« Incremental reasons why movies cost $10.75 in Manhattan: Brad Grey's hints of cardamom and cedar | Main | Bear and grin it: the Reporter from Berlin »
February 07, 2006
Why actors, why not New World?: Manohla digests
Manohla Dargis opines directly in a blunt reader Q&A in the NY Times: "There are a few variables that determine how I respond to an actor’s performance, some admittedly irrational. There are some actors, for instance, that I just don’t like – I don’t like the way they look, the way they talk, the way they take up space. And there are other actors who I like but who I can’t make any claims for; I just like watching them. I’ve almost always liked Heath Ledger, but I didn’t think he had anything going on... until Monster’s Ball. [But] I wasn’t prepared for “Brokeback,” where he creates a world of pain with a tight mouth and a body so terribly self-contained it’s a wonder he can wrap his arms around another person. But here’s the thing – and this is the part that’s hard to explain—I don’t just admire the performance on the level of craft, I am also deeply moved by it, just as I am by the film. By contrast, while I think Philip Seymour Hoffman is really good in Capote, both the performance and the film leave me cold. I don’t care about either... While I greatly enjoy watching the beautiful Terrence Howard... both his character in Hustle & Flow and the film itself are too laughable for me to take into consideration." As for actresses? "Have you seen Junebug, Mrs. Henderson Presents and Transamerica? All three are bad in degree, with the last being the worst, and their lead female performances pale next to those of Sibel Kekilli in Head-On, Ziyi Zhang in 2046 and Juliette Binoche in Caché... As to Mrs. Henderson Presents... isn’t it time Dame Judi started working for a living? ... only in a year so profoundly devoid of juicy female performances... could Felicity Huffman’s graceless, unpersuasive turn in Transamerica be in contention..." 
More withering at the link, but also this priceless explanation of why The New World didn't get the Oscar noms it deserves, a simplified rendition of the valuable ongoing cogitation over at Matt Zoller Seitz's house: "There is only one possible explanation for why Terrence Malick’s glorious film, one of the most aesthetically and intellectually ambitious, emotionally devastating and politically resonant works of American art in recent memory, was overlooked by the Academy: with the exception of my few dear friends in that august body, they are idiots."
Posted by pride at February 7, 2006 01:51 PM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)