Oscar Volleys: Brody vs. Chalamet in Best Actor
Tuesday, February 25, 2025 at 6:00PM The Oscar Volleys are back for some post-nomination talks. Today, Eric Blume and Eurocheese discuss the Best Actor race...
SING SING | © A24
ERIC: Hi Euro, I'm thrilled for this one-on-one with you to discuss our five Best Actor candidates. While I'm eager to discuss the actual race, because I think we have a real race here with several possible outcomes...what are your thoughts on the nominees themselves? How do you feel about the five? I think one is a little weaker than the rest (and that's Colman Domingo, more to come), but all in all a wonderful quintet full of talented actors doing very fine work. What is your take?
EUROCHEESE: That's funny - of the five here, Colman Domingo would actually have my vote…
What spoke to me about this performance was his natural integration into a cast featuring several former prisoners who knew the program intimately, and when we do see emotions pour out of him, the feeling that he has been holding them back really sold me. Sing Sing's path this year has been so strange - missing the SAG ensemble nomination, doing better than expected at BAFTA, scoring three Oscar nominations but one of them surprisingly for Song. Domingo has been showing up consistently, but I don't see him winning unless we are in for a huge surprise. Even if the perceived two frontrunners missed, I don't think he'd be the beneficiary.
I at the very least respect all five of these performances, though if I ranked this among all time lineups in the category, it would land solidly on middle ground. It seems to be a year where the two names I'm hearing most often, Brody and Chalamet, are not the names I wish were in front. How about you - where do your preferences land?
ERIC: Interesting that we disagree on Colman Domingo. I think he's an immensely gifted actor, and I'm thrilled to see him getting these juicy roles...but I thought his performance was forced and self-conscious. Everyone else is delivering these simple, lovely performances, and Domingo seems to be "fully actorly" at every moment. Part of that approach works, because the character started the theater program and has been “acting” for years, but for me, much of Domingo's work felt played for effect in scene after scene to me. He's magnificent in his parole scene...playing not only, as you mention, letting out what he's been holding in, but making that interesting choice of abject fear for a man we've seen as fully confident up until that moment. He's really playing the stakes, as the smartest actors do, and he's glorious in that moment. In his two lead film performances, his acting style reminds me of Sally Field's...there's some telegraphing, and it's very on-the-nose, but wow, do both actors deliver when they know they have to deliver. But I must say there was a lot of acting in Domingo's acting here.
But I think the other four actors are exemplary. I've talked about Chalamet's performance in my Split Decision article with Ben, but I do think Chalamet not only beautifully maintains Dylan's essential mystery, his sheer esoteric-ness, and that singing is freakishly dead-on, not only in sound but in emotional texture...I think he earned his nomination. Brody provides that deep, fleshy, monumental center for The Brutalist. Fiennes gives yet another one of his technically precise and effortlessly compelling performances. And Stan's calibration on the methodical grossifcation of L'Orange kind of blew my mind. Plus, he's equally great if not better in A Different Man. I really think these performances are incredibly fine across the board. Tell me your beefs with Chalamet and Brody? And your feelings on Fiennes and Stan?
A COMPLETE UNKNOWN | © Searchlight Pictures
EUROCHEESE: I wouldn't call it beef, but as much as I love Chalamet as an actor, I knew as soon as I read about A Complete Unknown that it was the kind of performance to get him back in the conversation. The Academy gets so excited by the HE'S PLAYING A REAL PERSON conversation, which is exhausting on almost a yearly basis. Mimicry is prized above character development, and I'm afraid that's especially true in this film, where we are meant to be excited that our protagonist is impossible to fully understand. Since we're not getting below the surface, he is limited to external flourishes - and those, I will absolutely say, he nails. He altered his physicality and his voice, which is exactly the kind of thing actors adore.
Do I find it as compelling as signaling Elio's internal life in Call Me By Your Name, his struggle to crawl out of drug addiction in Beautiful Boy or his heart aching portrayal of Laurie in Little Women, the best adaptation of that character yet on screen? No, I don't. The party trick of hitting the right notes does not fascinate me more than the imbuement of humanity in a character. I'll say this though: Timmy has been crushing the box office with his latest releases, and given his impressive resume to date, I really want him to have an Oscar. Those of us who have been following the race for years understand our favorites may win for films that aren't our favorite, and it's wild to me that A Complete Unknown has made (as of this writing) just shy of $100 million internationally. Between the top two contenders, I'm rooting for him. He hasn't been winning yet, though, and if he doesn't win at SAG, I doubt he'll take the Oscar.
Adrien Brody returns to us as the immigrant at the center of The Brutalist, an epic where we see him embattled and belittled for the length of the film. Much like his Oscar-winning term in The Pianist, he serves as a symbol for a generation. There is a deep sorrow he conveys, much as he did with that film, but I must admit I am personally mystified by the number of cinephiles calling it the performance of the year. The film is structured so we watch his continued deterioration, but aside from some scenes where he shows frustration, we mostly see him hitting the same emotional notes. Felicity Jones gets to be the vocal respondent, but even her reactions didn't add up to a fully-fledged character. He internalizes his pain, she senses it, then she serves as his mouthpiece. While all this is going on, their awkward dynamic makes their presumed wavelength even less believable. Brody's scenes always seem to tell more about other characters than about his architect. I personally didn't find depth there.
Voters this year seem to disagree, and that's fair enough.
Nevermind about my opinion on the role, though - Brody is clearly in the lead at the moment. With the Globe, Critics Choice and BAFTA all lining up for him, the only concern is SAG. Do you think he's sweeping?
ERIC: I love your beautiful estimation of Chalamet's performance here, and I'm with you that he was far more brilliant in Call Me By Your Name. He's a smashingly talented young actor, probably the best of his generation, and he'll be making many more trips to the Oscars.
I wouldn't call Brody's performance the performance of the year, but I do think he often achieves greatness in The Brutalist. The movie *is* his face. Corbet seems to find countless ways to frame that weird, strong, ugly-beautiful visage in ways that project where he wants the audience to be emotionally. Your comment that Brody's scenes always seem to tell more about other characters? I think that's sort of the odd beauty about his performance. His character is a bit of a ghost, a mirror of sorts, and Corbet seemed to use Brody to carry the notes of the entire film. I completely hear your frustrations/limitations with the performance, but I like the way Brody withheld from us throughout the picture.
THE BRUTALIST | © A24
There were several moments where I wasn't sure where Laszlo was, or who he was...but in a purposeful way sculpted by Brody and Corbet. This is a man who arrives at the start of the film as someone who has sort of already died, then pushed to the bottom run of the ladder, then discovered, then celebrated, then used up. In many ways, the character is passive, and we're not accustomed to passive protagonists. It's part of why Guy Pearce is so magnificent...he's got the active stuff to play, and he plays the fuck out of it. I felt Brody found his way into a very distant, difficult character with in a way that remained true to the essential darkness and lostness of him, but kept him commanding and fiery. I don't think Lazslo has tangible depth (he internalizes, as you mention), but he does have complexity across his surface emotions, and I felt Brody manifested all of that.
What are your thoughts on Fiennes and Stan?
EUROCHEESE: Poor Stan is saddled with playing the troll currently trying to burn down our country. Is it a good impression? Sure, he works a number of Trump-isms into a cohesive performance but if I have to vote for an imitative performance this year, I'm voting for Timmy. It also doesn't do him any favors that Jeremy Strong is stealing scene after scene from him. I understand the "bravery" of taking on the role, but it's a replacement-level biopic on someone who needs no more time on my screen. Perfectly respectable performance, but not my favorite. (Keith Kupferer or more realistically Glen Powell, wish you were here!)
I am so happy Ralph Fiennes is returning to the Oscar race, and while Conclave feels more like campy fun than an all-time classic to me, the way he portrays decisions weighing on his protagonist singlehandedly elevates the whole film. In fact, Rossellini's nomination sits well with me for the same reason - the audience can feel their inner spiritual descent when they enter a room. The film itself is more of a romp than the quest for truth he is experiencing, but he is on a mission from God, which means his tranquil peace or holy wrath could potentially land anywhere in a given scene. The Oscar for this film will most likely go to its twisty, silly screenplay, but his performance is the film's strongest asset in my book. (Of course, in my book he'd already have an Oscar...)
How do you feel about these two? And where would your vote land?
ERIC: We clearly share equal levels of vitriol for the subject of The Apprentice, but I was gobsmacked by Stan's calibration. In the early scenes, there's barely a trace of the slovenly pig we now know so well...he's just a dummy getting by in a sleazy tier of real estate. Stan barely even uses any known vocal inflections. We see his walk, attitude, morality, and especially speech come slowly into focus to the "man" we know today. In the final scenes, he's already becoming a caricature of himself, and we know what happens from there. Stan doesn't ask for audience sympathy: his acting choices are all about id and immediate gratification and power and wealth, and there's no second guessing. He doesn't pretend that there was ever a moral crisis for the character, only greed. But he makes this single-mindedness compelling. I found myself magnetized by Stan despite having more hatred for the actual person he's playing than I've ever felt for anyone. That's some kind of feat in my book.
CONCLAVE | © Focus Features
We're on the same page with Fiennes, although I think I'm more a fan than you of his work. I think he brings power and complexity to that (agreed) often silly screenplay...while somehow being aware of the pulpy jolts within it. Fiennes is that rare actor who is both deeply detailed and also scrappy. There's something both formal and feral about him in Conclave: he's subdued and buttoned-down, yet at the same time hungry and manipulative as well. He's got his nose to the ground like an animal, always sniffing things out, operating above everyone else. He creates a man of tenderness and insight, but also of flinty conviction. In other words, lots of contrasts within this character, and I don't think there's a single actor alive who would have delivered better in this role.
Do I think Ralph Fiennes gives the greatest performance of the year? No. Do I wish he would win this year's Best Actor Oscar? Yes. He probably should have won in 1996 for The English Patient (although that's the one and only year Tom Cruise would have made sense, for Jerry Maguire). But Geoffrey Rush's win made little sense back then and makes even far less sense 30 years later (his performance is such a showy, fussy little trifle). Or for his first nomination, for Schindler's List. Those are two towering performances, and Fiennes has given us so much over three decades. People talk about "overdue" and Fiennes is the definition of that.
Back to the start so we can wrap up. Who do you feel is winning this year?
EUROCHEESE: We now have SAG winners, and Timmy not only is in the mix, he threw down the gauntlet by clearly stating he wants to be one of the all-time great actors. Ballots for the Oscars are already in, which is a shame because I think that speech would have played in his favor. It's a close call between the top two, but go big or go home!
- Timothée Chalamet - The combination of playing an icon, his work to date, Adrien Brody having an Oscar already and the likely Academy love for this film makes me believe this is possible. Most pundits will probably lean towards Brody, but there's a clear path to make me think this is possible.
- Adrien Brody - Still extremely likely
- Ralph Fiennes - Conclave would have to really dominate for this to happen (and to be clear, I love this performance)
- Colman Domingo - I'd love to see it, but it won't happen
- Sebastian Stan - He'll have to settle for that very nice shout out from Jane Fonda
Which way are you leaning?
ERIC: Indeed, it was nice to see Chalamet win the SAG...unsurprisingly, as he's well respected in the industry, and as a voting body, they loved A COMPLETE UNKNOWN and didn't love The Brutalist. SAG is a very mainstream voting body, casting a very wide net, whereas the Academy is a much more, shall we say, curated group of voters. While it was nice to see Chalamet finally win a big award, I don't think it will translate to Oscar, for a few reasons.
First, Academy voters don't lean towards young actors (I know if he won, Chalamet would ironically beat Brody's record of youngest BA winner...but Brody was *really* an exception). Second, while we always think "that person has already won an Oscar"...I don't think Academy voters really think in those terms. They were fast to give both Hillary Swank and Christoph Waltz...two actors that nobody considers among "the greats”…two Oscars each. Mahershala Ali won two very close to each other. Emma Stone (deservedly) won her second shortly after her first. They gave Frances McDormand her third shortly after her second. I think if they love the performance, they vote for the performance. And third, the Academy is a much more international voting block, and I'm guessing (just a hunch) that a film like The Brutalist resonates more with them than A Complete Unknown.
But I agree a win for Chalamet is possible...just not probable. I kept hoping Ralph Fiennes would come from behind, again not because I think he's the greatest performance per se, but because Brody has one and Chalamet will be up many times in the future. It just feels like now would be the perfect time to give Ralph his much-deserved Oscar, especially since many actors have won "career awards" for performances nowhere near as strong as the one he's giving in Conclave. I'm thinking this is the ranking:
- Adrien Brody: the movie feels like it's going to get at least one big win, and this is its best shot. IMO, he'd be a great winner who will look greate 50 years from now.
- Timothée Chalamet: could pull it off, but just feels a little too passive for me for Best Acxtor
- Ralph Fiennes: comments above
- Colman Domingo: will need to wait until Michael Jackson bio next year
- Sebastian Stan: hopefully the start of more nominations, he is a absolutely fantastic actor
Any other final thoughts on the Best Actor race?
EUROCHEESE: I agree that A Complete Unknown feels a bit more American, but Timmy himself has international appeal as arguably the biggest movie star of his age group. Plus, A Complete Unknown has a larger box office overseas as well as domestically, which might help him slightly - and I expect the margin to be razor thin in this race. We shall see! Nice chatting with you and hope everyone has an eventful Oscar viewing experience.
THE APPRENTICE | © Briarcliff EntertainmentPrevious Oscar Volleys:
- BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS, with Cláudio Alves & Nathaniel Rogers
- BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR, with Eric Blume & Nick Taylor
- BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY, with Abe Friedtanzer & Eurocheese
- BEST ANIMATED FEATURE, with Cláudio Alves & Nathaniel Rogers
- BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE, with Cláudio Alves & Ben Miller
- BEST INTERNATIONAL FILM, with Eric Blume & Nathaniel Rogers
- BEST COSTUME DESIGN, with Cláudio Alves & Nick Taylor
- BEST MAKEUP & HAIRSTYLING, with Cláudio Alves & Eurocheese
Reader Comments (25)
Great discussion but just one thing first the name calling of President Trump whom i'm no big fan of is very childish and Jane Fonda didn't resort to such silliness,she let Stan have a moment,very gracious of her.
I find Domingo actorly in everything,he can never stop acting and live in the role though I found him more tolerable than usual in Sing Sing but Maclin walks off with the film.
Fiennes in my opinion is one of the best actors who hasn't got enough Oscar love though it's far from his best,he should've cake walked to a win in 2014,I mean Denzel nearly got a 10th and some of his nods are overly generous and Fiennes is only on number 3.
Stan would be my pic,it's not the hagiography it could've been,even the man himself had nothing good to say about it,it's not exactly Trump endorsed and whilst Strong is excellent I don't think he dominated the film,I was very very sceptical but found the film one of my favourites of the year,though I feel it's a solid movie it's not the great one it's obviously going for,Edward Norton recently discussed the film and performances and didn't need to resort to name calling.
I haven't seen Timothee or Adrien.
If I were judging on performances only, Colman would have my vote, An easy one from an unusually stronger group than we've had as of late but still not up my alley.
Though I agree with Eric. It reminds me of 2017 where giving Frances a second (when Margot, Sally and Saoirse were right there) and even more 2020 where giving her a third felt like such a waste. And I like (to varying degrees) both performances.
I'd rank Timmy fifth, and it's obvious he'll be back (always a risk to assume this but seems pretty unstoppable at this point for him in particular). Brody already has one and since Colman isn't an option I'd just go with Fiennes. Not his best, not even the best here but let's get this done with. I've come to terms with Oscars existing way outside the context of "best" and within whole careers and this seems like such an easy opportunity that I'm actually surprised he receded into what appears a distant third missing the upset even in organizations that loved Conclave and would historically side with him over someone like Brody or Chalamet.
Justice for Daniel Craig!!! The only nominee here even remotely close to his brilliance is Brody.
Chalamet did himself no favors with that arrogant SAG speech! Who do you think you are, honey, Muhammad Ali?
Brody is the clear winner out of this lineup. He can be a hit or miss actor, but he was truly fantastic in The Brutalist.
Fiennes and Stan are both great. Wouldn't mind Fiennes winning as justice for Schindler's List. Stan was way better in A Different Man.
Domingo...He seems so lovely but I just don't like him as an actor. I thought he was actually bad in Rustin and he's so boring in Sing Sing. He's such an obvious actor. He's always ACTING in the worst possible way.
Chalamet. No. The most boring, uninteresting, dull, lifeless performance. Is he bad? No. But so many people out there can do a solid Dylan impression. I'm not impressed by the singing. And the actual character is completely blank, so the title is very appropiate. His SAG speech made things even worse.
Craig, who was in the #6 spot, is superior to all of them. A career best.
Have to agree that Chalamet's performance is 99% mimicry, 1% character arc. Stan fared a little better with his mimicry...at least it wasn't all based on what we've seen from Trump in the last 8-10 years. I thought Brody was phenomenal, actually, even though I wasn't all that crazy about the film.
Mr Ripley79 defending Trump is a new low, but I'm definitely not surprised.
So glad to see many comments about the absolute NO for Chalamet. Can’t stand him and agreed about his SAG speech - horrible. If he wins the Oscar it will definitely be a dark day
When the season started I thought this was the occasion for Ralph Fiennes.
It didn’t went like this, but I don’t have any problem for a Brody #2. We can’t say that his performance in The Brutalist is other than magnificent.
Chalamet is a good actor. Saying that Chalamet is oscar worthy for A complete unknown and call yourself a cinephile is a problem
Such
vitriolshade, it must be the end of the season.Anyway, of the five:
1. Brody
2. Fiennes
3. Domingo
4. Chalamet
Stan (abstain, since I haven't seen it)
Of the 2024 performances, nominated or not, that I've seen:
1. Craig
2. Brody
3. Nathan Stewart-Jarrett (Femme)
4. Fiennes
5. Domingo
Honorable mentions: Culkin, Eisenberg
@Juan i wasn't bashing Trump if you read properly instead of just reading into it how you feel persoanlly about me.
I said i'm no big fan of his but I find Trump bashing so obvious and like I said classy people like Fonda and Norton didn't need to resort to it to praise a fellow actor.
I do believe that people are entitled to like the man whether you or many others feel he is a villain or not.
I don't live in America and our clown is a whole lot worse from where I sit.
I think Stan should be lauded without silly name calling of trump just to get a dig in at THE President.
Chalamet is talented; His work in A Complete Unknown is more accomplished (musically, dramatically) than most of the biopic turns Hollywood has celebrated this century. I didn’t like the movie and don’t care for the genre in general—but come on, we’ve seen worse.
As for his speech: It’s fine with me if he approaches his career with that masc dom athlete attitude. There are plenty of tennis players, ballet dancers, etc. who do incredibly elegant work with that mindset, it helps them excel. It did feel a little twerpy but rang sincere, I thought it was endearing on balance. These meta conversations about actors (“who’s the heir to DeNiro/Pacino?”) play out whether they participate in them or not; I actually found it interesting to see Timmy enter the chat and put down a marker. Half the time they’re playing men striving for greatness/importance so why not acknowledge that the same dynamics exist in Hollywood and in life? Bradley Cooper is damned for being "thirsty for an Oscar" without ever saying it explicitly, so you really can't win.
Artists are not always going to express themselves the way you want them to and that’s fine. I'll take interesting and real over boring any day.
Mr Ripley79, I'm sure you're a smart guy and I love what an avid reader you are.
I'm not losing sleep over this by any stretch, but just know that between your two comments, you called us "very childish", "obvious", and "not classy." Those aren't the nicest words. If you needed to express your frustration with our "Trump bashing" (I thought we went very, very easy), you easily just could have said, "While I personally didn't enjoy the Trump bashing, great discussion..."
I bring this up just because as a team, we're really working hard to make sure the comments are fun, engaging, and positive. The purpose of Split Decisions and Volleys...where writers are constantly disagreeing with each other...is partially to show how respectfully we can do that, by hearing each other and providing context for our side of the argument. This is not about being thin-skinned. We all love discourse here at TFE.
Just advocating for kindness, which can co-exist happily with disagreement and criticism.
Great conversation.
I was a big fan of Domingo's performance. I thought the actorly-ness worked, in part because there are scenes that are so internal where he's alone where all of that goes away. I'll admit, I thought he could do better this season, and would be more in contention, but I'm glad he has a second lead actor nomination. Not something easy to get!
The Brody and Chalamet race is tough. I really could see either winning: they're each well loved, in well liked films, and they're likely to be the only wins for their film. I also don't think either has a strong narrative, so I think it will come down to preference and the campaign. I think Brody probably has the edge there, he has been at every event shaking hands. And, the international body that doesn't attend those events are likely to vote for him.
I'm surprised by some of the dislike about Chalamet's speech. I like that he acknowledged his intentions and he seemed appreciative. It was a great speech by a young movie star, but not the type we typically get.
At the very least, he secured Viola Davis' vote.
My rankings:
5- Stan- I didn't like this movie. Stan and Strong seem to be doing SNL impressions but just not funny.
4- Chalamet- The film treats Bob Dylan almost as a poser and I only see Chalamet posing as Dylan. I didn't really get any insight to the person or why he does what he does.
3- Fiennes- This is not a 3rd place performance but the top 3 this year were really fantastic
2- Brody- Again a fantastic performance as an immigrant who tries to keep his head down even though he is usually the smartest man in the room. For all the notes about how forlorn his performance is watch the subtle way his finds joy in being complimented on his work.
1- Domingo- A great performance that carries the movie. I firmly believed he was this character- a man who turned to the theatre as an outlet as he is already a bit larger than life.
As for who will win-it all comes down to Brody. Either he wins, or Chalamet breaks his record, or they split and Fiennes wins in the same way Brody did for 2002.
@Ericb
My first written two words to you in my answer are Great discussion,did you not notice that and then I basically say what you suggest I say,I find it uneccessary.
I said Fonda and Norton were classy but not that you weren't.
Some of my words were probablynot needed and apologies to you and your co host,no offence meant and I really appreciate what you say and the effort put into the discussions.
Trump bashing is beneath us all,leave name calling to the man himself,no-one here really likes him that's almost a given,I don't live in your country so maybe i'm more tolerant of him
I am a bit tired of one person only commenting on what I say,I actively apologised to him last time my comments were off colour,I can handle crticism cos i'm a sane intelligent well rounded person after therapy of course and well liked by people I know,sometimes though I can say what I think before checking myself.
I don't like someone singling me out for criticism and not commenting on the post whilst doing it.
I am more than the sum of my comments here and have been a 20 yr plus reader here and comment on almost every post to keep the site interesting.
Why do you think it is "beneath us"? I'm not getting it.
Also, why would living outside the US make you more tolerant of him? You live in the same world he's having an impact on.
I've said it once on here and i'll say it again,I come here for film discussion not to hear political stuff no matter what form it takes.
It's one of the reason I can't deal with Sasha Stone's website even if on occasion I agree with her
I have found it always brings out the worst in people myself included.
'FrankZappa Why do you care what I think,we don't know each other and I am not concerned with your views.
I would have called it out if Kamala had got in and name calling of her started on here.
I have come to realise on here that praising Trump in any form is not allowed by most commentators.
What I meant by 2beneath us" is most of you seem like a decent bunch and are better than getting into political discourse leave that to them in power and let's get on with more interesting topics like Demi Moore vs Mikey Madsion and is A Real Pain going to take Best Screenplay and what colour will Cynthia Erivo's nails be at the Oscars.
Any form of name calling is just not my cuppa and sometimes I can be guilty of it.
I honestly can say last time he was in power it had no real major impact on me personally and I didn't see the world go up in flames.
This is why I do not get into discussions of this kind because us who sit on both sides of the fence and see the good and bad in both sides are usually given a cold shoulder or people are aghast that we can see some good the other side is doing or our views don't align with theirs so we must be crazy or right wing or whatever the latest slur is.
I mean come on a LOT of Americans voted for him,I didn't so don't come for me because I happen to enjoy film discussion rather than Trump bashing.
::backing away slowly::
I don't get it.
You seem ok to me,I have no beef with you at all,I rarely fall out with people unless they are family.
Mr Ripley, I understand what you're getting at and I share your sentiment. However, I learned long ago that it's best to just keep it pushing when you read something you disagree with online.
I find nuanced conversations about touchy subjects are most successful in-person where you can speak face-to-face and feel the humanity behind the words. That's not possible behind a screen, which is why social media and the internet at large are usually just echo chambers of shared opinions/collective outrage or heated debates with very little middle ground.
I just wanted to share that I understand you mean no harm... I know what it's like to feel misunderstood. <3
However. you have mentioned this many times and it has continued. Not everyone sees it the same way and that's okay.
The next time you read something you disagree with online, it might be best for your peace of mind to just ignore it and keep it shoving. That's what I do, lol. Unless it's film-related, of course.
I've also read your Anora perspective and share not all but a lot of those sentiments with you as well. :)
Sending good vibes. <3
Mr Ripley79, it's obvious you're pretty neutral or positive on Trump from your comments, despite you trying to cloak them (a big tell is that you *sometimes* agree with Sasha Stone, who is a right-wing nutjob). Otherwise, you wouldn't have bothered to bring it up, since Eric & Euro had every right to express an opinion given the topic of one of the movie performances they were reviewing. Don't want to talk politics on this site? Don't escalate by responding then.
Honestly, wasn't sure if I would weigh in but I appreciate Eric's comments. The idea that we can't weigh in on politics - and frankly, we barely touched it considering we are talking about one of the five roles played by the actors - at some point makes us sound like we didn't watch the films. If the goal was a political hit piece, we failed miserably.
Calling us names pretty much negates the point. I will continue to use my voice as long as I am allowed to do so, and probably long after. I love TFE, have for decades now and am less interested in shouting about politics than discussing my love of film and the Oscars. To that end, I stand by everything said in the article and appreciate our discussion, Eric. Now, let's talk movies!
@Philip H and Whunk Thankyou and I take on board what you both say,I am a Scorpio so can get a overly passionate about things and sting when it's unnecessary
I will learn from this and thank both of you for seeing it from my point of view.
To all readers I honestly meant no harm or offence to anyone here.
As Eurocheese said let's tale film.