The Oscar nominations were announced today and for the most part the nominees are not all that big of a surprise. Most had been on either the short or long list as possibilities since the awards season began. For the prognosticators and regular folks like myself the big thing we always wait for is who didn't get nominated. There are always snubs and omissions every year. One deserving actor, director (last years left behinds), writer, etc. So it was this morning when I logged on to see what will make the internet all a twitter to discuss, pick apart, complain and bitch about. And yes, I will be adding my own voice to the muddled mix for what I think ranks right up there with last years director snubs. Of course, by my headline you can tell I mean Emma Thompson's lack of a nomination for her role as P.L. Travers in "Saving Mr. Banks". (I'm not the only one who is perturbed by the way)
As a back story, I only marginally wanted to see the movie. Love Emma, but subject matter, eh. The SO really wanted to see it so we got up early one Saturday and hit up the matinee. Reviews had been mostly positive for the film, I mean it's running 81% on Rotten Tomatoes. For the most part I thought the movie was just okay. Parts of it were slow and really, how many flashbacks do we need to see that here father was an alcoholic, not abusive just decent and misguided, but still--alcoholic. I didn't hate the movie, there were some funny parts and really sad and moving parts. But for me the most interesting and riveting was Emma Thompson as Travers. A woman who, by all accounts, was not nice--to anyone.
Watching movies you have to become invested in the characters, which to me means that they need some kind of redeeming feature no matter how small it is. Ms. Thompson embodied Travers at the start of the movie with a kind of reserved haughtiness that would immediately put one off the character. But that is just the line to draw you in and have you laugh at how absurd her attitude and requests were to the writers and musicians transforming her book into film. As the film goes on it offers a glimpse, a small one, into her past to help explain why she has become the person she is today. But it's her voiceless expressions when she's alone that make you start to have some empathy for the woman she is. It is a transformation and that is what you look for in a character when watching a movie, well I do anyway. It's hard to become emotionally invested in a character with no redeeming values. I realize the anti-hero is like a new trend in television (House, the new Rake), books (Gone Girl--ugh--hated it) and movies. But for me, if I don't care, I zone out and the whole movies a wash.
It wasn't necessarily a scenery chewing performance and alas that seems to be what the Academy was looking for as the final Best Actress slot went to Meryl Streep who pretty much ate the whole movie with a character that is just abrasive and unlikeable from beginning to end. I like Ms. Streep as much as the next person, she was great in "The Iron Lady", but here this should have been Emma's spot. I guess when it comes down to it we can all just blame Walt Disney. Evidently he didn't like women or Jews and well more than half of Hollywood is one or the other so she was pretty much screwed from the beginning I guess. It's too bad the Golden Globes didn't happen before ballots were due, maybe if they'd seen her performance there, folks would have clamored to have her on the Oscars. It will be interesting to see if she is there as a presenter or observer. More than likely she will stay the same classy British lady she is and hold her head and be there proud to represent. Or maybe she will crash and put them all to shame, either way I will give here a standing ovation for whatever she does.
As a back story, I only marginally wanted to see the movie. Love Emma, but subject matter, eh. The SO really wanted to see it so we got up early one Saturday and hit up the matinee. Reviews had been mostly positive for the film, I mean it's running 81% on Rotten Tomatoes. For the most part I thought the movie was just okay. Parts of it were slow and really, how many flashbacks do we need to see that here father was an alcoholic, not abusive just decent and misguided, but still--alcoholic. I didn't hate the movie, there were some funny parts and really sad and moving parts. But for me the most interesting and riveting was Emma Thompson as Travers. A woman who, by all accounts, was not nice--to anyone.
Watching movies you have to become invested in the characters, which to me means that they need some kind of redeeming feature no matter how small it is. Ms. Thompson embodied Travers at the start of the movie with a kind of reserved haughtiness that would immediately put one off the character. But that is just the line to draw you in and have you laugh at how absurd her attitude and requests were to the writers and musicians transforming her book into film. As the film goes on it offers a glimpse, a small one, into her past to help explain why she has become the person she is today. But it's her voiceless expressions when she's alone that make you start to have some empathy for the woman she is. It is a transformation and that is what you look for in a character when watching a movie, well I do anyway. It's hard to become emotionally invested in a character with no redeeming values. I realize the anti-hero is like a new trend in television (House, the new Rake), books (Gone Girl--ugh--hated it) and movies. But for me, if I don't care, I zone out and the whole movies a wash.
It wasn't necessarily a scenery chewing performance and alas that seems to be what the Academy was looking for as the final Best Actress slot went to Meryl Streep who pretty much ate the whole movie with a character that is just abrasive and unlikeable from beginning to end. I like Ms. Streep as much as the next person, she was great in "The Iron Lady", but here this should have been Emma's spot. I guess when it comes down to it we can all just blame Walt Disney. Evidently he didn't like women or Jews and well more than half of Hollywood is one or the other so she was pretty much screwed from the beginning I guess. It's too bad the Golden Globes didn't happen before ballots were due, maybe if they'd seen her performance there, folks would have clamored to have her on the Oscars. It will be interesting to see if she is there as a presenter or observer. More than likely she will stay the same classy British lady she is and hold her head and be there proud to represent. Or maybe she will crash and put them all to shame, either way I will give here a standing ovation for whatever she does.
Comments
Post a Comment