Review: "Behind the Candelabra"
Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 10:00PM This review was originally published in my column at Towleroad
Too much of a good thing is wonderful."
That was a signature catchphrase of Liberace, the classical pianist who became a household name as a flamboyant nightclub entertainer. Liberace was born Vladziu Valentino Liberace but known by "Walter" or "Lee" to his intimates -- even the names were too many… too much! He didn't just popularize the catchphrase but lived it maintaining his most unlikely monster career for roughly four decades -- which is, what, a century in showbiz years?
The new biopic BEHIND THE CANDELABRA, premiering tonight on HBO, is smart enough to adopt it as tagline. But is it too much? Is it wonderful? Hollywood studios thought so, at least in regards to the first question. Director Steven Soderbergh hasn't been shy about telling the press that the story was too gay for the movie studios and while we can't know the ins and outs of how true this is or to what extent he tried to make it happen as a theatrical feature before going to television, it sounds trueish. Hollywood has been curiously reluctant to relive the mainstream success of Brokeback Mountain (a major hit grossing nearly $100 million in domestic release) even though they're usually downright shameless about cashing in on any success with quick imitation.
But bless Soderbergh for pushing it forward even if he's a weird fit for the material...
As a director he's never been exactly "flamboyant" visually, preferring subtle formal experimentation to Liberace's rhinestone-slathered "look at me" effort.
But come to think of it Liberace's sparkle must have been the draw...Soderbergh is, rather famously, a superb director of movie stars, often guiding them to their best work. You don't need to zazz anything up behind the camera when Julia Roberts is crusading with all her movie star wiles ("they're called Boobs, Ed") and if you know to stay out of Channing Tatum's way in the editing room when he's humping the stage in a g-string you get pure Magic. But with lesser subjects Soderbergh's films can, to me, feel a teensy bit flat.
Not that Soderbergh isn't smart behind the camera when the right subject comes along. In fact, I love the build-up to The Star entrance here. It's just about perfect. The first five minutes of Behind the Candelabra are Liberace free but they're subtly funny and warm. The movie is based on the autobiography of Liberace's former chauffeur (read: lover) Scott Thorson played by Matt Damon. We first meet him in fairly anonymous long shot, he could be any blond 70s stud. Soderbergh watches a man pick him up with a funny empty-headed exchange of names as "I Feel Love" plays tinnily in the background, bless.
One smart establishing scene with Scott's foster parents later, and the two new friends (fuckbuddies?) are racing off together for a concert already in progress. Just as the piano tickling begins on the soundtrack, the offscreen host announces "Mr Showmanship… Liberace!", Soderbergh shifts the camera and the editing tempo to the music. Damon's blond feathered hair bounces with casual excitement as he struts into the concert hall and the movie has already won me over. I Feel Love, yes.
The arrival of the star changes everything for Scott -- who Liberace will immediately flirt with as his current protege (read: lover), played in hilariously bitchy complete silence by Cheyenne Jackson, ignores them. Soderbergh's reliably superb intuition with Movie Stars pays off again with Michael Douglas's work as the infamous showman. Soderbergh can always zero right in on what makes a particular star special and in this case it's Douglas's gleeful inner bad boy; if he feels like he's getting away with something (that "Greed is good" speech in Wall Street being the definitive Oscar-winning example) he's always riveting. Douglas's excessively queeny (what, there's no other word) take on the perpetually horny and mincing Liberace would be downright offensive if it weren't, you know, accurate. But my favorite beat in Douglas' future Emmy winning performance is the way he robotically shuts off if he doesn't enjoy something, the charm replaced by an equally self-serving impenetrable wall of nothing.
Matt Damon has the more difficult acting challenge of making us care about a less flashy less familiar character about whom we learn precious little. At first I wasn't sure that Damon was up to the task -- was he playing Scott as an empty-headed colorless hunk because he had no ideas about the character? -- but his performance sneaks up on you and you realize with horror, right along with the character -- just how much of himself he's lost by not cultivating his own identity and letting someone else fill him. His key light-switch moment comes roughly halfway through the film with dual plastic surgery appointments. Liberace is getting a face lift to look younger but he wants Scott to get one to look more like Liberace.
I have to admit that I wanted an out unknown actor to play Scott but there's a benefit to having a star like Damon in this one. It might sound terrible to say but the tragedy of losing your own face plays a lot better for the audience when they already have deep-affection for the face they're looking at -- who would want to change Matt Damon's perfectly boyish good looks? He's not too movie-star pretty, not too generically handsome, but just right and very specifically himself. And then he's gone… he never looks quite like Matt Damon again. Behind the Candelabra's morbid sense of humor is its saving grace in the creepier second half once the relationship sours (Spoiler Alert if you've never seen a biopic about the rich and famous before: there will be drug use, infidelity, squandering of money, legal battles, et. all) Rob Lowe is just great as Liberace's waxy smooth-talking pill-pushing plastic surgeon, sending up his own eternal youth in the process. And Debbie Reynolds, unrecognizable at first, is a treasure as Liberace's greedy mom.
Just as the movie starts losing steam in the familiar downward spirals, the AIDS crisis hits, and you know the end is near. Most of the showbiz references are great fun here, especially if you're an Oscar buff (Liberace loved the Oscars), but one pan to a Rock Hudson headline was tasteless and obvious and I can't imagine what possessed Soderbergh to keep it. But despite the missteps, the final scene, an unexpected bit of fantasy, returns us to the initial pleasures of Liberace's love of performance and Scott's own complicated love for Liberace... which is exactly where we need it to land.
In the end I would not say that Behind The Candelabra is ever "too much". In fact, I think it practically squeals like a greedy magpie piggy for more gaudy big screen glitz (now why didn't Baz Luhrmann want do direct this in 3D instead of The Great Gatsby for FScott's sake). Since Candelabra did go to television I think it's actually not enough. A lengthier miniseries was arguably called for since Michael Douglas is so game and our peeks into Liberace's colorful career and even his contentious embattled place in gay history (he does reference the gay community's hatred of him) surely have much more of worth to offer. But for what it is, and especially as a swan song for Steven Soderbergh (who is now on indefinite hiatus from filmmaking) it's a moving must-see curiousity. Even when it's not quite enough, it's still pretty "wonderful".
Grade: B+
Oscar Emmy Chances: It's a done deal for Emmy and Golden Globe glory, at least in terms of across-the-board nominations. I bet even Rob Lowe and Debbie Reynolds have decent shots at Emmy nods despite minimal screentime. Though, in the end, it's still just utterly head-scratching that nobody wanted this for the big screen considering Soderbergh, Douglas & Damon's triple-pronged bankability and Oscar pedigree. It coulda been a contender (especially for Actor, Makeup, Costuming) not only from Oscar's insatiable love of the Showbiz Bio but due to its general quality and the instant nostalgia of Soderbergh's retirement.
Reader Comments (35)
Why do you allow yourself disbelief in Hollywood's deeply ingrained prejudices?
I outright know Steven's telling the truth when his story mirrors that of George Lucas failing to receive studio backing for Red Tails because it's a black movie.
Just crazy this movie was demoted to TV rather than a theatrical release.
I guess Hollywood homophobia remains full throttle. Sad.
Can the Academy make an exception this year so Douglas & Damon can receive Oscar nods? I know, ridiculous.
Patryk -- it's like 10 years ago when everyone wanted to give Oscars to Angels in America
"Just crazy this movie was demoted to TV..."
I eye roll whenever someone says something like this. TV is putting out amazing stuff. It's no demotion. Hell, at least TV seems to be where most actresses above a certain age are flourishing or at least being given a chance to show off their stuff.
I was really rooting for this to pick up some prizes at Cannes. Both as a fuck you to Hollywood for refusing to produce it, and as a reward for Soderbergh's rather spectacular run in the last couple years. Ah well, as an HBO release it'll probably have the biggest audience of any of the competition films that beat it out. (And isn't that exactly the kind of sad truth that pushed Soderbergh into retirement?)
TV is doing good work (but mostly on cable which means fewer episodes and usually a smaller but more involved viewership) and being a good work for storytelling that is perhaps a little longer and more ambitious than studio movies. But I think Soderbergh wishes this still got domestic theatrical release. But hearing he has a series in the works on TV, I guess it is no different than Jane Campion's Top of the Lake and Shane Meadows' This is England series. With that said, I think people who argue TV has surpassed cinema are missing out on a lot of cinema. TV being a place for storytelling is fine (and not as revolutionary as we like to think since many great masterworks from decades ago were on TV from Fanny & Alexander to Berlin Alexanderplatz) but TV is still a writer's medium as opposed to the likes of Campion, Soderbergh, Meadows, and Todd Haynes who went to TV with their 'mini-series/movies' who are always first and foremost directors.
Ryan -- I hear you but, what CMG said.
CMG -- it's often a false equivalency. If you consider all the shit that's on tv along with the great stuff it's pretty much like any other artform. I think the main difference in terms of respect these days is really that people are weirdly forgiving of tv. I can't count the times people say "oh keep watching it'll get amazing next season" or "it starts off slow but by episode 5" or "season 3 sucked but they reallly got it back together for season 4." People DO NOT have this kind of forgiveness with movies. I mean people will watch 17 bad hours of television if they think the 18th hour might be good. Try getting them to sit through a 9th movie from a director that they hated the first 8 movies by ;)
If the first half of your movie sucks, people aren't going to say the movie was amazing!
While it's incredibly frustrating to see Behind the Candelabra "demoted" to television, I also felt Soderbergh used the slight as a means to position himself as some sort of gay rights activist. I'm no Soderbergh completist, but I can't really remember any gay characters appearing in his other films, not even in Magic Mike. How can you not include a gay character in a film about male strippers???
"People DO NOT have this kind of forgiveness with movies. I mean people will watch 17 bad hours of television if they think the 18th hour might be good. Try getting them to sit through a 9th movie from a director that they hated the first 8 movies by ;)"
Definitely. TV programs versus mini-marathon movies are such a different beast. It is why I am trying to be careful in how I want to contextualize stuff like This is England '90 and Top of the Lake being movies that just happen to be a television presentation. I found Top of the Lake viewing on Netflix a lot better than how it was shown on TV. I think the way longer-ish formed movies are not distributed in theaters fits more into the Netflix model than TV, then again it is a pretty American perspective. We rarely have the Berlin Alexanderplatz or more recently the Best of Youth or a Carlos. Closest was probably Mildred Pierce though I feel like memories of the Curtiz movie hurt it from ever being a breakthrough.
And yes, BtC was demoted. There is no way around it, an Oscar-winning director being denied by studios to do a biopic on a high-profile gay man because they thought it would be a failure theatrically is a demotion. HBO getting a Soderbergh movie helps HBO not just have the schlocky, overpraised works like Game Change. I am not quite sure how it helps Soderbergh. Let's also remember he thinks the Hollywood system is broken, undoubtedly relating to this not getting a US studio to distribute and also how such a sure thing at the box office like Magic Mike had to be an 'indie' than straight out of the studio movie.
Words from a live theater going musical lover. Think about the demands both medium and genre ask for forgiving from their audience.
Thanks for the review, I always enjoy your perspective.
As for a demotion, I think we profit from having this shown on HBO in that the script can be more realistic. The suits are afraid of anything that they think might turn paying customers away at the theater (explicit gay sex for instance) but not when its on cable so perhaps we gain (in this case) by the medium.
Plus, being on the box means a lot more people will see it. Even those who will want to claim they didn't. Happens with a lot of genres actually. Especially out side urban centers.
Another Soderbergh movie where male ass reigns king--this time the carrier of the gift is Matt Damon.
Hmmm, the way you wrote this review now has me obsessed to see it, Nathaniel. :)
/3rtful -- i don't know what you mean (seriously)
Fascinating movie.
I felt uncomfortable with Liberace for almost the entire time. Michael Douglas did a great job but he was just so unsettling. That's not a criticism but something about Liberace in this film creeped me out immensely.
Damon was good, as usual. I did laugh at how he was a piece of meat for a good portion of it too.
I think the little guest spots really won me over. Cheyenne had like, what? One line? He said all he needed to say in in his silent scenes. Rob Lowe was grotesque (and i mean that in a good way) and i'm still not entirely sure that Debbie Reynolds was even in this movie. I saw no hint of her as Liberace's mom.
and how was this movie "too gay"? This could have been SO MUCH gayer.
I like how serious this movie took Liberace and Scott's relationship and dynamic. There are moments, like when Scott acts out against Liberace cheating on him with that campy line and Rob Lowe's performance but for me it was very tasteful. It looked like a Soderbergh (and Peter Andrew) joint but it had elements of Todd Haynes there too.
Rob Lowe was incredible (makeup Emmy in immediate order who did that to Lowe, Damon, and Reynolds) but I found Douglas making the most out of somebody who could have just been grotesque or worse, perfunctory but he was very good at being a man with no sense of shame but a huge complex of vanity. But I thought Damon was better and I hope there to be no category fraud so Douglas and Damon are both considered leads in awards season. He just went for it and I am not talking about the love scenes but just disappearing into the role as a wide-eyed kid turned man who had so many mixed emotions on his experience.
Besides Matt Damon being way too old to play Thorson (I couldn't suspend my disbelief enough there) and Soderbergh's overly detached directing, I thought this film was great. Michael Douglas is going to win so many awards for this role it's crazy. Rob Lowe was an odd treat too. I didn't expect that face from him at all.
I never thought about Bakula's character being Scott's fuckbuddy. Hmmmm. Makes a lot of sense.
There's nothing wrong with this going to TV instead of film. TV isn't some ghetto anymore where the Hallmark movies go. HBO is doing more to keep the telefilm genre alive than ANY other studio right now, and that deserves some applause. This film was better than just about anything in cinemas right now. I'll be damned if I spend my good money on some "Fast and Furious 6" shit.
Also, Debbie Reynolds isn't Emmy eligible this year b/c she didn't fulfill the 5% rule for screentime. Sadness, b/c she was very good in her brief scenes.
I just watched Tony Richardson's The Loved One, and I was struck by Liberace's ghoulish appearance during his cameo. He's playing a funeral director, but he's the one who looks embalmed. And his voice is straight out of a horror movie. Definitely a disturbed personality. Thorson was into necrophilia?
This really was a fascinating movie. The performances were all superb, but Best In Show for me was Debbie Reynolds, who completely disappeared into the role of Liberace's mother. Unbelievable. If this had been released theatrically, it would have easily been a major Oscar contender, and probably would have done better-than-just-decent business, given Douglas and Damon, in addition to the subject of Liberace.
It's amazing to look at the dearth of films with any even remotely gay content coming out of Hollywood. Since Brokeback became, by any measure, a huge hit, the only mainstream studio movies that were at all gay were... the Sex and the City movies? And you know those were greenlit only because of the devoted TV following. You'd even think that after Black Swan became a hit by playing up the lesbian angle in its marketing that there would at least be some more lesbian-baiting-exploitation films coming out, but... nothing. It's just crazy to me.
Nathaniel,
Interesting to read your feelings that had this film been given a proper theatrical release, it could have been an Oscar Player for Best Actor and more. I've always tried to hypothesize what other scenarios in the past could have changed if a certain TV performance had been released in theatres. I would agree this would be one of those scenarios, with Michael Douglas feeling like a welcome return after a long absence in Best Actor, and Matt Damon with a supporting role I'm sure they'd go for if they went for INVICTUS.
Any other situations where you (or anyone else reading) think a TV performance could have broken through? Examples I've thought of are:
1974 Best Actress - CICELY TYSON - AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MISS JANE PITTMAN
(Over Diahann Carroll? Or perhaps Valerie Perrine, though I love her nomination)
1976 Best Actress - SALLY FIELD - SYBILL
(Over Talia Shire? Haven't seen COUSIN, COUSINE)
1994 Best Actress - LINDA FIORENTINO - THE LAST SEDUCTION
(Could she have had heat to beat Winger or Channing)
2012 Best Actress - JULIANNE MOORE - GAME CHANGES
(Over Michelle Williams if they preferred her mimicry?)
Then there's the whole cast of ANGELS IN AMERICA, and lots of other possibilities if I kept going (and broke out of just Best Actress possibilities, they're just more fun!!!!).
Have you ever thought of how many times television performances literally would've stood a chance of Oscar recognition, taking into account both the performance and the actual nominees in their respective years?
It occurred to me that the character who picked Scott up in a gay bar and later introduced him to Liberace might have been acting on Liberace's orders. Liberace was tiring of his current protégé so he could have asked his buddy to pick up a likely replacement - naïve, fresh-faced, very young.
I'm not sure that casting Matt Damon, good as he was in the role, was appropriate. The age difference (and power differential) between Scott Thorson and Liberace was much greater than between Damon and Douglas. Honestly, the love scenes would have been much, much creepier if Scott was played by someone who could be made to look seventeen. Soderbergh's casting decision lets Liberace off a little easy.
BFierce83
Here are a few I thought of
Kate Hepburn---Glass Menagerie 73-74 I think
Helen Mirren--Prime Suspect Any one of them but especially the last.
Vanessa Redgrave or Jane Alexander--Playing for Time 1980
and what about Naomi -- like a "talent" scout you mean? Yeah, I thought of that too.
I agree somewhat about Damon's casting though I thought he was good in the role. Damon is 42 and though he still has boyish good looks Scott was 16-28 years old during the events of this movie.
Claire Danes could have won an Oscar for "Temple Grandin," I know it.
Christine Lahti for The Book of Ruth
RE: Henry -
Can't say I've seen any of the projects mentioned (including never having seen PRIME SUSPECT... but after researching the movies and looking at their respective years, which eventual Oscar nominee do you think they may have replaced? In 1980 I would imagine the weighty performances in a film like PLAYING FOR TIME could have made Hawn and Brennan's performances seem a little soft? Or perhaps Diana Scarwid wouldn't have been able to quite pull of her films only nomination with Jane Alexander in that catergory.
Looking at the '74 race, I'm not sure if I believe anyone there was a weak enough nominee to make way for Katherine Hepburn in MENAGERIE... especially considering that Cicely Tyson's performance in JANE PITTMAN was that year as well.
RE: Orion -
Not exactly sure if I am correct in assuming Claire Danes would've competed in the 2010 Best Actress Race... but if I am going with the right year I would agree that Danes would have made it into the nominations for Best Actress that year for sure. I would figure she would have taken Helen Mirren's spot for THE LAST STATION... what seemed like a safe filler nomination then wouldn't have survived the passion for Danes performance in my opinion. And with a tougher race Sandra Bullock may have never had the wiggle room to get the nomination that led to her eventual win (wishful thinking?). With Danes in that shortlist I think she would have been a decent contender for the win too.
RE: Brookesboy -
Must say I am not familiar with THE BOOK OF RUTH beyond just checking it's IMDB page. I think Lahti can be a great actress, but if she couldn't muster Emmy attention for that film I am really skeptical as to her chances of knocking out any of that years Oscar nominees. That was a year where there were 4 people with supporters for the win (Bening, Swank, Winslet, & Staunton)... I suppose the "weakest" nominee was Catalina Sandino Moreno... but if Oscar didn't go for Lahti in RUNNING ON EMPTY in Best Actress, I don't think she would have had the support.
---
But these are just my opinions, who do you guys think those possibilities would've replaced?
Not the right year for Claire Danes. She would have had to deal with Natalie Portman and that juggernaut. Maybe she could have knocked off Michelle Williams with the least support in the category that year. Danes was incredible in "Temple Grandin" I agree with that one and Oscarworthy yes!
BFierce83 ;
1974--Hepburn and Tyson competed against each other in the same Emmy race, but if the films were released theatrically, they would have been in different years. (The films were shown about 6 weeks apart over the Christmas holidays.)
Hepburn would have been '73 against:
Glenda Jackson - A Touch of Class (winner)
Ellen Burstyn - The Exorcist
Marsha Mason - Cinderella Liberty
Barbra Streisand - The Way We Were
Joanne Woodward - Summer Wishes, Winter Dream
Probably would have replaced Mason, but possibly Streisand.
Tyson would have been '74 against:
Ellen Burstyn - Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (winner)
Diahann Carroll - Claudine
Faye Dunaway - Chinatown
Valerie Perrine - Lenny
Gena Rowlands - A Woman Under the Influence
I would think she would replace Perrine if all were fair, but probably Carroll in reality.
This was also the year the Emmy categories changed.
And I forgot about Cloris Leachman in The Migrants in 1974. Great year for drama both in film and television.
This would have put Spacek up for supporting against:
Ingrid Bergman - Murder on the Orient Express (winner)
Valentina Cortese - Day for Night
Madeline Kahn - Blazing Saddles
Diane Ladd - Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
Talia Shire - The Godfather Part II
I think the only sure fires here for noms are Shire and Cortese.
1980--I agree about this year. But Redgrave would not have won. There was a huge backlash over her Zionist Hoodlums remark and many felt she shouldn't have even played the role in Playing for Time. Alexander would easily have replaced Scarwid and might have won.
2006--Mirren would have been competing against herself (The Queen) so doubt it would have happened.
However, if we go back to the first Prime Suspect (1991) she easily would have replaced Midler.
Just learned that Janet McTeer was approached first to play Jane Tennison and turned the part down.
I think in the Portman/Bening year, Danes would've stood a decent chance of breaking in but it's hard to discount any of the other nominees. I guess her angle of "television actress we've known a while & became a respected and gifted actress" could've muted Michelle Williams' thunder... but they nominated her for MARILYN over lingering respect for this performance. My gut tells me that, due to the widespread love for WINTERS BONE that year, Lawrence would've held on too, leaving Kidman out if Danes were in. With little real competition outside of the final 5 (other than Julianne Moore), I definitely think Danes would've had good reason to be optimistic nomination morning. But as a real fan of Kidman in RABBIT HOLE (I'm not always in love with her), I wouldn't want to take this nomination from her for what I think is her best performance.
And another possibility - BEST ACTRESS 1998
Meryl Streep in ...FIRST DO NO HARM
Again, my calendar year may be off for when she'd compete (film came out in Feb. 97, so it competes at the '98 Oscars right?...)... but I think even though she didn't win many awards for this, she was given a standard nomination by just about every possible awards group. And if IMDB is correct 1997 was a Meryl-FREE year in film... so it's not as if the ignored her in a different film that year. ...FIRST DO NO HARM was all she had out that year. It seems really plausible to me that given a strong release in theaters at the right time, this could have been another notch in Meryl's "inevitable" nomination category.
Alfre Woodard in MISS EVERS BOYS
Streep's competitor/victor for awards that year, Alfre Woodard in MISS EVERS BOYS, would also potentially have been a viable contender. For me, the '98 Oscars had two highly disposable Best Actress nominees in Kate Winslet & Julie Christie. For Woodard it could've been recognition for a strong/topical leading role, as well as many great performances (some might argue some snubs) since her CROSS CREEK nomination in the early 80's. Also, with Helen Hunt being the only American that year I'm sure the Academy could've had room to rally strongly behind 2 other homegrown favorites.
Of course, I can say all this and then one can ask why Pam Grier &/or Julia Roberts couldn't get in that year.... to that I say... ummm... but thinking about all of this if fun. ;-)
Henry, BSA of 1974 is a sore spot for me. I love Kahn, but she didn't give a performance--that was shtick. Jennifer Jones should have taken her place for The Towering Inferno. She was terrific in this, grounding this populist disasterfest in an honest earthiness while dishing out true Hollywood grandeur. And it would have been so poetic to have her get a nom for her last film role. Still very pissed about this.
And to throw in a Best Actor possibility and break myself from discussing only actresses...
1986 BEST ACTOR - Dustin Hoffman, DEATH OF A SALESMAN
With nominees like Jon Voight in RUNAWAY TRAIN and James Garner in MURPHY'S ROMANCE, could Hoffman's performance been heavy enough to oust either? This was during Hoffman's steady run with the Oscars, which didn't really seem to slow down significantly until after his RAIN MAN win.
Perhaps John Malkovich in Supporting Actor that year also could've had the heat to replace Eric Roberts or Robert Loggia also? Again, this was a period where he appeared to be in the Academy's good graces, having received his 1st supporting nomination the previous year.
A bit behind on joining this conversation, but I'm surprised that no one's mentioned Drew Barrymore and/or Jessica Lange for 2009's "Grey Gardens".
Given the overall weirdness of Best Actress that year and Drew's irresistible narrative (formerly troubled child star, who knows EVERYONE and literally grew up in Hollywood, finally delivers on her promise and gives a truly great performance) -- I am convinced that Barrymore would have walked away with the Oscar that year. The Emmys skew much older in the stars they reward, which explains why Lange beat Barrymore for the Emmy but lost the Globe and the SAG. Bullock won that year on industry goodwill and having her competition be 2 newcomers and 2 previous winners who'd had finer moments; Barrymore would have benefitted from similar industry goodwill, but the legitimate raves her performance won her would likely have given her more heat from critics' wins and put her in a better position for a win.
Considering how Oscar campaigns tend to work with two same-sex leads, Lange would likely have been campaigned in Supporting (she is the older of the two), where she would have claimed Gyllenhaal's or Cruz's spot in the lineup. She'd have lost to Mo'Nique, who was unbeatable that year, but still would likely have gotten a "welcome back" nomination.
Nathaniel R:
Yes, I got the feeling that he (Bob?) could have been scouting talent for Liberace. It never hurts to do a powerful man a favour.
I think it would have been more reflective of the real difference in age/power in Liberace and Thorson's relationship if Thorson could have been played by a young and relatively unknown actor. Of course, this would be infinitely more difficult than casting an established actor like Damon. He's much less of a gamble than a young unknown, because the quality of performance is known beforehand and, of course, he's a lot more bankable.
There's an article in The Guardian (by way of the New York Times) about the real Scott Thorson and it's pretty apparent that he's a very damaged soul with an enduring problem with drug use. Maybe with his unstable childhood and lack of a sense of identity, Thorson's path would not have been much different whether or not he met a rich and predatory older man who showered him with affection and gifts and then "abandoned" him. Still, when the end titles say "Scott Thorson is currently living in Reno" rather than "Scott Thorson is currently living in the Reno jail awaiting trial for credit card theft", there seems to be a little whitewashing going on. Scott Thorson is made to seem a little bit more stable and reliable than he is, and the effects of Liberace's actions on the young men he seduced and discarded is minimized.