The Film Experience

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.

Previous Oscar Volleys: