Behold A Bright Horse
I'm not understanding this Gurus o' Gold Dark Horse chart, which was updated yesterday. Where are the Bright Horses? Is Guru ringmaster David Poland telling us things are too vague and uncertain for Bright Horses to be named? The Gold Derby Buzzmeter crowd (to which I belong) had no problem naming their top-ranked Best Actor and Best Actress picks in their just-posted chart.
Richard Jenkins
I'll tell you who one of the Bright Horses is -- The Visitor's Richard Jenkins . His inhabiting of an emotionally tucked-under middle-aged academic who gradually blossoms through his relationship with a small family of immigrants is the crowning performance of his career. And yet the Gurus have him down as the leading Dark Horse. What the holy fuck does that mean? Jenkins is a gifted, charming and resourceful actor -- one of the most nimble and dependable artist-craftsmen in the business. And then The Visitor comes along and he hits it out the park, and that's a Dark thing?
I'll tell you what Jenkins' Darkness means. It means that the Gurus believe him to be a worthy outside-shotter because his campaign isn't being supported by Big Money (i.e., Overture, which doesn't have the pockets of the major distributors), and because the Bright Horse contenders (whom the Gurus don't name) are more deeply rooted in the industry's emotional terra firma -- Sean Penn, Clint Eastwood, Leonardo DiCaprio, Frank Langella -- or, in the case of The Wrestler's Mickey Rourke, because Jenkins isn't a contrite Comeback Kid looking for absolution.
It's wrong, wrong, wrong for Jenkins to be saddled with this classification. It's happened because of safe, tepid, pack-mentality thinking, and the age-old impulse to kowtow to economically and emotionally established celebrity club members. I pick my favorites this way also -- let's be honest -- but I've near once dreamt of downgrading Jenkins to Dark Horse status. It's unthinkable. His Visitor turn is too sublime, too full of feeling in a disciplined, carefully measured way.
Jenkins and Visitor costar Hiam Abass.
Every Best Actor lineup needs a less glamorous, lower-wattage, hard-working indie type to round things out -- that's Jenkins. Just as Frozen River's attractive and super-talented Melissa Leo needs to fill that slot among the Best Actress nominees.
My top seven choices for Best Actor picks are Jenkins, Rourke, Revolutionary Road's DiCaprio, Milk's Sean Penn, Che's Benicio del Toro, Frost/Nixon's Langella and W.'s Josh Brolin. I can't make it five yet. My heart won't permit it. Give me time.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on December 1, 2008 at 9:27 AM
comment #1
SlyOyster
says ...
The unfortunate part of Jenkin's performance, and ones of a similar caliber, is there's nothing flashy about it. Which is to say that in many ways a performance anchored in the mundane plausibility of everday is the most difficult to pull off and gauge come Oscar time. Jenkins certainly deserves some sort of recognition as does the terribly overlooked The Visitor
Posted by SlyOyster
at December 1, 2008 9:45 AM
comment #2
diesel
says ...
whatever happened to pitt?
Posted by diesel
at December 1, 2008 9:58 AM
comment #3
gruver1
says ...
Walking through a gentle and moving Mississippi-boat-ride CG life-in-reverse movie as a sensitive sponge-man is not the sort of thing that tends to result in Best Actor hossanahs and hallelujahs. There's no real arc to Pitt's performance except for the chapter-by-chapter reverse progression of his character's life. Not so much an arc as a long cruise. Jenkins' character has an unmistakable arc, a growth journey. You can see and feel who he is at the beginning, what he feels diminished by, what he wants, what he does to try to get something more, etc.
Posted by gruver1
at December 1, 2008 10:31 AM
comment #4
Kim Voynar
says ...
Jeff, I think you know that's not what Poland is saying at all. The previous week's charts were Best Pic, Best Actor and Actress, and Best Supporting Actor and Actress. The chart up now is Best Pic and Darkhorse picks. Next chart will be slightly different as well. The current chart was about giving the folks on the Gurus chart an opportunity to root for those candidates they feel aren't getting enough recognition, nothing more.
Posted by Kim Voynar
at December 1, 2008 11:39 AM
comment #5
gruver1
says ...
Wells to Voynar: Why the now-you-see-it, now-you-don't, peek-a-boo chart strategy? The Bright Horse candidates should be plainly up and visible and easily accessible at all times, and no funny business about having find the link to previous weeks. They should be easily and simply reachable by the dumbest person who ever surfed the web in the history of the planet.
Plus the charitable act of MCN allowing its Gurus to root for "those candidates they feel aren't getting enough recognition" is in itself an act that diminishes and in fact spotlights Jenkins' Guru-enforced dark-horse status, which is bullshit to begin with. Most of the Gurus are comfort-seeking Zeligs.
Posted by gruver1
at December 1, 2008 1:34 PM
comment #6
Kim Voynar
says ...
Jeff, I get your argument re Jenkins, who, I agree, deserves more accolades than he's getting (but so do Melissa Leo and Sally Hawkins, and Elsa Zylberstein, to name a few). My point is that with this statement...
"Is Guru ringmaster David Poland telling us things are too vague and uncertain for Bright Horses to be named? The Gold Derby Buzzmeter crowd (to which I belong) had no problem naming their top-ranked Best Actor and Best Actress picks in their just-posted chart."
... you are either being deliberately contentious or deliberately obtuse, and I think you're too smart for it to be the latter -- not to mention that you just wrote about the previous chart last week: http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/11/movie_gods_fume.php -- so you know perfectly well that David and MCN are certainly not "telling us" what you assert at all.
If you want to make an argument that Oscar charts should be strictly about pundits advocating for those candidates they actually believe should win, as opposed to predictions of what they think the Academy will do, then just say that, in a well-reasoned argument, without all these bitchy, circular arguments about why thus-and-such's chart has this-or-that film as a frontrunner. Or create such an Oscars chart yourself, that's about who should win and not who's likely to.
I'm not saying you don't have a valid point with regard to what the pundits should be using their voices for, but you keep making that argument in a negative way, by attacking in this passive-aggressive, slightly befuddled, "Gee, I don't understand this" way rather than in a positive way that says assertively, THIS is what I think Oscar charts should be about, so that's what I'm damn well going to do.
Jeepers. When you get in these bitchy modes, I feel like I'm dealing with Ferris Bueller's whiny-ass sister constantly complaining about what her brother DOES do, rather than taking charge and doing what she wants to do and not worrying about what Ferris does or doesn't get away with any more. Just do your thing, advocate your position, and stop with the silly attacking, for pity's sake. You are smarter than this. Use your voice as a force of good.
Posted by Kim Voynar
at December 1, 2008 2:30 PM
comment #7
TomW
says ...
He is the very definition of a dark horse! They are putting him there because its unlikely that he will be nominated.....it doesnt matter that he gave the best performance. They are talking about who they think WILL be nominated.
Posted by TomW
at December 2, 2008 9:46 AM
comment #8
janee
says ...
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of sql server high availability
Posted by janee
at May 19, 2011 2:33 AM