Keeping pace with Hollywoods perpetual awards horserace.
Save this article to read it later.
Find this story in your accountsSaved for Latersection.
Though last weekendsCritics Choice Awardsincluded a few unexpected wins, one category saw zero suspense.
Namely:Isnt Culkin winning all these awards basically for playing himself?
This question cuts to the very heart of the acting matter: character or self-portrait?
acting teacher Anthony Abeson told me.
Its a paradox that continues to fascinate me.
The best performances synthesize these outlooks, he said.
There is no Romeo without the actor playing him.
But at the same time, there cant be just a self-portrait of the actor.
I cannotnotstart with me, because who the hell else is going to play Romeo?
But I have an honor and an obligation to not end with me.
Its a display of immense personal magnetism.
Are there some similarities?
What comes off as tripping people up is that Culkins voice and mannerisms remain unchanged from role to role.
(He calls itblagging, British slang that means something similar to fast talk.)
Key to this is a sense of offhandedness: I dont force it.
But its also possible that Oscars history has skewed peoples barometers a bit.
If theres one thing we know about the Academy, its that its voters love a transformation.
Its not better acting because its splashy or huge, Knickerbocker said.
He compared Culkins performance to Robert Duvalls in 1983sTender Mercies.
Both are subtle performances where the acting is invisible.
I dont think Kieran should be faulted because this performance is more close to home.
The only question is does it honor the script?
I would argue that it does.
Through Culkins performance, the audience feels that same complicated mix.
Hes just a charismatic, super-tragic, super-alive, super-searching, deep fellow, Knickerbocker said.
I really cant imagine anyone else playing the part as well.
In a way, they were giving him a gift, he said.
Theyre saying, Your self-portraits good, but we expect a little more from you.
Its kind of nice how sometimes the public can stimulate the development of the artist.
Why Did Pundits UnderestimateAnora?
For members of TeamAnora, last Saturday could have beenthe greatest day of their lives.
Id caution against thinking the Best Picture race is done and dusted.
(Remember:La La Landand1917won the same pair of trophies.)
Its a warm, funny movie with plenty of heart.
It has an underdog feistiness that the new Academy tends to favor.
But these are all factors that have been there all along.
So why did so many Oscar-watchers discount them in the seasons closing stretch?
Stay close to me as I shine a light on why pundits hesitated to put a ring onAnora.
It Blanked at the Golden Globes.
Its Less Explicitly Political.
(Never mind whatmany actual trans peoplethought.
However, its campaign emphasized that element less than the films twisted love story.
Even Academy members who lovedAnoratold me they had a hard time seeing it as a Best Picture winner.
WhileAnorahas definite emotional appeal, its not uplifting in the same way.
It Was the Early Front-runner.
As other contenders arrived on the scene, pundits got restless and their eyes started to wander.
WasntEmilia Perezflirting with them in the elevator?
Suddenly, theyre seeing her in a whole new light.
