Best of 2012: My Favorite Performances

The Oscars have it all wrong. By trying to determine “the objective best” performances of the year, the same sorts of roles get nominated year after year and a lot of strong work gets overlooked. What follows are my favorite performances of 2012. Are they the best? I’m not sure I even know what that means. These are the performances that made bad movies decent and good movies better. These are the actors I was talking about with my friends as I left the theater. These are the ones I’m still thinking about.

I’ve listed them in alphabetical order, selecting one as my favorite of the year and one bonus prize for the best ensemble.

Josh Brolin – Men in Black 3

Doing his best Tommy Lee Jones impression, Josh Brolin as Agent K’s younger self was the highlight of the second, time-traveling sequel to Men in Black. He may even play the straight man to Will Smith even better than Jones did. Getting laughs with nothing more than a mean mug and a dry Southern drawl, Brolin made this thoroughly unnecessary movie a pleasant surprise.

Daniel Day-Lewis – Lincoln

At the heart of Steven Spielberg’s superb film is Daniel Day-Lewis’s portrayal of Abraham Lincoln. He disappears into the role as he always does but he doesn’t dominate the movie. The performance is low-key, painting the former president as a thoughtful, intellectual man. Of course, Lincoln is known as a great orator and Day-Lewis gets a few moments to shine in this capacity. But note also the quieter moments when he jokes with cabinet members or discusses with his wife the fate of their enlisted son. The performance is another in a line of great ones in the actor’s impressive career.

Andrew Garfield – The Amazing Spider-Man

There’s a moment in The Amazing Spider-Man when Andrew Garfield shakes his head, grinning, mouth agape, apparently speechless. I imagine I’d look much the same way were I lying in the arms of Emma Stone while she tended to my wounds. Garfield is thoroughly convincing as a teenager suddenly given super powers – a little cocky and a little clumsy but well intentioned. His Peter Parker is a charmer in a way Tobey Maguire never was in the role and his performance helped make The Amazing Spider-Man the most fun I had at the movies this summer. 

Salma Hayek – Savages

A wildly over-the-top Salma Hayek devours her role as a drug kingpin in Oliver Stone’s Savages. Cursing in two languages and wearing some fantastic wigs, she gives a movie that is already high off its own supply an added jolt of adrenaline.

Anne Hathaway – The Dark Knight Rises, Les Misérables

Yes, Anne Hathaway steals the show with her stellar rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream” in Les Misérables, but I enjoyed her turn as the sexy, wise-cracking seductress Selina Kyle (a.k.a. Catwoman) in The Dark Knight Rises even more. The movie, which very nearly collapses under the weight of its own seriousness, is actually a lot of fun whenever she’s on screen and if there’s one thing it could have used more of, it’s her.

Philip Seymour Hoffman / Joaquin Phoenix – The Master

Any interpretation of Paul Thomas Anderson’s maddening new film hinges on how you view the relationship between Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman) and Freddie Quell (Phoenix). Is their bond that of a father to his son? A teacher to his pupil? A scientist to a lab rat? All of the above? Each actor makes his part nuanced and complex. We can never pin these men down and this inability to fully understand their relationship is what makes the movie so compulsively fascinating.

Samuel L. Jackson – Django Unchained

In a film that mostly ignores the complexity of race relations in the Old South, Samuel L. Jackson fearlessly digs into some very tricky material as Stephen, the loyal servant of a cruel and violent plantation owner. He is frighteningly intense but, being a Tarantino veteran, Jackson is more than capable of navigating the sudden tonal shifts from drama to comedy and back. Stephen is a fascinating variation on the Uncle Tom archetype, muddying the waters of Tarantino’s overly simplistic morality and enlivening the movie’s last act.

Jennifer Lawrence – Silver Linings Playbook

A far cry from her solid-as-a-rock performance as Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games, Jennifer Lawrence shows off her range playing the romantic foil to a manic depressive Bradley Cooper. She is emotionally guarded and prone to mood swings but watch how her face shows you everything her character is thinking and hints at the sudden outbursts just before they happen.

Channing Tatum – 21 Jump Street

Channing Tatum is hilarious. Who knew? He has comedic timing to match his good looks and his presence here helps freshen up Jonah Hill’s fast-talking shtick in one of the year’s most unexpectedly funny movies.

My Favorite Performance: Martin Freeman – The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

If Peter Jackson’s first Hobbit movie wasn’t quite perfect, there was at least one aspect of it that was: Martin Freeman’s Bilbo Baggins. Freeman gets the part exactly right. His Bilbo is a homebody, curious about the outside world and with an impish streak in him, but mostly content to curl up by the fire with a good book. Whenever the movie threatens to get lost in a computer-generated frenzy, Freeman can be counted on to right the ship’s course. Though he is too often relegated to the sidelines in this first film, the next two parts of the trilogy would be wise to turn to Mr. Baggins more often.

Best Ensemble – Moonrise Kingdom

The cast Wes Anderson collects for his latest feature is an enviable one. Some of them play roles we’re familiar seeing them in. Bill Murray is as reliable as ever playing a sad sack and Frances McDormand is a joy to watch as his wife, a Type A personality who wears the pants in the family. But others play refreshingly against type. Ed Norton is a lot of fun as a scout leader who is still a boy at heart and Bruce Willis is touching as a lonely police officer. Add to that some fine supporting roles from Bob Balaban, Harvey Keitel, Jason Schwartzman and Tilda Swinton, not to mention some excellent young newcomers (including Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward as the eloping young lovers), and you have an excellent ensemble led by Wes Anderson, one of the best maestros around.

- Steve Avigliano, 2/23/13

REVIEW: Lincoln

Lincoln (2012): Dir. Steven Spielberg. Written by: Tony Kushner. Based on the book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathairn, Tommy Lee Jones, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, John Hawkes, Tim Blake Nelson and Lee Pace. Rated PG-13 (Bribery, slander, demagoguery. Politics as usual). Running time: 150 minutes.

4 stars (out of four)

The first great sigh of relief in Lincoln comes early in the film. The former president reclines in an armchair, his feet propped up, while he idly describes a dream to his wife. The sight is likely not the image of the famous leader most have in their minds. I suppose my mental image of Abraham Lincoln, culled from a sketch in some grade school textbook or another, is of him standing behind a podium, gesticulating forcefully as he gives a speech. (Fear not, there is plenty of that in this movie too.) Yet there is a hint of familiarity in seeing Lincoln in this relaxed state, speaking freely. He feels like a real person.

Coming into this movie, you may have your reservations. You may presume it has a certain amount of stuffiness that is reasonable to expect from a historical biography of Abraham Lincoln directed by Steven Spielberg (one of the few living directors who may end up getting his own biopic one day). But the air is soon cleared of most of that.

You may be relieved to find that Lincoln is not the story of a heroic figure, a demigod who ended the Civil War, freed the slaves and renewed the American Dream for millions. Lincoln instead tells the story of a man – the most unsavory kind of man too! a politician! – who worked hard to do all of the above long before the gloss of history transformed him into something greater than a man.

Abraham Lincoln, compassionately played here by Daniel Day-Lewis, is a sensitive man. He is intelligent, well read and well spoken. He has a gift for orating and bringing crowds of onlookers cheering to their feet. But his skills as a speaker are not limited to grand arenas where his voice rises in thrilling crescendos. He is just as capable performing for a smaller audience – and seems even to prefer it – quietly sharing amusing anecdotes with his cabinet, with soldiers, with whoever is there to listen.

He is humble but, being a man of great conviction, does not wear the power afforded him by his prestigious position lightly. He sees it as his responsibility and his sworn duty to fight for what he believes no matter how seemingly insurmountable the obstacles are that stand in his way.

And here I go hyperbolizing, no better than my old textbooks. Lincoln, however, offers something more interesting than blind hero worship.

This is a remarkably well-researched film, elegantly adapted by playwright Tony Kushner from the nonfiction book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Mr. Kushner’s script, marked by a persistent love of facts over melodramatic interpretations, will no doubt be adored by history buffs. But the film’s emphasis on the nuanced mechanisms of American politics serves a greater purpose. Lincoln depicts the president as a hard working politician who knew how to use the system to achieve his goals.

It is January 1865 and, two months after his reelection, Lincoln is in a position of considerable political power. The Civil War is winding down and his popularity in the Union ensures public support of just about any legislation he seeks to push through Congress. Against the better judgment of his cabinet, however, Lincoln sees a window of opportunity to fight for something riskier. Now is the time, he believes, to pass a thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, one that will abolish slavery.

The ambitiousness of this amendment is soon apparent when we meet the divided and bitterly partisan House of Representatives. The House chamber roils like the Colosseum as members of the Democratic opposition take to the floor for a series of vitriolic speeches condemning the amendment. Among the most vocal of them is Representative Fernando Wood (a fine Lee Pace), the de facto leader of the Democrats whose entertaining sermons paint Lincoln as a power-hungry tyrant who must be stopped at all costs.

Even Republicans in Lincoln’s own party are wary of fighting for the amendment now, when the end of the Civil War is so near. But if the Lincoln administration waits until after the War, the legality of the president’s Emancipation Proclamation, a temporary measure made possible by Lincoln’s war powers, may be called into question, and the fate of so many freed slaves would be uncertain.

So Lincoln must rely on unanimous support from Republicans in addition to flipping a few crucial votes of Democrats if he hopes pass the amendment. The fervent abolitionist and curmudgeonly old-timer (Tommy Lee Jones, who else?) Representative Thaddeus Stevens proves to be a useful ally. His sometimes crude and insult-laden tirades on the House floor help corral Republicans behind the cause.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State William Seward (David Strathairn) recruits a band of lobbyists (John Hawkes, Tim Blake Nelson and James Spader) to convert vulnerable Democrats by offering them cushy jobs in exchange for votes. Their attempts to do so, chronicled throughout the film in a series of farcical scenes, expose a much less romantic but no less important side to American politics. A vote procured through bribery is still a vote.

Though the nitty-gritty of the political process takes up the bulk of the film, Lincoln also reveals the president’s human side. Lincoln’s wife, Mary Todd (Sally Field), tormented by life in the White House, struggles to support her husband publicly though their marriage is in decline. Lincoln also tries to protect his son, Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), from the horrors of the War but the boy insists on enlisting, refusing to remain on the sidelines of history.

Captured in the sepia-tinged soft glow of Janusz Kamiński’s photography and accompanied by the strains of a typically powerful John Williams score, Lincoln has the look and feel of a film aiming for a level of prestige worthy of its subject. But the film’s excellence is not superficial. This beautifully crafted movie does not just recount history but pulls an absorbing story out of it and illuminates the past in vibrant, living detail. The final scenes drag on too long and give us more than we need but I'll forgive Mr. Spielberg a few grace notes following such a masterful symphony.

Anchored by a fully realized and wholly compelling performance, Lincoln presents not only a man who led according to the morals and convictions he held so deeply but a man who appreciated the imperfect system that allows an individual to fight for those morals. Watching the relentless feuding and mudslinging of the congressmen in this film, you may dismally conclude that though the contents of the debates have changed between 1865 and today, the tenor of Washington has not. But Lincoln is an ode to that messy and often frustrating democratic process and a tribute to one man who understood better than perhaps anyone how to achieve greatness with it.

- Steven Avigliano, 11/23/12

BEST OF THE DECADE - #5: There Will Be Blood

There Will Be Blood (2007): Written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, based on the novel, Oil! by Upton Sinclair. Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano. Rated R (some violence). Running time: 158 min.

**NOTE: This review freely discusses the ending of the film, so be forewarned of spoilers.

“I’m finished,” says Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) in the final line of There Will Be Blood, as he sits in a bowling alley beside a pool of blood from the recently bludgeoned Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). This strangely understated and ambiguous statement has a few layers of meaning. In the most literal sense, he is calling to his butler in the next room to announce that he has finished his meal and his conversation with Eli, who was shown in by the butler a few minutes earlier. In a more figurative sense, the line is more of a declaration of victory, having ended his longstanding rivalry with Eli by murdering him. In yet another sense, Plainview, living in his luxurious mansion, has finished his life’s goals and has lived out the American Dream. He has built a prosperous business from nothing, beat out his competition, made all the money he could want, and now he sits with nothing more to do.

The film is set at the turn of the 20^th century when such dreams of boundless potential were on the minds of so many pioneering Americans out West. California was an open frontier for business prospects, and railroads stretched across the country taking workers and businessmen to burgeoning towns to start their lives fresh. In the film’s first shot of the expansive California landscape, director Paul Thomas Anderson presents us with an idyllic view of a railroad track that extends out to the horizon, a beautiful visualization of the limitless possibilities offered by the open country. The camera rests for a moment with the tracks in the center of the frame, before panning to the right and following Plainview’s car as he drives through one of these developing Western towns. The camera moves down the track until Plainview’s car comes to a stop, centered in the frame. In one fluid shot, Anderson presents us with an image of the American Dream, and makes a visual association with Plainview by also placing him in the center of the frame. Later in the film, Anderson constructs a similar moment, showing an oil pipeline stretching into the horizon before panning over to Plainview and his son, once again centered in the frame.

Daniel Plainview does not simply represent the American Dream in the film; he is consumed by it. He lives for nothing else but to be the best. He despises his competitors in the oil industry and distrusts all who work for him. He refuses to yield to anyone, least of all Eli Sunday, a young preacher who invests in Plainview’s oil rig as a way of funding his church. Plainview answers to no man but himself, and Eli’s attempts to bring God into Plainview’s life only serve to antagonize him. Eli, like every other man on the Western Frontier, wants to capitalize on the opportunity to build something. In his case, he desires to build a church, establish a congregation and have them look up to him for guidance. For Plainview, Eli’s determination represents a threat to his own goals and he refuses to allow the young boy to gain control over his land. As Plainview’s ambitions turn to greed, he becomes obsessive and violent, revealing a madness beneath his businesslike demeanor.

This development in Plainview’s character, however, is hardly a surprise considering the film’s foreboding title. Anderson plays with our expectations by naming his film There Will Be Blood and by using a score by Johnny Greenwood that frequently sounds as if it was lifted from a horror film. Even the opening shots of beautiful Western landscapes become ominous when accompanied by Greenwood’s score. The title itself could be that of a horror film (in fact, Saw II used the phrase in its tagline two years prior). The title also makes reference to America’s history of violence in pursuit of oil, and makes an interesting contrast to the title of Upton Sinclair’s novel, Oil!, from which the film is adapted. Though the actual violence in the film is not as rampant as the title suggests, it becomes all the more shocking in its sparsity, and Anderson’s gradual pacing allows the tension to build and release at unexpected moments.

Much of the film, including its deliberate pacing and musical score, is reminiscent of the late Stanley Kubrick’s style. Anderson has never been shy about admitting his influences, most notably Robert Altman and Martin Scorsese, and has cited Kubrick as an influence on this film. In the opening fifteen minutes, Anderson has the patience to let wide-angle landscape shots establish a setting while scenes free of dialogue introduce the story, not unlike 2001’s “Dawn of Man” opening. The film is also a spiritual cousin to many of Kubrick’s films, sharing their bleak outlook on humanity.

However, Anderson includes enough mystery and strangeness in the film to make it his own. Several elements of the film go largely unexplained, such as the identity of Eli’s twin brother, Paul, who only appears once in the film to sell Plainview information about his family’s land. The two brothers might be separate individuals, but there are enough suspicious moments to suggest that Paul might be an invention of Eli’s to keep a clean conscious about selling his family’s property to an evil man. Other scenes, including Eli’s strange and passionate sermons, and Plainview’s now-infamous milkshake analogy, are as startling as they are funny, but Anderson pulls everything together with complete mastery into a bleak interpretation of America’s most treasured values – family, faith, and entrepreneurship.

Before the final, violent confrontation, Anderson presents us with an establishing shot of Plainview’s bowling alley, two parallel lanes centered in the frame, looking curiously reminiscent of the earlier railroad shot. In place of the horizon, however, is a wall. Plainview has reached the end of that supposedly infinite reach of possibilities, revealing there to be nothing more than death and self-isolation as he sits in the center of the frame once more. He has lived the American Dream from start to bloody finish.

- Steve Avigliano, 2/8/10