renee's first SAG winsIf you missed part one, we've invited a longtime SAG member to share this thoughts from SAG Nominating Committee screenings of the would be contenders...
JUDY: This one definitely got the most lackluster response. When the movie was over, there was only a smattering of applause—though I had the feeling that had something to do with the way it ends. It kind of ends with a whimper. But people got on their feet for Renee Zellweger—who appeared along with Finn Wittrock. They gushed about her performance—the acting, the singing, all of it. And she had some interesting things to say about the research she did—particularly in regard to addiction. It’s an engaging performance, I think—but is it really as much of a “transformation” as people say? I feel like you see a lot of Renee Zellweger in there—like, it’s as much Judy Garland playing Renee Zellweger as it is Renee Zellweger playing Judy Garland. Does that make any sense? And for what it’s worth, I hated the Oz stuff. Was Louis B. Mayer a sexual predator? You can’t just drop that suggestion into all the other horrible stuff and move on. It all felt very undefined.
BOMBSHELL: With no disrespect to Ms. Zellweger, the “transformation of the year” has got to be Charlize Theron as Megyn Kelly...
She just disappears into the role. (And she doesn’t sing a note.) What’s amazing is you wouldn’t think it’s the kind of role you could disappear into—there just don’t seem to be enough crayons in that box. But Theron does it. And the writer, Charles Randolph, creates an interesting role for Margot Robbie. She has a killer scene with John Lithgow—which is the beating—and I mean tense, awful—beating heart of the movie, and the one that will probably get her a Supporting Actress nomination (forget about Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood, as angelic as she was in that). Having said all that, I’m not sure the audience was really crazy about the movie (even the introduction of panelists Theron, Kidman and Lithgow didn’t merit standing O’s). I wonder if it’s because it doesn’t have enough of an arc—there’s no real investigation, build-up and denouement in this. It’s just a lot of people talking, and then a quiet scene of Roger Ailes getting the boot. I admit that I had a little of that feeling—a disappointment in being denied a kind of crowd-pleasing, social justice movie—but I appreciated it for what it was. As for the panel…my gosh, I could listen to John Lithgow talk all day.
DOLEMITE IS MY NAME: Certainly the most electric screening I’ve attended. The line was around the block, the crowd was psyched, and when the movie played, every joke landed. And when Eddie Murphy came out for the Q&A – my goodness. I’m used to seeing famous people—I’ve certainly worked with my share—but there’s something about Eddie Murphy. Maybe it’s because he still looks like Eddie Murphy—the superstar from the 1980s (seriously, what is this guy’s secret?)—but it was quite something to see him sitting there. The panel was moderated by Spike Lee—and also included Titus Burgess and Keegan-Michael Key—and it was mostly a Murphy lovefest. Titus and Keegan went on about how they couldn’t believe they got to work with Eddie, Spike went on about how Eddie should be nominated for an Oscar. “Why don’t they nominate comedies?” Spike wondered. Eddie quietly theorized that they only nominate comedic performances when dramatic actors do them (like Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie…a movie whose name Eddie couldn’t remember…”you know, the one where we wore a dress”). It’s an interesting theory. And Eddie might have a shot this year; there are shades to this performance that I don’t think we’ve seen from him before. He communicates a lot—disappointment, self-doubt—by not opening his mouth, which feels revelatory in an Eddie Murphy character. That said, it’s still Eddie Murphy at the end of the day; he doesn’t try to disappear into Rudy Ray Moore the way Theron does with Megyn Kelly or (to borrow a similar Alexander/Karasewski character) Johnny Depp does with Ed Wood—but that’s okay. You go to an Eddie Murphy movie to see Eddie Murphy, so maybe that’s the trade-off with acting awards. But we’ll see what happens. I had a blast. (I also loved Da’Vine Joy Randolph, who has a way of being vulnerable even while projecting strength. It’s a wonderful performance.)
LITTLE WOMEN: I loved it. Greta Gerwig dug deep and wrote a really smart adaptation, and then cast it perfectly. Saoirse Ronan carries the movie beautifully, and Florence Pugh…oh my goodness, Florence Pugh. You know how there are sometimes people who are so magnetic onscreen that the Academy gives them an award as soon as it can? Like Angelina Jolie in Girl, Interrupted. That wasn’t a great movie, but she had such a unique vibe, you just had to give her an award, STAT. I feel like that might happen with Pugh. She turns Amy into a fascinating character (maybe the first person to do that) and you can’t take her eyes off her—even when she’s sharing the screen with people like Ronan, Timothee Chalamet or Meryl Streep. The panel was Chalamet, Eliza Scanlen, Tracy Letts and Jayne Houdyshell—with Ronan, Pugh and Gerwig on Skype. Nothing much to report from there—except Chalamet thought that the play The Humans (of which Houdyshell just shot the film adaptation) was “fucking awesome.”
Possibly more to come...