Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,547 
Likes: 1,629
|
Post by Javi on Dec 2, 2023 18:04:27 GMT
Like a low camp Persona. Natalie Portman has always been an anal, studious kind of actress, without a “natural” acting bone in her body. As the Juilliard-trained actress who sets out to study Julianne Moore to then play her in a movie, Haynes gives Portman the means to satirize herself (and the self-seriousness of actor-artists). It works. Portman gives probably the best performance of her career. The more she descends into her “research”, the more the character is revealed as a shallow, putrid actress, and Portman relishes in the comedy of the role. In her best scene, she titillates a group of high school students with a detailed account of how sex scenes are filmed, making them sound naughtier than a Roman orgy. Portman’s Elizabeth is a highly educated exhibitionist.
Julianne Moore has all the natural oddities, the pathos and the actorly instinct that Portman lacks, and as the pedophilic, vaguely dimwitted, blueberry-pie-expert Gracie she’s probably funnier than she’s ever been. “I thought you were playing me between 1992 and 1994”, she tells Portman when asked about details of her life she deems irrelevant for the movie. Portman assures her that she’s doing all this fastidious research so that Gracie can “feel seen and understood”. Gracie may be slow in some areas but she sees right through the actress’ intentions. She pins her down as a leech and a phony from the start. Moore’s Gracie is gloriously untouched by contemporary political correctness (it’s the source of the comedy). She congratulates her daughter for having the strength to show off her flabby arms in public, while Portman looks on in horror and fascination. And as far as Gracie is concerned, her relationship with her husband, which began when she was 36 and he was 13, is precious fairy-tale love. Portman’s Elizabeth explores a wide range of trashy theories to explain Gracie’s depravity. (Her favorite: she was raped by her older brother). And she turns herself on as she reconstructs Gracie’s secret meetings with the boy back in the early 90s. She asks the movie producer to please cast a “sexy” 13-year-old to play opposite her.
Sadly, there is a third character in the movie: Gracie’s husband and former victim, now in his thirties, played by Charles Melton. Melton is such a terrible actor, and his scenes are played so straight, that you can’t fathom how Haynes conceived them as being part of the same movie. The message is clear: while the actress and the pedophile housewife play their twisted games, here is the real victim, here is the real “truth”. But Melton just about kills this movie. At first, he’s a wooden statue of stoicism; later, he’s a wooden statue of repressed pain. Melton is Haynes’ shield, protecting him from claims of insensitivity. But he’s so bad that there isn’t any psychological resonance to his scenes; he just neuters whatever campy fun the movie had going for it.
There is another problem. Portman’s character is rotten from the start, so there is never any risk of Moore corrupting her. Elizabeth isn’t drawn to Gracie because she’s some kind of forbidden fruit; she’s drawn to her because she knows her tabloid degeneracy can win her some acting awards. Elizabeth, soft-spoken though she may be, is never shocked. If anything, she knows she could outdo this pallid housewife’s depravity if she wanted to. But this power struggle of the gorgons isn’t sufficiently explored and it’s never resolved. The multiple mirror scenes with Portman and Moore aren’t quite Persona or Mulholland Drive, though they’re so artfully framed that they’re funny. But Haynes is too timid where it counts. He seems to want to say that Elizabeth is an even lower type of creature than Gracie—who at least is a legitimate tragedienne—but he never comes out and say it. And as fun as it can be while you’re watching it, when the movie ends, it ends. There’s no resonance. Elizabeth’s trapped in her crappy movie, and so are we.
|
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Dec 2, 2023 18:16:49 GMT
The Oscar talk for Melton is insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 3, 2023 1:58:08 GMT
In this era of true-crime tourism, where podcasts and Netflix documentaries bring an almost invasive approach to real-world trauma, Haynes is certainly onto something in this thinly veiled rehash of the Mary Kay Letourneau saga, where the focus is not on the victim but rather on how best to bundle the trauma in a pretty, palatable package for consumption. It also does feel like it is also gunning for the conceit of self-importance when an actor feels like they are qualified to be professional psychologists when handling actual damaging situations all for the sake of their art. But honestly, I feel like these explorations are handled so cursorily that I was left thinking, "What was the point of that?" by the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Dec 3, 2023 18:02:09 GMT
Love this the more I think about it - and I've been thinking about it a lot since I saw it. Genuinely provocative, in contrast to something like Saltburn which is so desperate to shock you at every turn that it has the opposite effect.
I'd now confidently say it's Portman's best performance. Moore's not been this good in god knows how long - she's so unsettling because of how endearing/pitiable she can be. Melton is absolutely deserving of the awards buzz, he portrays a scared and abused child trapped inside an adult body heartbreakingly well.
The ending is what really seals the deal and turns this into something great.
|
|
rhodoraonline
Badass
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 1,028 
Likes: 507
|
Post by rhodoraonline on Dec 3, 2023 20:42:48 GMT
I see and understand the buzz for Melton and yes him being the only colored contender in that category seems to be a factor. His performance "could" be interpreted as "emotionally stunted," the only problem is that sometimes there's this strong sense that it's, Melton, the performer that is stunted in his acting, rather than his character.
The film only works as a criticism of the consumerism of movies and but the female performances are so good and the creepiness and sleaziness of the every one around Melton is so well played, that it works.
This COULD play well with the Oscar crowd the same way Coens' Buster Scruggs garnered recognition for its prestige connections and Netflix access. Both veterans actresses are beloved and really good here; and members will be wary of not putting the one critically praised colored nominee on the ballot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Dec 3, 2023 21:26:21 GMT
sometimes there's this strong sense that it's, Melton, the performer that is stunted in his acting, rather than his character. For a few of his scenes I could almost feel the acting class in front him. And I also don't buy at all that he exists outside of his scenes, that he raised a family--etc. It's weird to me that everyone is talking about Melton when Cory Michael Smith is right there and does so much in two little scenes. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 3, 2023 23:49:49 GMT
As to the performances, Portman's normally irritating penchant for unnatural affectations are weaponized pretty decently here, as she is playing a character who is not so much a person as much as a being trying to modulate itself to approximate a person . . . and hilariously, Haynes makes her try to emulate Julianne Moore, whose capacity for histrionics can go nuclear at a moment's notice and irradiate the whole movie around her if the director's not careful. Thankfully, Haynes knows how best to deploy Moore, and her big moments do have some element of restraint to them. And I am not entirely sure if this was the intent or not, but Portman is kind of the perfect canvas to paint a scathing takedown of a pretentious artist. The reveal of her television show's title was the funniest bit of the movie to me.
As for Melton, I think he is certainly the MVP and as someone who watched almost all of Riverdale (seriously one of the most batshit TV shows I've ever seen, and he was a pretty fun presence on it as the replacement Reggie), it's cool to see him become the big awards breakout of that cast. He does a very fine job of playing a character who finds himself in a delayed coming-of-age story as he also comes to terms with the reality of what happened to him, as he was never able to properly assess it over nearly two decades of parenthood and scrutiny. The film really comes alive in the little moments of realization, like when Joe and Charlie are on the roof and Joe tries weed for the first time.
I am leaning positive on it the more I think about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Dec 4, 2023 1:10:39 GMT
I see and understand the buzz for Melton and yes him being the only colored contender in that category seems to be a factor. His performance "could" be interpreted as "emotionally stunted," the only problem is that sometimes there's this strong sense that it's, Melton, the performer that is stunted in his acting, rather than his character. The film only works as a criticism of the consumerism of movies and but the female performances are so good and the creepiness and sleaziness of the every one around Melton is so well played, that it works. This COULD play well with the Oscar crowd the same way Coens' Buster Scruggs garnered recognition for its prestige connections and Netflix access. Both veterans actresses are beloved and really good here; and members will be wary of not putting the one critically praised colored nominee on the ballot. Yeah nah, any evidence for that? Or are you just grasping at anything because you don't like the performance?? |
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 4, 2023 1:10:42 GMT
It's good but Haynes tries to pull it in two directions at the same time (serious psychological drama vs. self-aware and slightly trashy melodrama) and doesn't realize the full potential of either. The movie sits in between the two modes and fairly successfully nips at bits and pieces of both but I think something truly great could've happened if Haynes chose one way to go and just properly bit into it. Even visually it's a bit too subdued for its own good (Christopher Blauvelt's cinematography doesn't really look that different from his own work in Showing Up) and the cheap adaptation of Legrand's score from The Go-Between would've definitely been a better fit for a far livelier soap opera. I'm honestly surprised Haynes didn't go for that particular approach since he's so good at stylization. The movie would've probably become more subversive without this sheen of cerebral seriousness around it.
But I still found a lot of things to like about it, specifically the two performances at its centre. Portman and Moore are given fascinating characters to play and they more than rise to the occasion. Melton though? Completely out of their league. I'm with those who thought he didn't do a good job at all, although I'm even willing to spin it around and say that in a way it actually kinda sorta works for the movie's benefit since his character's arrested emotional development situation does require a level of stiltedness in the portrayal. Melton isn't able to execute that well... but conceptually it's somewhat fitting.
|
|
rhodoraonline
Badass
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 507
|
Post by rhodoraonline on Dec 4, 2023 6:20:06 GMT
I see and understand the buzz for Melton and yes him being the only colored contender in that category seems to be a factor. His performance "could" be interpreted as "emotionally stunted," the only problem is that sometimes there's this strong sense that it's, Melton, the performer that is stunted in his acting, rather than his character. The film only works as a criticism of the consumerism of movies and but the female performances are so good and the creepiness and sleaziness of the every one around Melton is so well played, that it works. This COULD play well with the Oscar crowd the same way Coens' Buster Scruggs garnered recognition for its prestige connections and Netflix access. Both veterans actresses are beloved and really good here; and members will be wary of not putting the one critically praised colored nominee on the ballot. Yeah nah, any evidence for that? Or are you just grasping at anything because you don't like the performance?? Because I was so surprised after watching the movie. I was expecting an excellent performance based on the buzz but I found it bad, quite bad. Even a lot of his line readings, it just felt like he was struggling playing the emotionality of the character and the authenticity that would need to be there to come off as a believable parent. So yes, I do believe that him being the lone colored contender in this category is (at least subconsciously) a part of him being hailed this much. |
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Dec 4, 2023 13:18:06 GMT
Yeah nah, any evidence for that? Or are you just grasping at anything because you don't like the performance?? Because I was so surprised after watching the movie. I was expecting an excellent performance based on the buzz but I found it bad, quite bad. Even a lot of his line readings, it just felt like he was struggling playing the emotionality of the character and the authenticity that would need to be there to come off as a believable parent. So yes, I do believe that him being the lone colored contender in this category is (at least subconsciously) a part of him being hailed this much. So your argument is still nothing more than 'I didn't like a performance so everyone who does must have some weird reasoning for it that I made up'. Aight, cool. |
|
rhodoraonline
Badass
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 507
|
Post by rhodoraonline on Dec 4, 2023 15:07:04 GMT
Because I was so surprised after watching the movie. I was expecting an excellent performance based on the buzz but I found it bad, quite bad. Even a lot of his line readings, it just felt like he was struggling playing the emotionality of the character and the authenticity that would need to be there to come off as a believable parent. So yes, I do believe that him being the lone colored contender in this category is (at least subconsciously) a part of him being hailed this much. So your argument is still nothing more than 'I didn't like a performance so everyone who does must have some weird reasoning for it that I made up'. Aight, cool. That could hold some weight if I was the only one finding the performance divisive. But I will acknowledge that my being a colored person myself is contributing to my perception  |
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Dec 4, 2023 16:09:34 GMT
But honestly, I feel like these explorations are handled so cursorily that I was left thinking, "What was the point of that?" by the end. I think I'm in the same boat. The ending needed something to pull it all together. I thought the exploration was fascinating but there was no real payoff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Dec 4, 2023 16:13:46 GMT
I know Best Actress is crowded this year but Portman deserves to be nominated. She's genuinely great. This is one of her top 3 performances. The monologue scene is the perfect Oscar clip. If May December stays in the conversation, Portman is hard to ignore.
|
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Dec 4, 2023 16:51:41 GMT
This movie is Notes on the Scandal-level high camp iconic already imo. Bar none Portman's best performance in her career. Her lack of naturalism makes her the perfect Elizabeth, and that monologue scene is nothing short of phenomenal. Moore also plays Gracie's naïveté and batshit craziness to perfection. I also really enjoy the child/adult role switch in the relationship. The ending is in particular fucking hilarious.  Melton though I'm not sure how I feel about. On the one hand he did feel like a child (who's been taking care of adults all his life) trapped inside a man's body, but on the other I'm not sure if that was intentional on his part or if he just didn't know what to do with the character. |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 5, 2023 1:30:14 GMT
I definitely liked this. Couldn't guess what was going to happen from scene to scene which almost never happens these days and such good cinematography, both gorgeous at times and eerily symmetrical. Reminds me a but of Kubrick's approach to shooting Lolita. And yes, Portman is in absolute top form here, in total command. When she's on she's  . Every bit as good as Jackie and Black Swan here. She seems to have a knack for playing "permeation of performance" type characters. She's my win right now but we'll see, 100% deserves a nod. Wasn't sure what people were going to think of Melton. I liked him, his main character trait is that he's bored out of his mind with Moore and he communicated that fine. He's also stunted and very much came off like monotone teenage boy which was the point. Surprised he's getting rumored for a nod though. It's a performance I'd call "effective", it works well in the context of the movie even if the acting itself isn't that great. I'm kind of mixed on Moore though. She's good most of the time but I thought she could be pretty awful in a lot of her "big" moments. I kept laughing in the cake scene and I'm not sure if I was supposed to. This would have been a good part for Amy Adams come to think of it (she could use one) and I would have rather seen that. Would have been fun to see she and Natalie together. For another nitpick the score was good on its own but I didn't like how it was used, the thunderous piano could be a bit overbearing. Silence is good sometimes in a character drama like this. Anyway, definitely a good movie on the whole and I see it being in my top five for the year. |
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Dec 5, 2023 4:35:55 GMT
So your argument is still nothing more than 'I didn't like a performance so everyone who does must have some weird reasoning for it that I made up'. Aight, cool. That could hold some weight if I was the only one finding the performance divisive. But I will acknowledge that my being a colored person myself is contributing to my perception Just because a performance is divisive (very few are unanimous) doesn’t mean everybody who does like it is doing so in bad faith. |
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Dec 5, 2023 5:16:16 GMT
That could hold some weight if I was the only one finding the performance divisive. But I will acknowledge that my being a colored person myself is contributing to my perception Just because a performance is divisive (very few are unanimous) doesn’t mean everybody who does like it is doing so in bad faith. It's only divisive here. Reactions to his performance are overwhelmingly positive everywhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Dec 5, 2023 6:48:04 GMT
Just because a performance is divisive (very few are unanimous) doesn’t mean everybody who does like it is doing so in bad faith. . Reactions to his performance are overwhelmingly positive everywhere else. It's divisive on AW too. |
|
|
|
Post by TylerDeneuve on Dec 5, 2023 22:35:29 GMT
I see and understand the buzz for Melton and yes him being the only colored contender in that category seems to be a factor. Your profile says you are from Canada, so I assume English is your first language (could be French?), but please be advised that referring to someone as "colored" is at best seen as dated and at worst akin to a racial slur. |
|
|
|
Post by michael128 on Dec 5, 2023 22:38:25 GMT
Natalie sucked, Julianne and Charles were good. You don’t need to use so many words.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allenism on Dec 6, 2023 18:21:01 GMT
This is wild...it's "person of color". |
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 7, 2023 19:28:21 GMT
such a fascinating and [mostly] fantastic movie, and Haynes's best since Far From Heaven. Not so much high camp as dry camp.  The comedy is so deadpan outside of Moore's hilariously intense line about not having enough hotdogs that many are gonna miss it. It's camp in moderation, just subdued enough to make the film viable as straight drama but absurd enough for those with dark senses of humor to sit back and enjoy the shitshow. Very conflicted about Melton especially because Moore and Portman are firing on all cylinders right next to him. He's best in the lowkey moments at capturing this idea of a basically sensitive and well-meaning guy who's been taken advantage of by predatory women (first Gracie and then Elizabeth, both for their own selfish interests), but even in those quieter moments it feels like he's trying to do his best Jesse Plemons impression. The performance gets off to a bad start right at the beginning in his first scene with Portman where he stumbles over his words and can't form a single sentence. Clearly to communicate nervousness but Melton's effort is so painfully obvious. Doesn't feel natural at all. Even worse are his confrontations with Elizabeth and then Gracie in the last 30 minutes. The character is so interesting on paper that it feels like a missed opportunity in casting. Melton just doesn't have the chops to delve into this stunted character's complexities, but he's not nearly bad enough to torpedo the whole thing. Haynes is in top form and deftly balances the tone between the hideous reality of Gracie's behavior with Elizabeth's hilariously absurd pretension in seeking to understand her. Tabloid shlock meets Hollywood satire and it's so compulsively watchable. And as someone who's always loved Michel Legrand's underrated score for The Go-Between, it was an extra treat seeing Haynes with composer Marcelo Zarvos integrating it so lovingly into this project. The music compliments the tone splendidly. |
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 11, 2023 21:20:13 GMT
Tremendous movie, some of the best work of everyone involved. Just off the premise it seems clear where Haynes' critiques will sway (for good reason) and the film is still thorough enough not to take the easy way out on that, but the real masterstroke here is the beating heart of Charles Melton's Joe as an emotional anchor on which the movie can play as more than just an intellectual exercise as he serves a constant reminder for the human cost of this whole fucked up situation. I'm gonna be thinking of the scene on the roof for a good while.
I love Todd Haynes' use of melodrama, blowing up these very large emotions to get to a very specific truth. It's been said as camp and I won't begrudge anyone for calling it that given the subjectivity of that label, but I never felt the music for instance was used in jest or to provide a layer of irony. I felt it was all well in keeping with our central characters who live in this heightened state, precariously trying to keep together this perfect image that is their lives but having these cracks slip through.
This is just a me thing, I grew insanely uncomfortable at times at how precisely this movie depicts a wide spectrum of narcissism between Moore and Portman, especially Moore as she reminded me a lot of a former boss of mine.
|
|
forksforest
Junior Member
Quit your shit-spitting
Posts: 494
Likes: 214
|
Post by forksforest on Dec 12, 2023 22:50:58 GMT
Loved it, reminiscent of how I felt after Tar - a truly captivating take on an all-too-familiar tale (grooming). Portman is quite perfect for this meta-character and really stood out, elevated all the scenes she had with any co-star, which felt all the more real for the role she was playing. I felt a little less impressed by Moore’s performance but I think because the focal point was Portman (and Melton to a lesser extent), it didn’t ultimately matter. Melton was alright, he looked the part and I can understand if the subdued nature is just a product of the character he was playing, but I do think Portman was the one carrying the weight, whenever they shared a scene (likewise for Moore) - he was fine in the scenes w the other members of the family.
My one issue was the score - I get it was adding tension and dramatization, but my god was it distracting lol.
|
|
. Every bit as good as Jackie and Black Swan here. She seems to have a knack for playing "permeation of performance" type characters. She's my win right now but we'll see, 100% deserves a nod. 
The comedy is so deadpan outside of Moore's hilariously intense line about not having enough hotdogs that many are gonna miss it. It's camp in moderation, just subdued enough to make the film viable as straight drama but absurd enough for those with dark senses of humor to sit back and enjoy the shitshow.
