A Consideration of the Best Actress Race: Real-Life Impersonations

Let us examine, for a moment, from a deeply detailed acting perspective, who deserves to win the Oscar for Best Actress, and who doesn't, and why.

Two nominees played real-life people that we know and (maybe) love. Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher. Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe.

Let's take Beauty first, then Beast.

Back in the acting days of my youth, there were several actresses that I studied thoroughly: Bette Davis, Kathryn Hepburn, Jane Fonda. And Marilyn Monroe. I knew their gait, their phrasing, their breathiness or lack thereof, I knew their histories, as much about them as I possibly could.

So I started out seeing "My Week with Marilyn" with several prejudices: 1. that really NO ONE can do Marilyn and 2. that Michelle Williams can't act.

Sure, I liked her fine in Dawson's Creek, but since then, she has pretty much left me cold. Didn't think she deserved the nominations for Brokeback Mountain or Blue Valentine.

However, I will say, she deserves this one. It's a very tall mountain to climb to recreate Marilyn Monroe. Williams even taught me something about Marilyn that I didn't know: that she was a series of poses, always posing, even in repose. And, in this movie, Williams does some pretty impossible stuff.

She recreates famous dance scenes, and movie moments, so much that you forget that you are watching another actress. That is no small thing. She has her breathiness down, and her movements. Even her insecurities. For all of those things, for which Williams herself says she "worked harder than she ever did in her life," she gets an A+ in my book.

Sadly, here is where she falters. While she was meticulous about recreating the voice, the mannerisms and the steps and phrasing, she missed the heart of it. She missed the things that really made Marilyn tick.

The script, in Williams' defense, only really gives you bits where this Marilyn shines, but in each of them, Williams falls flat.

Here are the key questions one will ask at the end of this movie:
1. What really drove Marilyn to succeed (and to chase men)?
ANSWER: her childhood in orphanages, and feeling like everyone abandoned her

2. What was her connection with Fame? Why didn't she just give it all up and "settle down" with one guy?
ANSWER: She couldn't, cause fame is a drug like any other. She needed that.

Two scenes ask these questions of her, and Williams' performance (to me) fell completely flat in these scenes. So put that Oscar away for this year.

In one, she is looking at the dolls in a dollhouse. There it is, the metaphor is just about hitting you over the head. This was the moment for the actress to break our hearts with her shattered psyche. BAM. Nothing.

In the second, she is lying on the bed, and her lover asks her to just give it all up and settle down with him. This is the moment where the actress needs to give us some insight as to why Marilyn couldn't give up this lifestyle or settle down with this, or any, man. BAM. Nothing.

At the end of that scene, a really poignant scene, the audience should have been sobbing, or at least, thinking, that poor woman. I felt nothing after watching her. She could've been doing her nails. Very unfulfilling.

Meryl Streep suffers from the other problem. She is phenomenal, the script is dreadful and the direction is hokey.

But for me, it was like this. There is an opening scene where you see an old British woman, buying milk. Like her performance in Angels in America, where you see an old Jewish man, and go, HOLY CRAP! That's Meryl Streep... it's the same here. She walks and talks like an elderly British woman. As she talks more, in closeup, in the next scene, you see that it's Margaret Thatcher.

To be fair, her hair and makeup people also deserve an Oscar, cause WOW! This makeup was unbelievable. I've seen nearly all Meryl Streep movies, and I swear, I had a hard time seeing Maryl in there.

She also loses points (like she did last year) when a good chunk of the movie is someone else playing the younger years.

But wow. You wanna see a virtuoso playing that acting instrument, you need go no further than Meryl Streep in "The Iron Lady." I really didn't like the movie at all, but when Streep was in frame, she was riveting. My favorite scenes of hers were the ones with Jim Broadbent. They really could've made better use of Anthony Stewart Head, too.

Streep didn't look like Thatcher as much as Williams looked like Marilyn, but as far as capturing a heart and soul of a person, this Oscar is Streep's, hands down.

I have yet to see the other three performers in this category, but at this moment, I'm calling Streep for the win.

********************************************

Love and Other Drugs Goes Cold Turkey

Amid the crush of holiday releases and Oscar hopefuls, there are many many great pictures out right now. "Love and Other Drugs" is not one of them. The more I think about it, the more it bugs me.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays a brash handsome manipulator who beds women, uses them, spits them out (the usual). Anne Hathaway plays someone who's seen it all. She's been on the receiving end of such men, and as such, she's hardened, crass, cynical, guarded.

Both of these characters, for reasons described, are annoying and not fun to watch. He's thinking of ways to use people (easier, better, faster). She's thinking of witty comebacks to cut them down to size. Did I mention that this is not fun? This, despite the fact that both of them get naked a lot. Really. It's boring.

Who can he bed to sell his products? How can she avoid commitment? Wackiness ensues. No, not really. Boredom ensues.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

The supposed serious part of this is the increase in pharmacological assistance through depression drugs like Zoloft and Prozac, the salesmen who hawk them, and it all comes complete with a splashy song and dance number. And when Gyllenhaal's company (Pfizer) comes out with Viagara... well, you can imagine what that does to Lothario's drug sales.

The wrench in all this is that Hathaway has Parkinson's disease (note shaky hand a couple of times). This is why she knows all the drug salesmen. And comes the speech: "You're not gonna love me cause I have a disease!" (*pouts* *stomps feet*) She's way too self-deprecating in this movie. Mean to herself and others.

He has received a horror story of the progression of the disease from someone at a conference, so suddenly it's "Nope, I'm shallow. I don't love you. Bye."

Blech. At this point, who cares? She's shrill, pouty and annoying. He's still glib, uses sex to get his way. Who cares?

The fact that anyone anywhere mentions this dreadful movie in the context of Oscars is sad. No one in this movie (though I do love director Edward Zwick and actor Oliver Platt, but seriously...) deserves anything that has the word Oscar attached to it.

Really hated it. Don't waste your time. Many other great movies out there instead.

Creative fever dream Swans into Best Picture

Reviewers who write about movies for a living, who have to slog through every paint-by-numbers adaptation, seem to have difficulty with two things: spirituality in movies, and the creative process in movies. Mind you, there aren't that many movies about either of those two things because they are also ephemeral streaks of lightning to capture in the film bottle.

What I had read about "Black Swan" prior to seeing it fluctuated on the spectrum from horror flick to Grand Guignol theatre to thriller to scary movie. In short, I really didn't know what to expect. Perhaps it will be one or some of those things to you, too.

How I perceived "Black Swan" was more like a dream. The dream, the central focus for this ballerina, is to be perfect. And she studies and she plies and she does everything she thinks she's supposed to do.

But when the company leader decides to do "Swan Lake," he presents her with this challenge: "You'd be great as the White Swan." But, essentially, she doesn't have enough of a dark side to do the Black Swan justice. (This lead character in the ballet performs both sides of a complex persona.)

"Black Swan," then, is about this striving-for-perfection ballerina figuring out what it takes to reach her own "dark side." What she discovers is that passion and the thrill of life often lie in its imperfections. As we travel with her on her journey, we also discover what is at the heart of the creative process, how far someone can push themselves for their art.

It is a stunning bravura performance. Prior to seeing the film, I posited on my podcast that Natalie Portman was going to take every award in sight this Oscar season. I think so even moreso after seeing the film. Like Christoph Waltz and Mo'Nique last year, every other Best Actress contender this year can just sit down. It's Natalie Portman's year. Her work in this movie is stunning. In fact, I can't remember the last time an actress was so stunning and superb and affecting. Brilliant work.

Her supporting cast is also affecting and may glean some supporting nominations: Vincent Cassel as the ballet company director, Barbara Hershey as her mom, Mila Kunis as a fellow dancer. Winona Ryder takes an especially inspired turn, making a droll commentary on her own life, that elicited laughs in our industry screening.

People have also made reference to an "All About Eve" subtext. That is only there in as much as fearing other people taking roles you covet is part of the creative process. It's really and truly not about that.

In fact, I think where reviewers get into trouble with this role, and even the screening I saw this at, the questioner had the same problem--is dissecting it too much. Think of it as a dream. Roll around with the images, go with the flights of fancy. True creativity isn't that far from the dream state, and true creativity borders on that part of the brain near psychosis too. But don't let that analysis hinder you.

As Nina had to learn, with sex, with dreaming, with life, sometimes you just have to let it flow over you and become part of you. So, too, with "Black Swan."

*****************************************************************

Made in Dagenham: Let's hear it for the women!

(Note: The director, Nigel Cole, informed us that it's pronounced roughly equivalent to "diggin him.")

Sometimes, with all the demonizing hate-filled Republican propaganda that fills our airwaves, sometimes one wonders why it is again that unions are relevant. They have been portrayed as terrible things that are ruining our lives. (Just don't look at the big corporations that are pulling the strings to make those statements...)

How far have we gotten from the struggles for the 40-hour week? Or the hard-fought-for half hour lunches and ten-minute breaks, legal by law, yet in this new corporate world where everyone is doing five people's jobs, hardly still maintained. Does anyone even remember that it was the unions that fought for these things? For these rights for us working stiffs?

Or has this bad word "socialism" (since that other trumped-up bad word, "communism" doesn't really work anymore, appearing hopelessly dated) really colored everything for so many? So many who voted their corporate keepers back into power, though they decried the influence of the big bad banks? Just makes ya sick, sometimes.

Well, here's an antidote to the corporate-cash big money Tea Party election we just stomached. Here's a pleasant reminder of exactly what unions can do, and why we need them so, in these crazy times. "Made in Dagenham" takes place in England, in the mid-60s. It's a true story.

Sallie Hawkins, a sure Oscar contender, is one of the strike leaders. Miranda Richardson has a noble turn herself. (Both were in attendance at the AFI screening.) This film is easily one of my favorites of the year.

Women, working at a Ford plant as machinists, start out the movie wanting to be the same pay grade as men, to be classed as "skilled," rather than "unskilled." Simple enough. Fair enough.

They encounter many obstacles along the way, not the least of which is that they aren't taken seriously because they are "just women," after all. We won't even talk about the other shop violations which they don't even talk about in the movie: the water pouring down on the workplace, the fact that many women work in their bras because it's too hot in the shop (those rights are things American workers fought for, and are still enforced).

But the big battle for the women ultimately becomes: "Equal pay for equal work." That is what they fight for. Don't wanna spoil the movie. I'll just say that it had a positive ending in Britain, and many other countries because of the women of Dagenham.

It made me uncomfortably squeamish, though, to realize that here in America in 2010, women still make only 74% of what men make for the same job. Oh yeah. That's why we need those "socialist" unions. I remember now.

*********************************************

Endurance Cinema: Conviction, The Way Back and 127 Hours

One of my pet theories is that leading Oscar contenders reflect a current mode of our times. Last year's "Up In the Air," for instance, hit hard on the layoffs that touched so many. This year's theme, it seems, is enduring, despite overwhelming odds against you.

In the wonderful "Conviction," Hillary Swank's character battles for years to free her innocent brother from prison. You see her battle setback after setback. And still she hangs on. Believing that she can do it.

In the beautiful "The Way Back," we have prisoners from a Soviet concentration camp, first exiled to Siberia. Then some of them decide they've had enough, and endeavor to escape (all of this being in the trailer, I'm spoiling nothing; also this happens in the beginning of the film). They do escape, and begin their trek. I suppose they are heading toward that nebulous "freedom." Their path seems to go from Siberia to Mongolia to Tibet to India. On foot.

Needless to say, of the ones who start on the journey, not all of them make it, for various reasons. But it's a battle. A struggle to survive. A struggle to make it to the other side. A struggle to be free.

It seems that many of us, with millions of Americans unemployed, are struggling just to survive, too. Hanging on. Trying to make that meager unemployment check last just a little bit longer. Piecing together rent with odd jobs, believing, against all odds that that next job is somewhere around the corner. I really believe that hanging on and believing you'll make it is the new American dream.

No more streets paved with gold, we'd be happy to get a paycheck regularly. And this "endurance cinema" reflects that. Hang on, hang on, hang on, just a little bit longer.

"The Way Back" isn't quite as bleak and despairing as last year's "The Road," but it's a tough go. The ending brought tears to my eyes, but boy! was it a long slog to get there. Mind you, I do love Peter Weir as a director. His "Dead Poet's Society" remains one of my favorite films. And visually (thank you, Russell Boyd), "The Way Back" is stunning to look at. Vast landscapes that include icy snow-covered peaks, as well as vast deserts.

In "Conviction," though, it was clear what the motive and struggle was. In "The Way Back," they put themselves though lots of dangerous situations, and it's kind of unclear why exactly. They talk at the beginning about how "there's a bounty on your heads," from neighboring villagers, but this threat is never bourne out, or even hinted at, once they escape.

It's enough of a stretch to believe that people one day just say, "Hey! Let's walk across Mongolia!" but that they do it without ANY help from villagers along the way strains credulity a bit.*

I watch "Survivor" pretty much every week since it started (a few missed seasons here and there). The parts I love the most are the way people interact with each other (there is much of that in this movie). The parts I REALLY dislike vehemently (OK, I admit, I'm a city girl, and I'd never survive in the wild) are the parts where chicken's heads are lopped off, or animals are otherwise killed for food. Sadly, there is also a lot of that in this movie.

Sure, I understand, they are starving, they need to eat. Do I really need to watch it, though?

Another endurance movie is looming on the horizon, one that I am distinctly NOT going to see: "127 Hours." People in our office this week spoke again of people fainting at screenings. Know this, anyone who plans to go see this one: the hiker goes by himself into the wild, and ends up CHOPPING OFF HIS OWN ARM. And they show it. GRAPHICALLY. Why are people surprised about this? Every screening has someone fainting.

I don't intend to faint. I don't intend to see it, Oscar-worthy or not. I've had enough of endurance films for this season.

ADDENDUM: * I know it's based on a true story. I know people actually did this. Still...

********************************************************

"Social Network" prism as multifaceted as Zuckerberg himself

Two things are the most fascinating after watching "The Social Network," easily the most fascinating movie of this year. One: most of the people involved with making this movie don't have a Facebook page themselves.

Two: People can see the exact same movie and come away with totally different viewpoints on who did what. Aaron Sorkin, the screenwriter, wasn't kidding when he likened this movie to "Rashomon." It is an incredible script, one that is sure to garner Sorkin a long-overdue Oscar. It is as easy to understand if you are a longtime Facebook user, or never even looked at Facebook in your life.

It is a machination of plot, spinning around the transcripts of real court cases. Friend against friend, classmate against classmate. And yet, it speaks to the quintessential question of our techie age: how can we create a cool app/product/website that everyone is going to love and use and make us rich in the process?

What a strange dichotomy that someone who seems to have such difficulty making friends creates the most social product out there.

My friend viewed this movie and came away with an image of Mark Zuckerberg as a "manipulative asshole." I saw the same movie and saw, finally, the whole story laid in front of me. Saw how Zuckerberg pretty much had to do what he did. I don't fault him at all, and I was rooting for him. In fact, in finally paying the amounts in question, he did right by his friends. Saverin is back on the Facebook masthead. All is now right with the world.

And just to be safe, he donated to some New Jersey schools on the day the movie opened. No, I see Zuckerberg as a good guy here.

Incredible director David Fincher also excels. The movie is stunningly shot. Harvard has never looked so good. Jesse Eisenberg, in the lead, does a fantastic job of walking us through the story. His best friend, Eduardo Saverin, played by the new Spiderman, Andrew Garfield, really makes you feel the pain he's going through. Justin Timberlake is just perfect as Sean Parker, creator of Napster.

It's like a multi-faceted prism. You can see each side clearly, as well as how they are all battling to be most beautiful, or in this case, most right. Wars of class and culture come into play. And out of all this morass, we have the incredible Facebook.

If there is anything faulting this movie it is Sorkin's lack of knowledge about Facebook. And the fact that really, its key battle: the privacy wars, was completely neglected in this story. Maybe they are saving that for "Social Network 2: Privacy." I can only hope they have someone who really knows the Internet writing about it this time.

Cause here's the thing. Nora Ephron got it wrong too, when she wrote the almost instantly dated, "You've Got Mail." It's different when you live here. When you live on Facebook, online, on Twitter. There are nuances and details that it's obvious this writer, though brilliant, missed though he combed through mounds of testimony and facts, and got an incredible story fashioned out of it. He missed the heartbeat of Facebook.

This is Facebook basically from the genesis of the idea until it starts branching out into other countries. Then the storyline drops the Facebook part, and focuses on Zuckerberg battling the court cases. By which time, he's already a billionaire. You're just not really sure why, if you aren't already on Facebook.

I can just imagine the Twitter movie. Sigh. I heard Craig Ferguson (who used to mock Twitter himself until he actually got on it and used it) talking to two celebrities this week (on the same show). Both celebrities used the tired old canards: "why would anyone care that I'm getting a haircut? or eating a sandwich? or blah blah blah..." Obviously, they don't get it. It's like that with this Facebook movie too.

And, I'm sad to say, that's what keeps it, for me, anyway, from being one of the best movies ever. It's like Sorkin was so busy making all the partners dance that he kinda forgot what the party was there for. I'll bet, if you asked him right now, he couldn't even explain why Facebook's growth was so incredible (and continues) and MySpace got huge and stopped growing. That's pretty key to this story, and would've served him well as a screenwriter.

So much of the story is built around the "college campuses" idea, it doesn't even really branch out into when other people besides colleges started using it. Or why. Why moms and grandmoms are suddenly on it. There is really a deep rich story there, too.

But for now, if we want the Facebook genesis story, this is it. I think it's a wonderful film. I think it's going to win the Best Picture Oscar and an Adapted Screenplay Oscar for Aaron Sorkin, and it's deserved. Go see it, come home arguing with your friends!

*******************************************************************

FOX: Running Wilde is No Arrested Development

Oh, I wanted to like “Running Wilde.” After all, “Arrested Development” is probably the best comedy of all time. Mitchell Hurwitz and Jim Vallely are geniuses. Cast members Will Arnett and David Cross are attached to this project. And I watched nearly every episode of “Felicity” and kinda miss Kerri Russell. What could go wrong?

Well, as it turns out, pretty much everything. Whereas “Arrested Development” was a delectable comedy that you could watch over and over and still laugh at new jokes, “Running Wilde” feels like a forced mess. Will Arnett is supposed to be playing a spoiled rich guy, something he excels at (and was pretty much his stock in trade on both “AD” and “30 Rock”). Kerri Russell plays the do-gooder environmentalist, fighting Arnett’s big oil company. What’s not to like?

You know how in finely tuned comedia dell’arte, characters rush around the stage in perfect timing, the timing of everything alone is what makes you laugh, in addition to what they are saying? Well, this is the opposite of that. Everyone is running around, slapstick like. But not in a funny way, just in an annoying way.

The only likeable characters are Arnett’s and Russell’s and those are marginal.

Oh yes, and let’s not forget that the whole shebang is narrated by Russell’s daughter, Puddle. *eyeroll*

No, this was such a mess that I won’t be revisiting it at all. The only real upside is that, for once, the focus of the show isn’t Kerri Russell’s hair. Small comfort.

BOTTOM LINE: Leave this “Running Wilde” in its puddle.

*************************************************************

FOX:Two and a Half Winners Served Up

SPOILER ALERT within

Really didn't know anything about this series before sitting down to watch "Lone Star," the first entry in Fox's night of new TV. Well, other than it's set in Texas, of course.

So here's the gist. Handsome and sexy James Wolk is a con man who works with his dad, David Keith. He's married to lovely and rich Adrianne Palicki (who can't seem to get out of Texas, and looks WAY different than she did on "Friday Night Lights"). Palicki's rich dad, Jon Voight, offers the young buck a job at the oil company he owns.

But the man can't seem to get out of his mind the other woman, Eloise Mumford. So, SPOILER ALERT, at the end of the episode, he marries her.

In "Big Love," it's one guy married to three (or is it four now?) women. All the women know each other and get along. In this one, the women don't even cross paths (well, not yet anyway). And the man just travels a lot. Not sure how I feel about this bigamy trend. Guess it's better than the electroshock torture that the previous Fox timeslot owner had been dispensing.

BOTTOM LINE: Pretty to look at, but are we interested?

****************************************************************

CBS: Mike and Molly Wins Hearts

So we who are viewing this Paley Center extravaganza are slogging through these selected dramas and comedies. Eh to this one. Eh to that one. I have to admit, the one I was most excited about, of all the shows presented was "Mike & Molly."

I've long admired Melissa McCarthy, who was the devoted friend of Lauren Graham's character on the many years of "Gilmore Girls." She was also the devoted friend on the recent Christina Applegate comedy, "Samantha Who?" (Are we seeing a pattern here?)

BOY, and I mean, BOY, am I excited to see her finally headlining her own show. She's long been an underrated talent. Billy Gardell, primarily known from the standup world, seems to be her match. A strong supporting cast includes Swoozie Kurtz.

The fat jokes may get tiresome after a while, but the pilot (with Chuck Lorre's influence) was a sparkling gem.

BOTTOM LINE: This is the one show I rushed home to program into my TiVo.

*****************************************************************

CBS: Defenders Shows a Different Side of Vegas

 What is there to say about "The Defenders"? Well, it's got Jim Belushi. It's got Jerry O'Connell. And it shows you a "different side of Vegas." Different, that is, than their other successful Vegas show, CSI. It's more about the performers and their backstories. Helping the little guy, rather than solving crimes. Well, at least, that's what they said it was about.

The show reveals like a standard-issue procedural. Some courtroom wackiness reminiscent of David E. Kelley. Lots of cool Vegas shots.

But really, if you wanted to watch a good courtroom show, "The Good Wife" is already a jewel in CBS's crown, having scored that Best Drama Emmy nom this year. "The Defenders" sure isn't gonna do that. And really, how many care so passionately about Vegas that they want to watch it for all the in-jokes?

BOTTOM LINE: Myself? I'd fold on this one.

********************************************************************
  

CBS: Still Churning Out What Works

First up, the comedy that used to be called "Shit My Dad Says" when it was on the Internet; now, it's written as "$@#% My Dad Says," but pronounced as "BLEEP My Dad Says." *eyeroll*

You really almost can't go wrong with Shatner. Everyone loves Shatner. If there's a male to rival Betty White in popularity and longevity, it's Shatner. (However, her series, "Hot in Cleveland" on TV Land, is much funnier.)

In any case, this is pretty much a standard-issue comedy. Shatner plays irrascible, ornery dad, and Jonathan Sadowski plays the frustrated son. Will Sasso and Nicole Sullivan are in the mix.

BOTTOM LINE: Funny, but don't go out of your way for it.

********************************************************

NBC Unveils Four Turkeys: First, Outsourced

Every year, we in LA are graced with unveiling of the new fall TV schedule at the Paley Center. Each network gets a night. I'm not going to all of them. Sadly, I'm attending most of them.

First up, NBC.

I admit. I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about NBC. The whole Jay Leno-Conan O'Brien debacle still leaves a smarting feeling when I even hear the word "NBC." That, and it's firmly entrenched in fourth place. For good reason. "Outsourced" does nothing to alleviate that bad taste in my mouth.

Don't get me wrong. There are some good, funny actors on "Outsourced." But really, 16 million Americans are out of work. Are they really going to find it funny to see a show about those who took their jobs? Really?

I tried. I really tried to see the funny in this show. As the offensive stereotypes and racist insults flew by, I tried to see that, well, at least they were using a more diverse cast than they normally do on network TV. But no. As much as the moderator of tonight's events tried to put the spin on it as "at its core, it's just another workplace comedy," um, no. It isn't. This is no "The Office."

It's insulting to Indians (or as my ethnic-slurring friend calls them, "dot Indians, not feather Indians). It's insulting to Americans. They even throw in Australians. I'm waiting for the "shrimp on the barbie" jokes. Really, NBC. Haven't we moved past all this?

BOTTOM LINE: I tried to like "Outsourced." I still hated "Outsourced."

**************************************************************************