Seeing that the Academy Awards are this weekend, I thought we would take a look at some of the nominees. Yesterday I gave my thoughts on Best Picture. Today I am going to ruminate on the actors.
I have a lot of respect for actors and actresses because I think this is exactly what they do. And the good ones do it so well you don’t even realize it.
We haven’t been able to see all the movies with Best Actor/Actress and Best Supporting Actor/Actress nominees, but we have seen several.
Best Actress
Glenn Close – Hands down my favorite performance was Glenn Close in ‘Albert Nobbs’. I completely and utterly forgot it was her. It wasn’t just about her transforming into a man, though that helped, it was much more about her physical self. She transformed her face, her voice, her body, her posture, her eye movements even. I didn’t recognize the usual tell-taled gestures, head movements, voice methods that one usually sees in a star no matter the role. I didn’t see anyone but Albert Nobbs. It was an amazing performance.
Meryl Streep in ‘The Iron Lady’ was also magnificent but the movie was lousy. Thatcher was also played by a different actress, Alexandra Roach, to depict her younger years. I actually liked the Roach quite a bit, she was a revelation. Streep was best when she played Thatcher as a very old and forgetful woman, still talking to her deceased husband and thinking she was still Prime Minister.
Viola Davis in ‘The Help’ was good but didn’t have to transform and become a completely different persona as did Close and Streep. The performance doesn’t compare in my mind.
I did not see Rooney Mara in ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’ and Michelle Williams in ‘My Week with Marilyn’
Best Actor
George Clooney plays a variation on Clooney in ‘The Descendants’. It’s a good performance, but not Oscar worthy.
Brad Pitt plays a variation on Pitt in ‘MoneyBall’. It’s a good performance, but not Oscar worthy.
Jean Dujardin is fantastic in ‘The Artist’. He has to do what the silent screen stars did, act only through face, body and gesture. And he does it amazingly. He’s my choice of the three.
I did not see Demian Bichir in ‘A Better Life’ or Gary Oldman in ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’. I am always intrigued when someone is nominated from a complete obscure movie like ‘A Better Life’. I suspect his performance is over the top amazing and I might very well think he deserves if I ever see the movie.
Best Supporting Actor
Jonah Hill – An ok performance in ‘MoneyBall’ but not worthy of an Oscar nod in any way.
Christopher Plummer – A recent widower who decides to come out as gay in ‘Beginners’. It’s a very nuanced performance and is filled with humor and wisdom. I wouldn’t put it as #1 but it is very good.
Max von Sydow – I am hoping von Sydow wins for his role as a mysterious man who can’t (or won’t) talk in ‘Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close’. He helps a young boy on his quest to find the lock that belongs to a key. He, like Jean Dujardin in the Best Actor category has to play it all with face, body and gestures, no talking at all. I think that is worth the Oscar.
I did not see Nick Nolte in ‘The Warrior’ (we have it from Netflix, will probably see it tonight) or Kenneth Branagh in ‘My Week with Marilyn’.
Best Supporting Actress
Berenice Bejo – A confession – I fell in love with her the second I saw her on the screen in ‘The Artist’. And I think she was chosen for the role because the producers knew that would happen, not just from me, but from most every person watching the movie. She illuminated and sparkled, she had pathos and doubt, she had enthusiasm and joy. It was a great performance it would be fine with me if she won.
Jessica Chastain – She was a fish-out-of-water homemaker in ‘The Help’. In turn confident, funny, pathetic, sexy, drunk, caring, and lost. She gave a great performance in her role and wouldn’t mind seeing her win as well.
Melissa McCarthy – Are ya kidding me? No, this was NOT a performance worthy of a oscar nomination just because she ran to a sink and sat in it to take a dump in ‘Bridesmaids’.
Octavia Spencer – In my mind she was nominated for one scene in ‘The Help’. It was a great scene, but I just didn’t think it was enough. Without it, the performance would not stand out and get the nomination.
Janet McTeer – As a macho, hard-ass house painter in ‘Albert Nobbs’ she appears to be the type of bullying, overbearing man that would take advantage of the housekeepers and other young women. In truth she exposes herself to be an extremely sensitive and caring soul. A great performance that also deserves the Oscar and I hope she gets it.
Drawing and commentary by Marty Coleman, who has yet to win an Oscar.
Quote by Rosalind Russell, who was nominated for Best Actress 4 times between 1943 and 1959. She never won.
The Academy Awards are this weekend so I thought I would do a series on The Oscars.
Linda and I do an OscarFest every year. We make a concerted effort to see all the Best Picture nominees. But we also work to see all the Best actor/actress categories, all the Best Director movies and, especially for me, all the Best Screenplay movies. We don’t always get to them all, but we try and it is a fun winter time activity for us to do as a couple.
This year we were able to see all 9 of the Best Picture nominations. We don’t always agree, but this year we pretty much had the same top 3. They are:
Hugo
The Descendants
Incredibly Loud and Extremely Close
Hugo is my personal choice because of the complexity of the story, the beautiful and innovative visual style, the acting and the script.
The Descendants definitely has my vote for Best Screenplay. The script was realistic and moving. I wouldn’t be upset at it winning best film but I liked Hugo better.
Incredibly Loud and Extremely Close was MUCH better than I was expecting. The story, script and visuals were compelling and moving. I loved it.
From there we parted ways a bit. Movies in the list I did not think were at the top were:
The Artist
The Tree of Life
Midnight in Paris
The Help
War Horse
Moneyball
The Artist was fantastic. But the storyline wasn’t all that original. It basically was a remake of ‘A Star is Born’. I love the movie however and I would not think it a gross injustice if it won. If you haven’t seen it, you should.
The Tree of Life was immense, poetic, visually staggering, symbolic and powerful. Shouldn’t that make my list as a result? Well, it almost did but really, the story is just not that compelling. A kid grows up in the 50s, loves life, hates life, is confused about life. Fast forward to his adulthood and he loves life, hates life, is confused about life. Intersperse with symbolic images of the cosmos and the confusion one sees there and we get a beautiful visual treat, but not nearly good enough to warrant Best Picture in my book.
Midnight in Paris only had one problem – Woody Allen played the main character (disguised as Owen Wilson). I have been a fan of Allen’s ever since Annie Hall, which is still on my top ten list of best movies of all time. But, I like his movies that do not have a Woody Allen character in them. This one had a whiny and stuttering Owen Wilson. He tried to crack jokes that were ‘Woody’ jokes. He tried to hem and haw and communicate terribly like ‘Woody’ would. I just cannot stand that character any longer.
The Help was good but it was so predictable and the visual style was so uninspiring that I just couldn’t see it winning on anything other than story line and that is never enough for me.
War Horse was way too schmaltzy and overly stylized to manipulate the emotions. I enjoyed it for the most part, but it was just too much.
Moneyball wasn’t nearly a dynamic enough story to make it to the top. The visuals were mundane and the acting just wasn’t that moving to me. And this is coming from a baseball fan!
What is your opinion of the Best Picture nominees?
I fell in love with Diebenkorn’s work very early on, when I was still an undergraduate. His work has kept with me and influenced me for many decades, for the color, the depth of layering (that you can only really see in its complexity when you see them in person, as is true of Pollack and Picasso). It also has stayed with me because it is warm and joyful and beautiful. His work makes my eyes happy.
Berkeley Series #39 – 1955
Diebenkorn is one of many California artists that share a love of color, often reflective of the california landscape. He first made his mark in the art world in the 1950s as a west coast practitioner of the reigning east coast ‘Abstract Expressionist’ school of painting. You can very easily see the influence of Willem de Kooning in color and brushstroke. You can see the hints of a landscape in the horizontal elements, something that will never leave his work for his entire career.
Woman on a Porch – 1959
Santa Cruz 1 – 1962
Interior with View of Buildings – 1962
Just about the time Abstract Expressionism really got big, Diebenkorn abandoned it and moved back into representational work. He still has the great color and brushwork, but he is now allowing recognition of landscape and figures to come through. This is the work that I saw first and it was a revelation to me because it was so profoundly, perfectly composed. It had such inherent beauty in the color and brushstrokes that you didn’t even need to see a landscape or figure in the work. the paint itself was enough. But add in the references to the world around him and I felt like I was experiencing what a visual poet would say.
Seated Nude – 1966
And, as is most often the case, the best painters turn out to be the best draftsmen too. Even though this is a recognizable and not all that unique pose of a female nude, it has Diebenkorn all over it. From the erased but still visible marks, to the filling up of the space with the figure it is obvious his concerns are the same as if he was doing a landscape painting. It’s about shape and form and beautifully precise composition. Take a look at the edges of the drawing. That is where you can really see the similarity to his paintings. There are always shapes and forms that combine straight and curved lines that hug the edge of the image. That is where a lot of the action is, and will continue to be in his work.
Ocean Park series #21
Ocean Park series #24 – 1968
Turns out Diebenkorn was quite contrarian. When the abstract movement faded and pop and other art movements became popular Diebenkorn abandoned his figurative and landscape imagery and once again returned to abstraction. He never left the hints and feeling of landscape behind but there were no longer direct references to it. This time, his foray into abstraction wasn’t reminiscent of anyone. It was all uniquely his. His Ocean Park series took up almost the entire rest of his life from the late 60s until his death in 1993.
I loved his representational work but when I saw his later abstract work I was even more moved. I fell in love with him as the ‘Matisse’ of my era, refining and reducing beauty to it’s essence and then pouring in a healthy dose of joy and happiness.
Ocean Park Series – Museum exhibition
And finally, an image that is one of my personal favorite of his. It’s my favorite because the paint is wonderful and the place is wonderful.
Cityscape – 1963
If you ever are wondering what a person mean when they say, “That artist has a very unique style, you can always tell it’s his or her work, no matter the subject or the medium.” Take a look at Diebenkorn’s work and you will know what they are talking about.
It’s Fashion Week in some little burg off on the East Coast so it’s Fashion Week in the center of the universe as well (that’s here in case you were wondering).
My eldest daughter, Rebekah, once asked me a question. She was standing at the top of the stairs and my other 2 daughters were at the bottom of the stairs near me in the living room. She asked, “Dad, is it ok if I get my belly button pierced?”
Hmmmm….this has got to be a trick question I think to myself. If I say yes, then obviously the other two girls hear it and will then feel they also have permission to have that done when they are Beka’s age. If I say no it sets up an argument about piercing and style that will likely go on for a long time in the household considering the 2 younger girls are only in middle school. Hmmm…how to respond?
First, I thought about what I had preached to so many of my conservative church-going friends who were parents. How often had I said, in response to them complaining about their kids’ styles, “Do NOT destroy the relationship with your child over style. They want to dye their hair purple? When are they EVER going to be able to do it if not in high school? They want to wear what most everyone is wearing? It does NOT mean they are a slut. It just means they want to be a member of a tribe. Chill out and save big battles for big issues, not shoe styles.”
Then I thought about what I had told my own children many times. I am fine with you wearing and accessorizing whatever you want. Any style is ok as long as it’s not permanent (i.e. tattoos, they can get those when they are over 18 and out of the house if they want), dangerous, harmful or hurtful to themselves or others, then I am fine with it. IF, however, I find that your character and behavior goes south I reserve the right to investigate whether your style has anything to with it. If it does, then that style will have to go or be modified.
So, now was the moment of truth. Was I going to practice what I preached with Rebekah? My response was, “Well, I think I would want to go to a doctor and ask what he or she thought of belly button piercings, I would research it, I would find out if there were big infection problems, etc. If that all came back ok, then I would let you get your belly button pierced.”
She listened, turned and walked towards her room and said, “That’s cool. I don’t really want to get it pierced, I just wanted to see what you would say.”
That cracked me up.
Drawing and commentary by Marty Coleman, who limits his piercing activity to using skewers for shish kebobs.
It’s Fashion Week in New York and Fashion Week here as well!
What does this quote mean?
I understand most every quote I come across. I know what they mean to say and I understand why they are saying it. Not so with this quote. I saw it last week when I was planning out my style series and decided I would NOT do a napkin on it since I had no clue what Coco Chanel meant by it. I still don’t completely. But, here is a funny thing. Today I decided to just put the quote on the page, nothing else, then ask you what you thought it meant. I would then finish the drawing based on the feedback. But after I did the words on the page this idea of just a hand came to me, the ‘take to the hand’ hand. So I thought I would just draw the hand in the middle of the page, but that led to the face and I drew the arm funny so that led it to being a landscape then that led to deciding what she was refusing and that lead to me thinking…ah, maybe I do understand it after all…
But I am still not sure so I want your feedback.
What does this quote mean?
Does it reflect itself in your life, or in those you know and admire perhaps?
How does elegance (and its definition in the quote) fit in with fashion and style?
Drawing and commentary by Marty Coleman, who thinks fine dining is elegant.
In my non-Napkin Dad life I also consult, design and develop websites and blogs at times. I have recently been contracted to redesign and expand a style, fashion, and shopping blog and it has been great fun. It included a number of long conversations with the client about how to get just the right mix of elements into the website. That in turn got me thinking about what style really consists of and I came up with the Five I’s. I think I will spend some time digressing about the I’s eventually but before I do I would love to hear your understanding of the I’s as they apply in your own and other’s styles in fashion and other areas. Or add in new I’s or whatever other alphabet letter fits!
In addition, Let me know what you think style is, where it comes from, how you know it when you see it, and how it differs from fashion, trends, fads, etc.
Drawing, quote and commentary by Marty Coleman, who got 3 new hats this winter.
I am showing an artist today who I deeply admire. Roy Lichtenstein, one of the preeminent pop artists in America, has a very graphic and bold style, accessing popular and art culture for many of his ideas and references.
Woman in Bath – 1963
He got his start using comics as his inspiration but I didn’t really pay much attention to him early in my career. I knew of him but he was just one of many pop artists and I wasn’t paying all that much attention to any of them while in college and graduate school (70s & 80s).
Baked Potato -1962
Alka Seltzer – 1966
He didn’t just do comics, that just happened to be what he got famous for. What he did was use a very graphic, very bold comic book style no matter the subject. As he developed as an artist he expanded into using prior art styles as his references. That is when I started to notice and enjoy his work.
Coast Village – 1987
He played off the Expressionist and Fauvist styles here. He combined his strict linear style with a much more fluid brushstroke to make it happen. It is uniquely his work even with the references.
Woman with Hat
Portrait of a Woman – Pablo Picasso
The Red Horseman – 1974
Cyclist – Natalia Goncharova
He then played off of a Cubist and Futurist themes for a while. Yes, they obviously reference the imagery of other artists but you wouldn’t mistake it for one of theirs. It’s is pretty much instantly recognized as a Lichtenstein.
The Artist’s Studio – The Dance – 1974
And here we see him referencing another favorite artist of mine who I highlighted a few weeks ago. Anyone know who?
What I love about Lichtenstein is he never stopped exploring what he could do with what he could do. That sounds funny but it is true that we all have things we can do. But do we do all we can with our abilities and our sensibilities? I think Lichtenstein did and I have always been inspired by his willingness to stay true to his style and still push into new and compelling realms.
Ohhh…Alright…
And to finish it off, let’s end with a painting from his classic comic book era. Are you wondering why I chose this piece instead of a couple of his more famous ones from back them? Here’s why. It sold at auction in 2010 for 42.6 million dollars. Was it worth it? I say yes it was. Why do I say that? Because the person buying it is NOT buying a painting. They are buying AND possessing a seminal moment in the history of art. They buy it, everyone that matters to them knows they bought it and they now believe they have the same value in the world as that art moment had and continues to have. Is that true? Yes, but just like the stock market, the value of those art moments can rise and fall very fast and along with it goes their own value. Not all that great for the ego long term but just in case you wonder why people put out the big bucks, that’s why in my opinion.
I’ll put my foot down and say, It’s the last day of Naked vs Nude week at the NDD!
This drawing and commentary was originally created and written in 2009, but it fit perfectly with the theme so I am using it again.
It is human to decorate oneself, but humanity starts without decoration and that is often forgotten. The puritan impulse that still flows through America and elsewhere looks for something wrong with the unadorned and naked. We do it without being conscious of it, like a remnant racist not being aware of their own prejudice.
A huge industry has made many people a lot of money building on this. I am not talking about pornography, which at least has some semblance of honesty about it. At least you know what they are trying to evoke in a person. I am not defending porn, just stating that we know what it is and what it is trying to do.
I am talking about marketing and advertising. That is the industry that plays us like a fiddle. That is the industry that tells you to look for the skin and in the next breath tells you to cover it up.
What Michelangelo knew was that for all the finery Florence and Rome in the Renaissance could display to the world, it could not outshine the beauty he found in the human body. And considering the fact that his nude sculpture, ‘David’ is probably the single most popular object of any sort from that era, his statement has been proven true.
I was born to tell you – Today is day #4 of Naked vs Nude week at the NDD
I have a serious question, give your thoughts on it. Where and when did the emotion of shame come into the picture for humans and nudity? Why was it shame that Adam and Eve were said to have felt and not anger or fear or happiness or guilt or any of a million other feelings. Why was it shame?
__________________________
Drawing and question by Marty Coleman, who is only ashamed of his flabby pot belly. (why is that?)
It would be a bare-ass lie if I didn’t admit it’s day #2 of Naked vs Nude Week at the NDD.
If all the pretenses, lies, masks, decorations, and shiny things of your life were stripped away would you be found to have been swimming naked? Obviously this is a metaphor. It’s not about swimming naked, which is fine and dandy if that’s what you want to do and you don’t scare small children and pelicans. What it is about is whether or not you have substance when your money, your track record, your resume is stripped away.
Since the quote is by Warren Buffett perhaps a financial example is in order. Bernie Madoff had all the bling life could bring. He had the home, reputation, cars, status, resume, business success, wealth and more. But what he did not have was a good and true foundation in character underneath it all. That is the ‘naked’ this quote is really talking about. When it all goes south, what remains?
By the way, in regards to our series title, ‘Naked vs Nude’, imagine this quote using the word nude instead of naked. Wouldn’t quite work, would it.
