Tag: Daniel Day-Lewis

Rapid Response: The Last of the Mohicans

“The Last of the Mohicans” is a rare action epic in this age of CGI mayhem.

Daniel Day-Lewis is not what you would call an action star, but he’s the kind of actor with a compassionate edge and a sense of intensity that makes him ideal for the role of Hawkeye in Michael Mann’s “The Last of the Mohicans.”

“I ain’t your scout. And I ain’t in your damn militia,” Day-Lewis says with a glower, a fine example of how Mann gets him to wear this man-of-action face.

He truly helps make “The Last of the Mohicans” feel iconic, watching him sprint through a battlefield or leap through a darkened waterfall in slow motion, his hair flowing behind him.

It’s a treat, as this is a rare film today to have flesh and blood battles of this scale and scope. Mann relishes in the opportunity not just to blow stuff up but to watch how smoke billows through the frame from these unique cannon and mortar blasts. He puts hundreds in the spotlight at once, just marveling in wide vista shots and cutting swiftly from just about every angle. Continue reading “Rapid Response: The Last of the Mohicans”

2013 Oscars: Final Predictions

I just finished watching a Katie Couric special edition of “20/20” in which they talked about everything that makes the Oscars iconic, but none of the reasons why I actually care about the awards. Hearing about Bjork’s swan dress is cute, but I’m in this for the movies.

Every year I come up with elaborate reasons why this year’s winner will mean something. For “The Artist” it was that even a silent, foreign, black and white comedy could win Best Picture and make people interested in a great form of movie history for just a little while. For “The King’s Speech” it was that the love for Old Hollywood was alive and well, even if I was pulling for the generational landmark that would’ve been a victory for “The Social Network.” And for “The Hurt Locker,” it signified a turning point in our view of the campaign in the Middle East, as well as a long denied achievement for women everywhere, which really is something to cheer about.

And yet just as I study every nominee and understand every nuance of the race, all of that is forgotten as quickly as the next year, and the only things that are left are the great movies themselves.

I think this year’s Oscars matter because above all, they will honor a lot of great movies, more than in most years. I may not think “Argo” is the best movie of the year, nor is my pick even nominated, but I think that whatever wins, it will be a victory for quality (except for “Les Miz” obviously).

Here then are my final predictions for what will take home gold on Oscar night. This year has been so exciting, so tumultuous, so long and so controversial that if I have to make one correct prediction, it’s that I will be wrong… possibly a lot.

Argo Ben Affleck

Best Picture

  • Argo
  • Lincoln
  • Silver Linings Playbook
  • Life of Pi
  • Django Unchained
  • Zero Dark Thirty
  • Amour
  • Les Miserables
  • Beasts of the Southern Wild

I don’t think I ever wanted to admit that there was going to be a sure fire winner for Best Picture, and I don’t think I ever could. The “Argo” freight train of success is still relatively fresh news. A lot has happened since it premiered at Telluride back in September, and there was a time just six weeks ago when nominations were announced that it looked to be a dead and gone afterthought. Now it has swept every major guild prize and award in sight, and it is poised to make history no matter what happens. All the comparisons that have been made to explain its victory in the context of past winners will be erased because its victory (or loss) will be completely unprecedented. Pundits will now point to it as the example.

If it wins, it will be because it is a great film, but also because it is an agreeable film that was able to weather the storm of controversy and barrier to entry better than any other.

“Lincoln” hardly seems formidable, and in fact “Life of Pi” or “Silver Linings Playbook” look even stronger with more recent wins in the bag, but it remains an even greater film in my view and is still, on paper, the predictable Oscar winner.

Brian’s Pick: Argo

Dark Horse: Lincoln, followed by Silver Linings Playbook, then Life of Pi

Should Win: Life of Pi Continue reading “2013 Oscars: Final Predictions”

Oscars 2013: It's Anyone's Race

Last year when the Oscar nominations were announced, I couldn’t stop myself from yelling at the TV when “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” got nominated for Best Picture.

This year, there were a lot of snubs and a lot of surprises, but I held my tongue.

That’s because last year, I was more or less certain going in that not only would “The Artist” be nominated, it would probably win. The news was what else would share its spotlight in history, not the actual awards.

2012 is different. I didn’t know for sure what would be nominated, and noting how many predictions I got wrong, I can safely say I still don’t know what might win. In ANY category. We still have a real race on our hands.

No, we didn’t see a real surprise nominee like “Skyfall,” “The Master” or something completely out of left field like “The Intouchables” or “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” to round out a top 10, but you tell me who’s going to win Best Picture.

“Lincoln” got 12 nominations, which is a lot. That’s as many as “Ben-Hur” got. But is the movie so universally loved that it can make a clean sweep? It’s hardly Spielberg’s best movie, even if it is his best in a decade, but some people have viewed it as homework.

I have more questions about “Life of Pi’s” chances. “Life of Pi” got 11 nominations, none of them from acting, but it did get a surprise Adapted Screenplay nod and Best Director nod. “Life of Pi” did well at the box office, but how big was this movie’s Oscar campaign? Not as big as “Silver Linings Playbook,” and certainly not as big as “Lincoln.” This movie is practically under the radar, a movie that was probably in the five or six slot for nomination is now looking like the front runner.

As early as yesterday, I would’ve said “Argo” or “Zero Dark Thirty” would be the front runners to win. “Argo” is the most well-liked movie of the year. Very few people have a bad word to say about it, and just about everyone has seen it, both of which are things that none of the other nominees can claim. “Zero Dark Thirty” has a lot of controversy behind it, but it is by far the critical darling of the year. Now however, neither Ben Affleck nor former winner Kathryn Bigelow have been nominated for Best Director. Movies have won Best Picture without winning Best Director before, but only three times in the 85 year history has a movie won Best Picture without even being nominated, those being in 1927, 1931 and 1989 when “Driving Miss Daisy” had a surprise victory.

“Silver Linings” isn’t that weak either. With Jacki Weaver getting in, it’s the first movie since “Reds” to be nominated in every acting category. That gives it eight nominations, which is nothing to scoff at.

Could “Amour” or “Beasts of the Southern Wild” pull off a surprise win? Michael Haneke was on a short list for possible director nominees, but almost no one had first-timer Benh Zeitlin on their lists. Both movies are riding the waves of having the youngest and oldest Best Actress nominees of all time in Quvenzhane Wallis and Emmanuelle Riva.

Even “Django Unchained” doesn’t look too weak. I predicted it would get seven nominations, but it’s got five, and Christoph Waltz taking Leo’s or even Javier Bardem’s spot says something.

That’s already a lot to mull over, but can you honestly make a prediction in any of the other races?

Daniel Day-Lewis seems perfectly plausible to win Best Actor. He’s playing Abraham Lincoln for God sakes. But he would be making history as the only actor to have won three Oscars. Are we prepared to call Daniel Day-Lewis the BEST actor of all time if he wins? Perhaps Joaquin Phoenix is stronger than we think, or maybe “Silver Linings” can ride an acting wave for an Oscar for Bradley Cooper.

Best Actress? Who knows. Jennifer Lawrence is the real movie star of the bunch, but Wallis can light up a room, Jessica Chastain is being called a female powerhouse in “Zero Dark Thirty,” Riva has the support of an older branch who remembers her in French New Wave classics, and Naomi Watts has the British voting block in her largely tearjerker of a movie.

Maybe Robert De Niro will end up being the three time Oscar winner, not Day-Lewis. But consider that everyone else in the Best Supporting category has already won. That’s just unprecedented.

The only conceivable prediction thus far is Anne Hathaway in “Les Miserables.” She steals the show in her three minute song, and there’s no telling that she’s one of the biggest movie stars right now who arguably deserves one. But just how good are Sally Field, Helen Hunt and Amy Adams in their movies? This is not a weak category, as I previously assumed.

No, I’m not quite ready to make any prediction. And that’s a good thing. For years the Academy has been trying desperately to get more people to actually watch the Oscars, be it through trendy hosts, more Best Picture nominees, an earlier schedule and a different presentation format. But now the Oscars have added one element that the show hasn’t had in years: surprise.

Correction: In a previous version, it was incorrectly stated that “Lincoln” received the most nominations of all time, tied with “Ben-Hur,” “Titanic” and “LOTR: The Return of the King.” In actuality, 14 nominations is the record held by “All About Eve” and “Titanic.” The record for most wins is 11.

Lincoln

The photography in Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” often paints our country’s 16th President in stylized obscurity, the beautiful backlighting casting Honest Abe in shadows of his own history. It’s a movie that fully embraces our American virtues, and yet for all we thought we knew about Lincoln suggests there is more to the man than the icon.

The Lincoln we see here is not the towering man with the deep, resounding voice that can carry across a battlefield. This is a Lincoln suffering from nightmares, giving piggyback rides to his youngest son, wrapping himself in an old blanket, telling cute stories with his soothing, high-pitched whisper of a voice and furrowing his brow as he deals with the impasse of war and the effort to abolish slavery. This is perhaps not the man we imagined in preschool but the man that was and the man who still portrayed an immense presence.

When screenwriter Tony Kushner (“Munich,” “Angels in America”) approached Spielberg with an adaptation of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s biography, it was a sprawling 500-page script on Lincoln’s life. Spielberg focuses in on the short period between April of 1864 and January 1865 when the Civil War is coming to a close, the Senate has already approved the 13th Constitutional Amendment and the Democrats in the House threaten to vote it down.

Lincoln’s battle is a powerful paradox. End the war and readmit the Confederacy and they will certainly block the law to end slavery. Fail to pursue peace and the swing votes in Congress may turn against him. And yet if slavery is abolished and done so before fighting resumes in the spring, the war is over, as the South has nothing more to fight for.  Their fight to get it passed is a war of words, not of worlds, and “Lincoln” is approached as a stately performance piece, not a war epic.

It is more theatrical than cinematic, but Spielberg does the job of emblazoning these big ideas onto the silver screen. For all its talking, “Lincoln” is a movie of action. Their Congress gets more done in two and half hours than ours did in two and a half years, and the scenes of debate and voting are invigorating moments of politics, racism, boastfulness and insight.

And because all these historical figures are in their own way larger than life, Spielberg has assembled a cast that is just as impressive. Daniel Day-Lewis is remarkable as Lincoln. At times, Lincoln is calm and without words for all the harried politicians in his cabinet. Day-Lewis seems almost detached from the scene, but he slowly builds and shows why Lincoln was so arresting. Sometimes the end to his story is a punch line, like about how a man loathed the image of George Washington, and at others he unleashes philosophical truths of equality and common sense with the greatest of ease. Unlike some Day-Lewis performances, he melds into this role and never proclaims he is acting. Sometimes he finds the best notes when he’s just being a father, child on his knee in a rocking chair and revealing his deep humanity.

Then there’s Sally Field as Lincoln’s wife Mary Todd, a frazzled, fiery woman of great hidden power. Field above all is the one who sets the film’s stakes, heaping the burden of passing the amendment with the threat of the death of their oldest son (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and her admitting herself to a mental institution. Watch Field as she greets guests at their White House party, holding up a long line to speak more candidly with some of the key Congressmen. She appears at once absent minded and in full control, figuratively shaking hands with a powerful grip but really not exerting any pressure at all.

But best of all is perhaps Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens, the Republican representative from Pennsylvania. In one pivotal Congressional scene, he goes against his belief that all men are literally created equal and proclaims that all men should be equal under the law, regardless of race or, as he says to his vocal Democratic opponent, character. The beauty of Jones’s performance is that although his dialogue is eloquent and verbose language of the times, Jones can still deliver such lines with the same blunt force he does in all of his roles.

Spielberg and Kushner have put a great deal of effort into recreating every period detail as historically accurate. We get a movie of remarkable production design in stunningly authentic and old-fashioned clarity. But “Lincoln” does still feel like a movie for the modern day. He jokingly asks, “Since when has the Republican Party unanimously supported anything,” and draws startling parallels between Obama and Lincoln by observing that many Democrats viewed Lincoln as something of a tyrant.

By ending on its bittersweet note, it leaves us with the idea that some ideas and possibilities must be withheld now to achieve prosperity in the future. There may be some wet eyes as the visage of Lincoln burns powerfully in a gas lamp during a closing shot.

“Lincoln” may not always be the rousingly patriotic portrait of Lincoln we imagined, but it’s the American vision we deserve.

4 stars

The Age of Innocence (1993)

Perhaps the movie furthest away from Martin Scorsese’s oeuvre is not “Hugo” but is the late 19th Century period romance “The Age of Innocence.”

The 1993 film is an adaptation of Edith Wharton’s famous novel, and yet Scorsese makes it his own by reaching out to a complex, passion filled protagonist struggling for identity in a vicious, rough world. “The Age of Innocence” may lack the violence or blood of some of his masterpieces (this one deserves to be up there with his best), but it’s a biting and bittersweet character drama in which people are trapped within a rigid society of rules and tradition beneath luxurious decorum.

First off, this is a drop dead gorgeous film. “The Age of Innocence” may be 20 years old and the setting may be over 100, but Michael Ballhaus’s cinematography and Dante Ferretti’s production design haven’t aged a day. Every frame is lusciously picturesque, but the world Scorsese depicts is bleak, flat and two-dimensional. We see Newland Archer’s (Daniel Day-Lewis) wedding photo to May Welland (Winona Ryder) as it is being taken, and at that moment we realize how much this character’s world has been turned upside down. Constantly this dichotomy between the film’s look and its tone makes for a gripping experience.

Newland’s engagement to May is one dictated by society to be a good match, but Newland is in love with a woman who has just returned to New York from Europe, the Countess Ellen Olenska (Michelle Pfeiffer). She’s an outcast because of her crumbling marriage and her subtle defiance for other social norms. “Why should America be a copy of another country,” she asks as she and Newland bemoan New York’s stringent and too utterly polite traditionalism.

The powerful difference is that none of this is really what it seems. “Everything is labeled,” Newland says, “But everybody is not.” “The Age of Innocence” has a devilishly engaging twist near the end in which we learn how the entire society has politely turned on him and Ellen and composed one marriage necessity that here plays out like a death sentence. This is a movie that calmly obliterates you. Continue reading “The Age of Innocence (1993)”

There Will Be Blood

Paul Thomas Anderson’s masterpiece didn’t win the Oscar but is one of the best films of the last decade.

We get the idea that Daniel Plainview has been working his entire life to get to the thrilling conclusion of “There Will Be Blood.” And we also get the idea that Daniel Day-Lewis has been searching his entire career for a role such as this. And all of Paul Thomas Anderson’s films have prepared him for this masterpiece.

Nothing prepared me for this amazing, harrowing, difficult film about greed and the people consumed by it. The opening shot is of a mountain range in the desert, and the chilling orchestral crescendo to accompany it makes the moment reminiscent of “2001: A Space Odyssey.” In a mine shaft behind these mountains is Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis), working all by himself looking for precious stones. It’s 1898, but to get as deep as he is, he must have been working a long time. After an explosion inside the shaft, Daniel falls and breaks his leg, but he manages to pull himself out of the shaft and drag himself miles over the mountains. The first place he goes is to sell his diamonds.

By 1902, he’s beginning his own company, mining deeper in the same spot. In it he finds oil, and the Daniel Plainview we will follow throughout the rest of the film finally comes to light. A coworker with a baby boy is killed as they mine, and Daniel takes the boy, raises him as his own and uses him on his sales pitches. Continue reading “There Will Be Blood”

Rapid Response: My Left Foot

Daniel Day-Lewis goes way too overboard in Jim Sheridan’s melodramatic biopic about Christy Brown.

My friend has told me how bothered he was when he first read that Daniel Day-Lewis did extreme method acting for Jim Sheridan’s “My Left Foot,” going as far as making cast and crew actually carry him around as he struggled to live his entire life while shooting the movie as a cripple. His work led him to an Oscar in 1989, but his performance as Christy Brown, the genius with cerebral palsy, is constantly on and in actuality crippling to the movie.

Day-Lewis is never not performing in this movie. Even when off screen, we hear Christy’s moans and flailing from the other room over. It’s kind of like Colin Firth recently in “The King’s Speech.” You can see all the work he did right up there on the screen, although even that film had a little more subtlety and charm to it than “My Left Foot” does.

Sheridan’s film is a strict melodrama charting the difficulties Christy had to overcome to become the less-than-a-saint genius he is. We see none of the more peaceful moments of his life where he grew as a painter and a writer, and there are few moments of comedy or laughter that would make Christy’s situation feel less like it was being exploited. Continue reading “Rapid Response: My Left Foot”