Performance Profile: Julie Walters in "Billy Elliot" (2000)

The next entry in the 2000 race comes from the work given by a respected British actress, and one who has found occasional success in American films and has been appreciated by audiences and critics alike. I, personally, have only previously seen her as the loving mother in the Harry Potter films, but I now offer you the acclamied, accomplished work of....

...Julie Walters in Billy Elliot (2000)
.

Julie Walters plays Mrs.Wilkinson, a hardworking, British dancing instructor who's eye catches that of young Billy Elliot (Jamie Bell, giving a confident, emotionally rich performance in the title role).

Mrs. Wilkinson is a woman who teaches ballet to a group of young girls with her strong motto of tough-love, and at the same gym Billy is forced into boxing by his brute of a father, but discovers his love of dancing ballet from Wilkinson's class.

In the character's early scenes we get to see what this lady is all about and how she demands hardwork and concentration from her students. It's these traits and expectations which makes Billy stand out to her; she sees that he has a talent for it, but he needs the proper guidance and training, which is something she can provide.

Things get messy when Billy's family won't allow him to pursue his dream and continually put him down for even considering such a thing -- and this is where Mrs. Wilkinson's character really gets a jump start.

Understanding Billy and his situation, she offers him secret dancing lessons, and the two begin a sort of camaraderie as two people who share the same passion.

Walters' performance in the film is very nearly one of it's most essential aspects, and in many ways elevates it. Her approach to the role is bold, but surprisingly disarming. From early on we can clearly see what kind of person Mrs. Wilkinson is, yet as her bond with Billy tightens, she is still the same person, but Walters allows her to be a kind, compassionate being under the tough persona. There's a certain something about Billy which sparks off something inside her, either its the whiff of talent, maternal nurturing, or good old kindness and Walters lets us see this mix, and she stirs it all which just the right feeling.

She strikes the right balance of compassion and strength, and conveys pockets of surprising verve and levity in addition to maintaining a subtle humor throughout, all of which without losing sight of the core of the character and withought letting her slip into sentimentality.

As the narrative complicates, Walters holds a steady beat for the character which lets us see her own personal problems of how she never made it big (and the result of it) as well as witnessing Billy's emotional struggle, and she also demonstartes how she truly, genuinely cares about this boy and how she wants him to soar and make his dreams come true...the dreams that never came true for her.

The rapport between Walters and Bell is both touching and real because both actors understand that the challenges and hurdles one must go through in life and the price one must pay to go above and beyond.

While the film itself is rather uneven, it is kept afloat thanks to these two great performances (Bell should have totally of gotten a nom, and even a win wouldn't be out of the question), but I find it a bit frustrating that the script doesn't really give Mrs.Wilkinson a final finish, but instead leaves the character hanging as if they forgot about her at the very end. Thankfully, though, this doesn't hurt Walters' performance at all, but I do still wish we were filled in on a bit more.

In the end, I find myself both equally impressed and moved by Julie Waters' performance and shocked at the lack of admiration for it as well, because its really solid, and suprisingly shaded work by an interesting actress who's nomination to me is clearly a worthy one.

Performance Reviews: Catherine Keener and Cameron Diaz in "Being John Malkovich" (1999)

1999 stands as one the all time greatest year in cinema, hell, it could be THE greatest year. All aspects of filmmaking during this year were at such a high peak that this decade could simply not follow up. In what could be the best of film of 1999, there are two superb examples of Supporting Actressness of the highest order (and you know how much I looooove them) and they come in the forms of....

....Catherine Keener and Cameron Diaz in Being John Malkovich (1999)

Being John Malkovich is a bizarre, surreal, and all around fascinating film that (especially through its performances) provokes serious thought about a number of different issues we face in life.

The gist of the film itself goes like this -- Everything starts with Craig Schwartz (a miscast John Cusack), a loser puppeteer cannot find work with his passion so is persuaded to get a job as a filing clerk on the 7 1/2 floor of an office building. Here, he discovers a portal that leads directly into the mind of John Malkovich; you see, feel, hear, smell what ever he does as you seriously become him.

This leads into the two supporting ladies....

We have Maxine (Keener), the sexy, conniving, and mysterious co-worker to which Craig is hopelessly smitten with, and Craig's emotionally neglected, mousy wife Lotte (Diaz) who devotes her life to her pets. Both actress' works are individually astounding, yet through the narrative ties, they both come together to give some of the oddest, but touching screen chemistry in a long time.

First up as Maxine, Keener's performance to me is one of most unique and fresh I have ever seen. It's the kind of work that hasn't and probably will never age (like the film itself). Maxine is written/designed as a total enigma -- and in fact the writing sets her up without much on her plate. Keener's work here transcends Charlie Kaufman's genius script, and its all in her set up and foundation. This is such the rare occasion where the actress has almost full control over the character and her actions, meaning that Keener puts forth bits and pieces of Maxine and her mysterious nature. We never see Maxine all at once, and Keener's restraint and faceted characterization helps to keep the character's engrossing appeal and attraction in tact as we grow more and more anxious to discover more about her. But Keener makes Maxine much more than just some mystery lady.

The actress utilizes her uncanny abilities/gifts as a comedienne to perfectly link with the film's surreal sense of humor to generate some pretty funny stuff, yet where Keener is continually overlooked is in the darker and deeper parts of this unusual role. I can understand how some might believe that Keener stayed on the same note and didn't do anything real deep in the part -- but I see things a bit differently. There is a subtle undercurrent of true emotion which Keener communicates and ultimatley results in the change of the character. Going from the cold, heartless femme fatale to a woman who is seeing life, love, and the world in a whole new way and the confusion, emptiness, and regret it can bear. She adds the layers then sheds them away to reveal empathetic and fully rounded humanity. It's done with a precise, nuanced actorly skill without ever coming off as mannered or shrill. That's no mean feat.

(Click to enlarge)

~~~~

Diaz's performance was a total shock for me the first time. I went into the movie to see Keener's performance but I ended up loving Diaz just as much. Never before or after has she been given such a role that lets her put her talents as an real actress on display and in such an unconventional way. Lotte Schwartz is the polar opposite of Maxie Lund (at first); Lotte's a frumpy frizzie-haired pet lady and Maxine is a sexy seducer -- yet both set off on an emotional/spirtual journey which changes them internally -- and this in turn brings them together. During the "pre-Malkovich" scenes, Diaz establishes the character as a woman who's life is only fufilled by caring for her beloved pets and has no direction. We get that she is seriously anxious to break out of her current position (mostly due to her husband insouciance) and wants something....else.

Well lets say she discovers something big when she experiences what it feels like to actually be someone else, in this case John Malkovich. Diaz -- with electric verve and keen understanding -- creates a highly original and emotionally textured characterization. There's an unusual spark to the performance and every moment feels so real, earthy and spontaneous which serves the role perfectly for Diaz to craft a touching and bold portrait of a woman who's life is forever changed as she slowly begins to discover herself. Lotte at first thinks that a sex change will be the answer to her problems, but then after a steamy "threesome" she realizes that her heart belongs to Maxine to whom she has a mix of unbridled lust and total love/devotion for. Maxine (who only loves Lotte while in Malkovich) betrays Lotte by abandoning her to live a life of fame with Craig (as Malkovich). Diaz digs deep and offers a performance that is infused with even more complexity than there is on the page...and its all because she completely understands this strange character -- her sense of wonder, her need to feel love and give it back, her self discovery, and eventually the emotional devastation of reality which can bite. Diaz also lets us see that she doesn't want to be someone else anymore by simply being in their skin but to be her own self and live life with the lady she loves. It's a curious case of casting which delivered more than anyone could have fathomed.

But I think what I find even more impressive in both performances is how both actress' tap into the film's themes of morality, despair, indentity, sexuality and a more darker edge of human exsistence. Both also tune their work to embody Spike Jonze's surreal vision of this world (which Cusack doesn't understand) and because of there grounded and human performances connect it back to ours.

The supporting actresses of 1999 were some of the best, exciting, and rich performances in cinematic history, and although Dear Chloe is at the tippy top of the pack, you better believe that Keener and Diaz are not far behind...

Performance Profile: Kate Hudson in "Almost Famous" (2000)

In recent years there seems to a trend in MovieLand/HollywoodPhonyLand where we see more and more hot new faces popping up in films they have no business being in and being critically acclaimed for no good reason. Although it can be vice-versa, where actual actors degrade themselves by starring in glossy crap, its usually much more upsetting the other way around. Some of these starlets have been around for amount of time, and while with talent, its barely being made known. Cameron Crowe's film -- while always sweet, delightful, and funny -- can occasionally turn into muddled goopiness and cloys up the screen, and we get a whole array of people stuffed onto the platter including...the odd, but surprising Fairuza Balk, an embarrassing Jimmy Fallon (who proves that he just shouldn't be in movies), a quirky and neurotic Jay Baruchel who's now a leading man, the always gorgeous Zooey Deschanel in a (unfortunate) mini role, an appealing but utterly confused Patrick Fugit, and an exact Jodie Foster lookalike Band-Aid. But in the swirl, there is one golden, shining standout -- it was her breakout role, and despite the fact she's been making shit since -- I offer you the lovely, graceful work at the center given by...

...Kate Hudson in Almost Famous (2000)

Kate Hudson plays Penny Lane, a young free-spririted "Band-Aid" who's caught up in the world of rock and roll in the early 1970's.

The movie revolves around rock 'n roll during a specific time period and tells a simple yet enduring tale of how the music and the people involved influence and guide everyone and Hudson's Penny Lane is no different -- as we are introduced to her when she catches the eye of William Miller outside of the Stillwater concert and the two strike up an interesting coversation about the distinction of being a "groupie" and being queen of the "Band-Aids".

This is a girl who emanates a firm sense of independence, and is proud of it. She's the proclaimed leader of girls who follow around a band, not because they want to be famous, but because they genuinely love the music the want to inspire. But what we also hook onto quickly is that Penny is drawn to the innocent William, whose out of his element, and enjoys toying him and his thoughts just to find out who he really is. Penny -- who has spent most of her young life with the same kinds of rock 'n roll people -- sees William as an opportunity to something new and exciting that she can set her sights on.

But who really is Penny Lane? Who's the girl who borrows the name of the famous Beatles song?

Is she a bashful little child?....

...a fun-lovin' rebel....

....or a much more complicated person than what the surface shows?

Hudson, from her very first moment of screen, casts an enchanting, glowing mystery over the proceedings, which is what keeps William and the audience chasing for more. We want to know who this person is, why she's here, and why does she do what she does.

My favorite scene of Hudson's is her talk with William about the future and how she makes him feel secure with his new surroundings. Penny decides that she wants to move to Morraco for one year and asks William if he wants to go, he says yes, and the bond between them tightens.

This scene while beautiful, simple, and magical, also exposes us to the idea that Hudson's Penny Lane represents the youthful yearning in all of us; the notion to explore ourselves and the world like Dorothy stepping into Munchkin land and into technicolor. *Click on the pic to watch the scene*

Hudson permits Penny to be open and honest, yet she subtly keeps her introverted and to herself. Slowly and consistently, Hudson gives us more of Penny, as her beaming, dreamlike disposition slowly begins to reveal something a bit different.

Once the crew gets on the road and the movie really starts to roll, Penny Lane becomes more and more intertwined with the main narrative, but still is her own character. And as the story complicates, so does Penny. It doesn't hurt that Cameron Crowe is in love with the character -- giving her luscious, ethereal close-ups and extra attention -- but it is not he who builds Penny Lane, it's Hudson herself.

As Penny and William interact more we discover that Penny believes that she doesn't live in the "real world", but in a fantasy land filled with famous people and dreams that can one day come true. But this is sadly a way for her to cover the fact that she is in the real world -- a world in which is lost, lonely, and confused. She's but a child stuck in a situation that she can no longer maneuver.

Hudson quietly conveys the strong core of sadness lurking within Penny Lane with simply but rich clarity. She crafts Penny as a person who refuses to accept the haunting truths life bears and the thought of discovering who she really is. But in William she sees someone who is real and lives an honest life and she someone who she connects with as they are but two kids finding they're way in an adults world.

Hudson charts Penny's inner and outer life with ease; communicating what's happening inside and matching it with her exterior. And the actress doesn't simply rely on her charisma, but digs a bit deeper and scores the cracks in Penny's beaming persona with surprisingly simple humane depth.

In many ways, I find Penny's emotional journey much more engaging than Fugit's William, and because of it, Hudson's performance emerges as the glowing heart and soul of the film. But another trouble the character must face is being the emblem of beauty and pure lust in the eyes of others, particularly the band leader Russell (an amazing Billy Crudup giving a remarkably nuanced performance).

Russell, just like any other rocker now and then, uses Penny for pleasure. She's just another groupie he gets to sleep with and then toss away when he's done with her. But while Penny believes that there is true love between then, Hudson communicates that she knows she's being used but needs to feel such a love even if it doesn't even exist.

It's this heartbreaking reality that becomes to much for Penny, and at her time of desperate need, William is the only one there to save her.

The facade has finally been broken and the hurt and pain spills out as Penny (ODing on Quaaludes) now tragically accepts the truths that lie right in front of her -- that she has been so wrong and that she can no longer live this life. William, however does truly love her, and her instincts for once were proven right.

In the character's closing scenes Penny's arc becomes complete; she's essentially the same person she was but Hudson's characterization deepens and fleshes out the character allowing Penny to grow and change into a fully realized human being.

It's the kind of work that when you go back, doesn't just hold up, but it deepens (which is the best kind). Kate Hudson's performance is by turns luminous, sincere, sweet and grounded; with lush, gorgeous shadings infused into the character. Hudson may have not done anything notworthy since, but this performance is totally and unfairly maligned by a large majority who overlook it as a mere confection. But I think not, and to quote Penny Lane -- "It's all happening".

Performance Profile: Marcia Gay Harden in "Pollock" (2000)

In the past decade of films and Supporting Actressness, there has been a (majorly) noticeable drop in quality and deservingness that has become so unfortunate for Oscar junkies/cinephiles such as yours truly. With such winners as -- the overwrought suffering wife, the hollow Jazz Baby, the mannered impersonation, the talented singer who couldn't act her way out of a plastic bag, and the bilingual spifire wacko -- it's nice to see a performance/winner that has raised the thespian craft and has become one of the most popular winners in recent years. In this case, the surprise honors in 2000 went to...

...Marcia Gay Harden in Pollock (2000)

Marcia Gay Harden plays Lee Krasner, a struggling painter in 1940's New York who becomes interested in an another peculiar artist by the name of Jackson Pollock (Ed Harris, in a interesting but overly calculated performance).

From the very first scene between the two, it is obvious that there is something special begins to happen. It's simply a casual meeting when Lee comes knocking on Jackson's door interested in discovering another of the great abstract artists in NYC, and because she lives for art herself, she quickly recognizes and appreciates this man's gift and sees that his is of a different league altogether.

Lee is an ambitious, intelligent, dignified, and ballsy woman who has a track set for her career and life, but has to weave (and dodge) in Jackson's idiosyncrasies as the man is both a genius and a tortured soul -- in short, as the mutual friendship turns into a "romantic", more intimate one, Lee goes to greater lengths to support and guide Jackson as he sinks lower and lower into a deep hole.

Harden completely understands this facet of Lee and with intense, electrifying clarity shows the constant struggle she lives with by having to balance being the loyal wife and the motherly protector who must watch over and protect her loved one like a hawk. In addition to that, however, Harden impressively establishes Lee as her own self and never shows her backing down even for a second as Jackson dominates her life.

Lee's career is put on the back burner (in a Bacall and Bogie kind of way) so she can help Jackson through each agonizing step of his erratic life, but thriving career, even as they grow distant from each other as husband and wife.

"You need, you need, you need, YOU NEED!"

This disconnection hits its breaking point when Jackson wants to have a baby with Lee, and explains that this is what married couples do. Harden's Lee -- in a fiery, spiteful "Oscar-clip scene" (which totally lives up to its billing) -- stares her husband down and explains that they live an incredibly discordant life and that she is fed up with his bipolar-ish bullshit.

She basically spits in his face and explains how selfish and ignorant he is, not just to her, but to himself and the world. It's a scene that's poignant without ending up as a gloopy, maudlin mess as Harden projects a essential character detail; that Lee loves Jackson but hates what he has become. There's a subtle, but vivid undercurrent of warmth in Harden's performance and its to her credit that she never fully relies on that to simply get by.

Yet, reviewing the performance again, and despite all of its greatness, I can't help but feel that there is just something "off" in or around Harden's work that keeps it from soaring. Harris' meticulously, Method-y, and ultimately self-indulgent film somehow holds back Harden in a strange way that works against her. Harris' direction and acting (which consists of alot of studied actorly ticks and tricks) seem to cave down on the actress. I can't tell if its the film or Harden as the actress, but the performance just never transcends each individual specific scene. You can clealry see she's working her ass off in and between the role, but she rarely rises above that moment. Maybe its Harden cutting herself off at the knees or the film restricting her characterization -- either way it sadly brings down the overall performance.

It's powerful, vivid, memorable work, but I end up feeling that while Harden's really really good in the role, she's only occasionally really really great -- it's focused, yet erratic work that nevertheless remains an enduring accomplishment by a talented, dedicated actress.