Amy Von Nostrand and John Carroll Lynch breathe life into 1955 Red Hook, Brooklyn.
Saturday night I saw a phenomenal production of Arthur Miller's "A View from the Bridge" at the Guthrie Theater. In addition to being blown away by the acting, set design, and direction (as is the case with every Guthrie production I see), I found myself wondering about the careers of the actors. Playing the lead role of Eddie Carmone was John Carroll Lynch, former company member at the Guthrie, now unofficially known as one of the most underrated character actors in Hollywood. Just last year Lynch was snubbed for Oscar consideration for his performance in Zodiac, which he then followed up with an outstanding performance in Things We Lost in the Fire. Look for him next in Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino and Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island. Incidentally, as I'm writing this I'm actually seeing him on TV in 1997's terrible Volcano.
Anyway, here's what I was thinking. What do actors like Lynch prefer - stage or screen? Does doing one make them better at the other? I wish I could have interviewed him; he seems like a personable guy. In fact, in one of the most bizarre incidents I've ever witnessed in a theater, Lynch came out of character to calmly tell an idiot in the audience, "Sir, you're going to have to be quiet while we're doing the play." Dead. Silence. He took a moment, backed up a couple of lines and reentered his character. If you know anything about Eddie Carmone, and you know anything about John Carroll Lynch, you can imagine how breathtaking that momentary transformation was, made even more incredible because Lynch was so superb in his role (his curtain call brought the capacity crowd of over 1,000 people to their feet in standing ovation).
So Lynch started his career in theater, like nearly all film actors. In fact, aside from child actors and the occasional casting call, it would be fair to say that every film actor began their career on a stage. What makes them leave, stay, return? Does it really just come down to paychecks? Years ago in New York I saw Mos Def and Jeffrey Wright in the two-character play, "Topdog/Underdog". To my knowledge, neither of them have returned to stage acting. Unfortunately, according to what I've seen, neither of them have had a film role nearly as impressive since that play. I fear the same may be true for the dozens of actors and actresses currently working on Broadway, including, for example, Peter Sarsgaard and Kristen Scott Thomas in "The Seagull". Are we possibly missing the best performances these and other actors have accomplished because we're only seeing them act on screen?
What do you think - have you seen any actors or actresses on stage at different times of their career, and do you have any opinions on where their talent was best on display? I'd be interested to hear other thoughts because the question will continue to sit with me whenever I see stage productions.
I liked Oliver Stone's W. because it was validating. Believe it or not, I don't have much of a problem with George W. Bush. Never really have for the last five or six years, since whenever I figured out that he is not the man with the plan, but the man with the microphone. No, Bush is not my problem - the people that have surrounded him are: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, and most of all, you - all of you.
So seeing Bush portrayed as a genuinely honest simpleton and not a calculating, conniving politician was a welcome sight. Far too many people are in the business of scapegoating while far too many of the people who are guilty, like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, have escaped unnoticed. With W., Oliver Stone doesn't necessarily try to take down anyone in particular, even Bush, but rather tries to demonstrate to us that the people directing this country have been doing so with discordant motives. George W. Bush wants to prove wrong his disapproving father George H.W. Bush. Dick Cheney wants to create an oil-fueled American empire. Condoleeza Rice wants to be accepted in her role. Karl Rove wants to influence the American public. Donald Rumsfeld wants to show off his new, futuristic military strategy. And Colin Powell, well he just wants to do the right thing.
Mix all of these motives in the same pot, let them simmer for a few years, and serve. Those of us who didn't recoil from our first taste of the result are now finally realizing that what we ate isn't sitting very well. Indeed, the American public is suffering from a bad case of political indigestion, and for many people, W., will seem like just the Pepto-Bismol they need. But if you ask me, I'm past the need for Pepto-Bismol; I don't want the indigestion to simply go away with a nasty or vindictive movie. I would rather find out who stepped away from the stove while this noxious stew was cooking (here's a hint - it was the American voting public) and make sure that it doesn't happen again.
This is why your expectations of W. will be the defining difference between your reaction to the film and mine. While it was a bit tamer than I expected, I never really though Oliver Stone would actually make a farcical, goofy satire about the sitting president. Stone doesn't make comedies. He wants to be taken seriously, and he wants to push buttons. In this case, perhaps, he wanted to influence an election or bring our attention back to Iraq (nearly half the film is about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East). Any way you look at it, there was little reason to think W. was going to be an outrageous affair, but I can understand the disappointment that it wasn't one. The way I see it, there's not much funny about what's been going on during the last seven years (I consider Bush's presidency really beginning with 9/11), which may explain why the laughs I experienced throughout this movie were so awkward. My first "ha" was genuine, but my second "ha" didn't feel right, because this bad joke isn't actually that much of a joke at all.
Which is not to say that W. doesn't have its moments of sharp comedy. On the contrary, the acting may be the most amusing and outright impressive that you'll see all year from an ensemble cast. As college-age Bush, present-day Bush, and every Bush in between, Josh Brolin (No Country for Old Men) really takes his title character to heart, imbuing the President with much more emotion and self-examination than we've seen from the real man's public persona. This isn't an award-worthy performance, but it's an admirable and amusing one, and it was better than I expected. The same unfortunately can't be said for Jeffrey Wright (The Invasion, a.k.a. The Worst Movie of 2007) as Colin Powell, who neither looks nor sounds anything like the former Secretary of State, even if he does demonstrate the same quiet demeanor.
Moving on, the rest of the cast is truly outstanding. Thandie Newton (Run Fatboy Run) dials in the performance of a lifetime as Condoleeza Rice, while fellow Brit Toby Jones (The Mist) nails Karl Rove right down to the smirking twinkle in his eye. Capably filling out the White House cast are Scott Glenn (The Bourne Ultimatum) as Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Dreyfuss (Poseidon) as Dick Cheney, and Rob Corddry (Harold & Kumar...Guantanamo Bay) as infamously annoying Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Completing the Bush clan are James Cromwell (Spider-Man 3) as George H.W., Elizabeth Banks (Meet Dave) as Laura, and Ellen Burstyn (The Fountain) as Barbara.
It's a remarkable cast from top to bottom, but as I already mentioned they're not given the task of hamming it up and winking at the camera. They play their roles straight and true, and the result resembles a "Saturday Night Live" sketch in which no jokes are actually written. Imagine Tina Fey as Sarah Palin, but instead of poking fun she just repeats the actual words of Sarah Palin and delivers them with a straight face. Maybe funny, but not quite as funny, right?
Aside from a handful of missed opportunities by screenwriter Stanley Weiser (who also co-wrote Stone's acclaimed Wall Street), W.'s other nagging problem is that the disjointed narrative stalls multiple times (no more so than when Bush has his religious reawakening) and is bookended by a baseball analogy that doesn't seem to have any important purpose. Maybe, like Spike Lee's recent Miracle at St. Anna, W. is just overly ambitious. It appears Stone wanted to make a historical film, a biopic, an indictment on the Iraq War planning, and a dramedy - all at once. There's a little something for everyone, but at the same time not enough to satisfy most people's expectations or desires.
If even half of this portrayal is true, riots are in order...
So W. isn't excellent, but the performances are entertaining and the content is enraging. Of course it's not a documentary, but enough of the facts are known that Stone doesn't really need to stretch the truth, and it doesn't really matter anyway. The fact is, Bush & Co. are going to be gone and never heard from again, and we're all left behind with the mess. W. doesn't offer answers and it doesn't offer comfort via comedy; it's just there to needle you about the reality of our situation. You may not leave having learned anything new, but I guarantee you'll chuckle the next time you see any of these figureheads on TV.
Grade:
Writing - 8
Acting - 10
Production - 8
Emotional Impact - 8
Music - 5
Social Significance - 5
Total: 44/50= 88% = B+
Forty years ago tomorrow, a courageous man was gunned down on a hotel balcony in Memphis, TN. Only 39 years old at the time of his assassination, he dared to dream about a future that seemed unfathomable to America at the time. Really - considering the context of the American culture around him in the 60's, does it register with you how forward-thinking he was? It would be like talking about moon colonies now - conceptually you can imagine it, but come on, not gonna happen, right? Granted, his dream hasn't been fully realized yet either, but we'll keep working at it. In the meantime, I have a dream of my own: a full-length, theatrical feature about this man's life and legacy.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was by all accounts enigmatic and extremely self-aware - even withdrawn at times. In other words, he is a layered character from which to develop a biography. As much as he's been celebrated as a martyr and hero, there have been those who've attempted posthumous character assassination as well, pegging him as an unfaithful husband and a political radical. Well, I've certainly revered him during my life for his positive work and bold spirit, but I'm not going to sit here and defend his flaws either, because he wasn't a saint and it doesn't really matter anyway. I've done (I think) some decent things in my years, but if you want to bring me down because I ran a stop sign last January, well I'm very sorry, but there's nothing I can do about that. Anyway, the point is that King is the kind of human (and that's all he was) that you don't meet everyday, and his life is worth another look regardless of what you think of him.
Are you wondering if there has really never been a movie about him? Well, there has - but a made-for-television biopic was produced about John Denver, too (no offense to John Denver fans). I'll admit that I haven't been able to get my hands on "King," the 1978 miniseries that apparently received positive reviews, nor have I seen HBO Films' Boycott from 2001. So yes, it's been done, and maybe those are great, but if Anna Nicole Smith has already had her day on the silver screen (Anna Nicole, coming soon to a theater near you), so should King.
It's not as if the issue has never come up before. Just last year, around the release of the completely underrated Talk to Me, Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post wrote a great piece, "Waiting for 'Action!'," about the overall lack of civil rights-era movies. She gives a nice review of what's been done and what's been proposed, but she only hints at countering the excuses put forth by studio executives: "Black-themed films don't play overseas. African American actors can't open movies. American filmgoers don't like dramas. Multi-character historical dramas are just too expensive." Obviously those are ridiculous reasons, but it still doesn't sound like anyone is stepping up to the plate with a King biopic in the near future.
How about this? I'll find the talent while someone else finds the funding, since that's where this will start and end. In fact, give me a free pass to the premiere and I'll organize a fundraiser, too.
Let's get to work.
When searching for the actor to play King, we have to consider several fundamental criteria. First, the person must not be too well known or already overexposed; we have to be able to see them as King and not as themselves. Secondly, they have to look somewhat like King, so as not to be a constant distraction. Lastly, they actually have to be able to act. Can't forget that. So, who could fully inhabit this man?
Casting Call:
(please excuse spacing issues)
Anthony Anderson - Recent credits include Transformers, The Departed, and Hustle & Flow. You laugh, but dude actually has acting chops, and he's not only good for comic relief. I've heard positive words about his roles in TV's "K-Ville" and "The Shield," though I can't speak from personal observations there. He seems like a nice guy, he might be able to pull it off, and he could use a career boost.
Terrence Howard - Best known in recent years for his hot period that included roles in Ray, Crash, and Hustle & Flow (for which he received a Best Actor Oscar nom), Howard is young and promising, despite his questionable choices in recent years. He actually played King's friend Ralph Abernathy in 2001's Boycott, and he seems like someone who would take the role of King seriously.
Ving Rhames - Yeah, it's a stretch to think Marsellus Wallace could translate to Martin Luther King, Jr., but Rhames has just enough gravitas to do real justice to a dramatic role. He seems to always play a sidekick or otherwise diminished character, but some part of me thinks he could ably handle one of King's rousing pulpit speeches. Eh...maybe. Like I said, it's a stretch.
Jeffrey Wright - After a notable debut in 1996's Basquiat, Wright recently reemerged in Broken Flowers, Syriana, and HBO's "Angels in America." He clearly has talent, but you won't see it on display in two horrifyingly terrible recent movies - 2007's The Invasion and 2006's Lady in the Water. Tragic. Oh yeah, he also won an AFI Award for his role in Boycott. His character? Martin Luther King, Jr.
Bernie Mac - That's right, Bernie Mac. All of his wild comedy aside, I saw just enough of his real acting talent in Bad Santa, Pride, and Spike Lee's Get on the Bus to think that he might be able to pull this off. It would take some real patience on the part of the viewer, but you never know how some actors will fit their part. Did you ever think the star of "The Jamie Foxx Show" would win an Oscar?
Mykelti Williamson - You know him as Bubba from Forrest Gump (and as Baby-O from Con Air - was that the same character?), but you've forgotten that he had impressive turns in Three Kings, Ali, The Assassination of Richard Nixon, and most recently, ATL. If this were a pool of some sort, he would be my sleeper pick.
Cuba Gooding, Jr. - I know. Since his Oscar win in 1996, he's either been blacklisted or he has the worst agent in Hollywood. You'll find his post-Jerry Maguire movies in the movie library at Guantanamo: Instinct, Snow Dogs, Rat Race, Boat Trip, Norbit, Daddy Day Camp - I'll stop. He finally landed a chance in American Gangster last year, but it was unfortunately a flashy, shallow role. Call me certifiably insane, but I still think he has potential.
Chiwetel Ejiofor - I consider his breakthrough Dirty Pretty Things, but he's really come on the scene since Kinky Boots in 2005, maybe Inside Man in 2006. Choose what you like, he's a deserving star on the rise. It's crazy that I've included Ejiofor on this list because I've criticized his poor American accent for years. Fortunately, King had a speaking inflection of his own that Ejiofor could probably pull off, and conveniently, he looks exactly like him.
There are others, of course, that I briefly considered: Will Smith, Martin Lawrence, Cedric the Entertainer, Wesley Snipes, Jamie Foxx, Omar Epps, Donald Faison, Andre Braugher, Eddie Murphy, Laurence Fishburne, Eric La Salle, Larenz Tate, and more, including others that don't look the part (Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker). Despite the popular vote, you can't consider Samuel L. Jackson, Denzel Washington, or Morgan Freeman. They wouldn't fit at all, they would never take the role, and Denzel's already been robbed once for Malcolm X.
But even after our casting decisions, how do you tell the story? After all, we're talking about one of the most complex public figures in history. Developing a filmable biography of King is not the easiest task Hollywood has faced. Potential screenwriters won't be considered at this time, but it will certainly be a massive project deserving of special attention.
Finally, what about directors? Not as much science here, but equally as important. I'll just throw out some names - Spike Lee (Malcolm X), Robert Zemeckis (Forrest Gump), James Mangold (Walk the Line), Oliver Stone (Nixon, JFK), Taylor Hackford (Ray), Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man), and Julian Schnabel (Basquiat, Before Night Falls, and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly). These are all currently working American directors who have, in my opinion, already proven they can handle a dramatic male character biography. I would also deliberately add African-American directors John Singleton (Boyz 'n the Hood, Rosewood) and Albert and Allen Hughes (Menace II Society, Dead Presidents) to the list, despite the fact that they've done hardly any work of significance in recent years.
So that's it. The hard work is done.
Actually, he did the hard work.
Now it's our turn.
