Michael C. here from Serious Film to file a complaint.
If I were to name the biggest problem currently facing the nation today that problem would be category fraud. Okay, maybe not, but it still irks the hell out of me. Not because, like some political press release, this Oscar-grubbing is treated completely legit despite everyone knowing it's total bull. That's no biggie. No, what bugs me is the way this screws over the guys and girls this category is there to honor in the first place: the supporting players who show up for two or three scenes and absolutely kill it. Not only are the leads hogging the precious few slots, but they're overshadowing the real supporting players from their own films. Look no further than this year's The King's Speech to see this problem in action.
If it was called The King's Therapist would this even be an issue?
By pushing Rush as supporting they're sidelining the real standout supporting turn in the film, Guy Pearce as King Edward. With just a few well-chosen strokes Pearce deftly suggests his rebellious, feckless character. The audience's immediate reaction is, "Jesus, don't put that guy on the throne." The performance supports the movie perfectly, setting the stage for the main conflict. Yet Pearce can't get any oxygen because Rush is sucking it all up. What's the point of having a supporting category if major screen time is practically a requirement? The same thing happened when Jamie Foxx was laughably crammed into the supporting category for Collateral despite being in literally every scene in the movie. Barry Shabaka Henley's unforgettable seven minutes as the jazz club owner with regrets and secrets never had a chance.
Spot the supporting actor. Hint: It's not the guy in 99% of the film.
I don't see how anyone could classify Geoffrey Rush as supporting and keep a straight face since the whole movie is a two-hander between him and Firth. Listen closely, Academy: Just because one character is royalty and the other is a commoner doesn't mean the actor playing the king is somehow more important. I feel like this should be a simple concept to grasp.
The British Independent Film Awards forced the reluctant king to the mic again when they gave Colin Firth the Best Actor prize for his stammering royal in The King's Speech. The BIFAs also gave the movie 4 additional prizes: Helena Bonham-Carter and Geoffrey Rush took their first wins of the season and the film won screenplay and the BIFA equivalent of Best Picture "Best British Independent Film."
The smear campaign or truth-telling depending on how you view these things has also begun but the Oscar buzz isn't letting up any time soon.
After the jump the complete BIFA winners list with commentary.
British Independent Film The King’s Speech Director Gareth Edwards, Monsters Debut Director Clio Barnard,The Arbor Screenplay David Seidler, The King’s Speech Actress Carey Mulligan, Never Let Me Go Actor Colin Firth, The King’s Speech Supporting Actress Helena Bonham Carter, The King’s Speech Supporting Actor Geoffrey Rush, The King’s Speech Promising Newcomer Joanne Froggatt, In Our Name Achievement in Production Monsters Raindance Award Son of Babylon Tech Achievement Visual Effects, Monsters Documentary Enemies of the People British Short Baby Foreign Film A Prophet
Carey & Rosamund @ the BIFAs
Beyond the big dog (King's) the indie genre flick Monsters did quite well for itself. I have the screener right here. Maybe I should watch.
As for Carey Mulligan winning Best Actress for Never Let Me Go, Monty would not approve. And if you ask me Andrew Garfield was "best in show". And I don't understand Helena's win at all. I hope everyone understands that I am in HBC's corner -- I think she's been grossly underrewarded for years and ought to have 3 Oscar noms and an actual statue on her mantle -- but I just don't see it for this performance. There's nothing to it beyond the very typical awards bait of "supportive spouse." If she's nominated it'll be the easiest get outside of Bill Murray's for Get Low; two people doing things they can do with their eyes closed that aren't remotely challenging or interesting.
I have to say that I'm surprised as anyone (maybe moreso) that Geoffrey Rush is the true champ within The King's Speech. How he managed to curtail his usual hamminess into something nearly subtle when it's actually one of his hammiest and most eccentric characters is a minor miracle. But then I'm far more allergic to him than most so perhaps my perception is skewed. Alas, despite my enthusiasm for his turn here comes yet another awards season where the gigantic roles will win the supporting prizes. Poor character actors everywhere can never catch a break.
Moving on. Have any of you seen Monsters? Are you happy that The King's Speech is winning prizes?
I suppose I must pick up my Oscar-pundit speed now. Sorry for the delays...
Let's talk about The King's Speech
As you know this film came roaring out of Toronto as the audience award winner (see previous post) and The Film to Beat at the Oscars... unless you think that's The Social Network but it's since it's only late September fans of either (in reality or in theory) need to calm down. We were always confident that The King's Speech was an Oscar film even before they started filming which is why we've predicted it for several nominations since April. But now that the trailer is here allowing non-festival goers to have a looksee, what do we think?
On the bright side, it looks fun. Or at least it looks fun to anyone who loved watching Eliza Doolittle learn to properly e·nun·ci·ate. It also gives Colin Firth a meaty role that seems like a reward for elevating A Single Man (2009) (but for the fact that he probably signed for this before anyone saw how great he was in last year's nominated turn). I'm also THRILLED -- and yes it needed to be typed in all caps -- to see that Helena Bonham Carter has managed to escape Burton's gothic dungeon for some badly needed air. She's probably heading straight to her second Oscar nomination with relative ease; You know how they love those supportive wives. What's most surprising about the trailer is that the production values look superb and not in some vaguely rote prestige way but with a vividly handsome specificity. I didn't expect great visuals so maybe Tom Hooper's Best Director buzz isn't so far-fetched for a film that on paper seemed like one for the acting and production design branches mostly.
On the other hand, I am completely allergic to Geoffrey Rush in hambone mode. His win for Shine (1996) is one of my least favorite Best Actor prizes in the category's history and they nominated him for the entirely wrong film in 1998 as he was much more restrained and effective in Elizabeth than he was in Shakespeare in Love. He looks to be bringing the kook to scenes that already have inherent kookiness (speech therapy's comedy friendly exercizes) and I may just break out in hives watching him go for a second Oscar. I'm taking epipen into the theater with me... just in case.
Then we come to the Oscar Bait -- as if Royalty Porn weren't enough of it -- which is the World War II 'Nazi's are coming!' time frame. I hope it's less awkwardly handled here than it was in Mrs. Henderson Presents which this film vaguely reminds me of sight unseen. That's not a purposeful mental jump. It's worrisome rather but probably just based on account of early Oscar buzz, prestige actors, and the world war haunting the periphery of a "light" film.
Again, I might need the epipen but the festival buzz is certainly something to think about in an optimistic way. I'm a Yes leaning Maybe So because, again, Geoffrey Rush is a total No for me most of the time ...especially whilst clowning around. Look, we can't help what we're allergic to. Don't give me a hard time about it.
Are you a Yes, No or Maybe So? And do you buy the Oscar frontrunner (or thereabouts) hype? *
