy will not get a nomination. Earlier in the year at after seeing Before Midnight at Sundance, there was an ever so small glimpse of hope that she'd get recognition for her fantastic work in Before Midnight. Unfortunately I do not live in a Disney world and dreams do not always come true. Oh well. I am glad at least we have had so many great female performances this year nonetheless.
For the most part I concur, Bullock does her job fine, but she is not extraordinary by any measure. I loved Gravity, and most of the people raving about Bullock's performance, loved the film too. And more often than not, it becomes difficult to not like the central performance of the film that you love. So, that explains why Bullock has been getting such praise.
After watching the film, I did contemplate, who could have been a better choice than Bullock. And the only name that I could think of was Naomi Watts. She has a much more expressive face, and could have added layers of emotions to the character which Bullock failed to provide. In fact people don't realize how much more could have been done with that character. I think, this role had more potential than Watts' role in The Impossible. And if Watts could bring so much more to a one-dimensional character as Maria, it's anyone's guess that she could have taken Ryan to another level than what Bullock ultimately managed. Watts may not be as bankable as Bullock, but she is an A-lister herself, and with a film like Gravity, i don't think you require star-wattage to bring in huge opening numbers.
Okay, hear me out! I saw this post yesterday and was thinking who the studios overlooked and i kid you not i thought katharine heigl would've killed in this role. I swear i'm not even kidding.
I agree with Nathaniel and Caroline put it so well and very articulate. Bravo girl!
I liked Bullock in Gravity. First she sold the illusion. Second we travel with her. Third POV of the female character. Fourth Bullock is physically fit to the role. Fifth warm, heart and soul
But she does not give much layers here. And her voice work exploit an untrained actress who struggles to give a layered performance with her voice. Experts like Judi Dench, Helen Mirren and Cate Blanchett are magnificent with their nuanced voice work. Listen to The Maids trailer and how incredible Blanchett voice work is. Or in the beginning of Notes on a Scandal, Dench rocks the boat only with her voice
Though Bullock sold the illusion, I did not quite by her as this intelligent woman. But at the same time I bought her primal senses character, that she did not know it all and fought herself through it all by using the exact same primal senses. She was a woman fighting for her survival in space.
I would have liked to see Jodie Foster in the role. Foster would have been really great and she is intelligent. But Foster may have reclined the offer because she did Contact in 1997. Been there done that kind of thing
Box office vice, both Angelina Jolie and Jodie Foster are in the same league as Bullock. Sandra is on demand now and will be offered major roles in the future that may should have gone to stronger actresses. But business is business as usual . Just look at Streep vs Sarandon/ Close/ Weaver/ Pfeiffer careers
And yes, I think Gravity is Sandra Bullocks' best performance in her entire career. But that compliment is not as strong as compared to Blanchett, who really gives her best-in-career- in Blue Jasmine
That old post made me think of a Gravity that starred Holly Hunter and I began salivating at the thought of it. Can you imagine?!
I totally loved Bullock in Gravity but the suggestions of similarly aged, steely actresses like Foster or Hunter would have been fabulous, too. As much as I hate to admit it, Bullock's still relatively youthful looks gave her an advantage—she comes off as someone who's obviously mature but remains still a bit of a newbie in the field, which allows us to buy into her reaction more.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I find all the criticisms over the movie's talkiness a bit baffling. The premise of the movie is about the ultimate horror of being alone in an endless vacuum, and we all talk out loud in the dark to keep ourselves from going insane. Anyone would have yammered to themselves to fill the void. It just makes the most sense, psychologically speaking—and I liked the contrast of Clooney's character, a veteran who had obviously confronted the possibility of imminent death enough times to appreciate beauty in silence while accepting his fate.
Nathaniel,
I respect your analysis too much to suggest you do not review all major candidates. You are thorough. I am suggesting you are a bit hard on Sandra Bullock and I am disappointed you are not more on board for her work in "Gravity." You did not mention what film you did like Sandra
Bullock in?.
It is not only crazy for me the idea of Sandra Bullock being a two-time Oscar winner, but also the idea of a second nomination. She is that kind of movie star whose persona is liked by you or not, and she usually is just nice for me, but I cannot understand all that praise she is receiving. I did not like ‘Gravity’ beyond its astonishing visual features because I did not feel moved by the story or by her performance. I did not see terror or fear or insecurity (or depression, if you want to see that symbolism in the story) in the eyes or the voice of Bullock. I did not believe her in that monologue, which is supposed to be emotive. Because of this, I find stunning some recent articles, columns and posts, like that of ‘Variety’ saying that she had recycled herself into a formidable dramatic actress. Really, I cannot understand that she is receiving so many attention for a film in which she is not the star (Cuarón is the real star of ‘Gravity’) and compositions like, for example, that of Julie Delpy in ‘Before Midnight’ is being overlooked.
Bullock is usually compared to Meg Ryan and Julia Roberts. It is funny, because I think that Meg Ryan’s career would have been different if she would have received the same recognition for ‘When a man loves a woman’ that Bullock received for ‘The blind side’, two just fine dramatic efforts from two non-versatile actresses. Regarding the comparison with Roberts… Well, I must admit I really like Roberts, even recognizing her limited acting range (within which she is great, something that I do not find in Bullock), but it is my personal opinion. But what is true is that Roberts has challenged herself (at least sometimes), even knowing that she would receive misgivings regarding her lack of technique. I cannot imagine Bullock doing something like ‘Closer’ or ‘August: Osage County’, or trying to play convincingly two different characters in a Broadway theatre. And I am not talking about to challenge herself in the way of Kidman or Blanchet, but just about trying to play against the type at least once, if you really want to demonstrate that you can be also a dramatic actress. I cannot understand the interest in rewarding a movie star who does not take risks and who has just been lucky of being in the hit of the year.
MN -- my favorite performance of hers is While You Were Sleeping (smart choice for a Golden Globe nod that year) and I think she's pretty good in all of her romcoms (though I really think she's not good in The Proposal despite that film's massive appeal). As far as her dramatic work goes t and I think she's pretty good in Crash and The Blind Side (she really does elevate it but not in an Oscar-nom worthy way).and Gravity. But as appealing as she is, no, I've never thought she was Oscar worthy.
paco -- I CAN. I love Hunter so much. Though I admit i didn't really like her work in Top of the Lake so I need something new to obsess over.
It is not only crazy for me the idea of Sandra Bullock being a two-time Oscar winner, but also the idea of a second nomination. She is that kind of movie star whose persona is liked by you or not, and she usually is just nice for me, but I cannot understand all that praise she is receiving. I did not like ‘Gravity’ beyond its astonishing visual features because I did not feel moved by the story or by her performance. I did not see terror or fear or insecurity (or depression, if you want to see that symbolism in the story) in the eyes or the voice of Bullock. She just hyperventilates. I did not believe her in that monologue, which is supposed to be emotive. Because of this, I find stunning some recent articles, columns and posts, like that of ‘Variety’ saying that she had recycled herself into a formidable dramatic actress. Really, I cannot understand that she is receiving so many attention for a film in which she is not the star (Cuarón is the real star of ‘Gravity’) and compositions like, for example, that of Julie Delpy in ‘Before Midnight’ is being overlooked.
Bullock is usually compared to Meg Ryan and Julia Roberts. It is funny, because I think that Meg Ryan’s career would have been different if she would have received the same recognition for ‘When a man loves a woman’ that Bullock received for ‘The blind side’, two comparable dramatic efforts from two non-versatile actresses which were just fine. Regarding the comparison with Roberts… Well, I must admit I really like Roberts, even recognising her limited acting range (within which she is great, something that I do not find in Bullock). But what is true is that Roberts has challenged herself (at least sometimes), even knowing that she would receive misgivings regarding her lack of technique. I cannot imagine Bullock doing something like ‘Closer’ or ‘August: Osage County’, or trying to play convincingly two different characters in a Broadway theater. And I am not talking about to challenge herself in the way of Kidman or Blanchet, but just about trying to play against the type at least once, if you really want to demonstrate that you can be also a dramatic actress. I cannot understand the interest in rewarding a movie star who does not take risks and who has just been lucky of being in the hit of the year. Nothing wrong with being "just" a movie star, but then you cannot be a "formidable dramatic actress".
I honestly wouldn't be bothered if Sandra won again. I don't think she should, but it wouldn't bother me as much as someone like Hilary Swank or Sean Penn. Some actors are just likable and they don't inspire hate. I'd also put Amy Adams in that category and it's probably why she has no problems slipping in every year. They're not hatable.
"American Hustle. It's THE Best Picture frontrunner."
Since when, Volvagia?
You'd think her first win was too recent for a 2nd but then think of Swank and, even more confoundingly, Waltz...
I keep coming back to Laura Linney for Gravity, but even she couldn't pull off that terribly-written pep-talk monologue toward the end. I'd love to see Joan Allen, as well. Maybe if she was 10 years younger?
"But I find that the performance is lacking in vocal nuance and in the eyes (beyond terror). I just didn't feel like it transcended the simplistic characterization in the screenplay in any way and when you're talking FIVE BEST OF THE YEAR you'd better transcend!"
I agree with every word of this. Thank you for expressing in words what I could not. All I could think while watching her was "this is it?", like there could have been more there. Sandra's alright but this doesn't feel like a performance that was so good that I can't envision any other actress in the part--rather, I think Cotillard or Watts or Jolie would have done much better. I don't want to discredit her efforts but I feel like Sandy's so beloved that the public is willing to overhype her perf as amazing when really it's just...good-ish.
Paul Outlaw:
Okay, I'll bite as to why it's "the frontrunner", even before release:
1. David O. Russell building on heat from previous two films.
2. Star studded cast.
3. Probably not nearly as brutal as 12 Years a Slave and not a near silent survival story like Gravity.
4. Echoes of previous Best Picture winner, in this case 1973's The Sting.
Those four things taken together? Yeah, even before release, I can buy it steamrolling it's way to (at minimum) four or five wins, including Best Picture.
It seems like all the Bullock detractors have convened on this blog. The performance and film have, pretty much, universal acclaim but here. It's weird. On top of that, I don't think that some people will ever give her props. Ever.
I have never been a Bullock fan, I have always disliked her movies, even Crash, and I was outraged by her Oscar win. But I have to say, she completely shocked me in Gravity--she blew me away. I was completely unprepared for her terrific work in this film. No win, but she definitely deserves a nom. I think caroline expressed my feelings beautifully. Bullock's performance made me cry, and that's something I NEVER thought I would ever say. As another poster remarked, she is a vessel for the audience, and she does this perfectly. It's a perfect marriage of great casting and great performance.
I first became a fan of Bullock's acting -- rather than of her movie star appeal, which I had liked since Speed -- in Infamous, the Toby Jones version of the Truman Capote story. She plays Harper Lee, a small role, and I loved the performance so much I wondered why she wasn't offered such roles more often. (Daniel Craig was good in it, too, as the scarily sexy killer.) Bullock was a big star at that point and could have played it in way that shouted Big Star. But she didn't. And it's what I liked about her performance in Gravity -- she got out of the movie's way. She didn't make the movie about her, because it wasn't, not in the way that Blue Jasmine is about Jasmine. ... That's not to say she should be nominated. I haven't seen enough yet to have an opinion. But I do think she's a good actress as well as a likeable star.
Portman was the only one who was offered the role besides Jolie. As far as the other actresses, do we know if they actually auditioned, or their agent actively campaigned on their behalf for them to be considered.
I am a huge fan of Sandra Bullock, but...
Her win for The Blind Side was a joke. It was a made-for-TV movie (and a mediocre one at that) that happened to be shown on the big screen. Most acting Oscars are won on popularity more than performance merits to some degree (or other factors like perceived "overdue" status -- like Susan Sarandon instead of Elisabeth Shue), but I can't think of a worse case of a purely-popularity-based win than Sandy's. AMPAS wanted so badly to reward their super likeable money-maker with an Oscar, and they probably thought at the time that was their one and only chance to do it. I actually think Gravity would have been a better (i.e., more respectable) vehicle for a thank you win, because I think she was actually very good (if not great) in it. I think if she hadn't won for The Blind Side (which might have been the case if AMPAS knew back then that she had Gravity on the horizon), she'd be a lock for the win this year.
"I had such a hard time imagining Cate Blanchett's hurricane force work in Blue Jasmine as a runner-up in this "versus!" contest in terms of quality." AMEN!
Also, I wonder if Watts would have been THE excellent choice, given that the one time she was truly Oscar-spectacular was in a very director-driven film ("Mulholland Dr.").