An interesting essay over at Fandor.com comparing two stage adaptations being released this year, Carnage and A Dangerous Method (The Ides of March and War Horse are two other prominent stage productions to be brought to film this year). I agree with the writer who says that the trick in making Carnage is successful is choosing the right actors. Polanski, I think, did a marvelous job as director hemming in the story. At any rate, the subject of Keira Knightley in A Dangerous Method is brought up:
Knightley has taken a lot of undeserved flack for the extremity of her performance in the early scenes of A Dangerous Method, when her character is manically all-over-the-place. Her sexually unhinged Sabina often falls into a jutting mannerism with her chin when she’s really unsettled, a bold choice on Knightley’s part; it looks like she’s chosen an animal of some kind as a pattern for Sabina’s physical behavior, and she goes all-out with this choice. As someone with more than a passing acquaintance with the mentally disturbed, all I can say is that Knightley’s chin mannerism here is exactly the kind of protective physical thing that people who are clinically ill often cling to, and it is also exactly the kind of thing that actors shy away from when they are playing mentally disturbed characters because it is wildly unflattering.
Knightley has made no impression on me at all in her diaphanous British leading lady roles, but as Sabina she creates a formidably exciting female sexual id as this girl remarkably comes into her own, eventually becoming a gifted analyst. Part of the success of Knightley’s work here is the husky, accented voice she uses, the voice of a super-smart Russian Jewish woman whose every utterance is a challenge of some kind. Cronenberg might have protected Knightley more in her breakdown scene with Jung where Sabina confesses that she liked being hit by her father; he might have even played the whole scene from Jung’s seated-behind-her point-of-view, so that we only heard that voice of hers as her back convulsed. But he otherwise supports her performance throughout with his camera placement and cutting.
Sabina is the true lead of the movie: its conscience, its brain, its heart, and its tempting body. In the scenes where Jung spanks Sabina, she loves it when he is “ferocious” with her, for Sabina sees sex as destruction. Sex, of course, is never too arousing in a Cronenberg movie; he’s always too interested in bodily decay for that, the weirdness of skin, orifices and fluids, so that the strongest image in A Dangerous Method is a close shot of Sabina’s bloodstained dress after Jung has taken her virginity. Cronenberg lingers so long on this blood stain that we can see how wet it still is in the light, and it’s clear that Sabina sees the stain as crucial evidence for her own ideas about sexuality.
Keira Knightley is taking a major risk with her portrayal of Sabina in A Dangerous Method but in so doing she is illustrating a willingness to let go of the typecasting she’s slid right into: no one looks better in Jane Austen than Knightley – a heartstopping, Audrey Hepburn beauty whose “place” has been set from the first moment we saw that face. But here, she’s not playing that girl — like most actresses, and actors, who work with David Cronenberg, she’s opened the door to what lies beneath. It’s ironic, since the film itself is about a time in history when women weren’t allowed to think about, much less express, what they were feeling/hiding. This is what makes Knightley such a good choice to play Sabina — she is sort of living out in her career what the play is about. That’s why it’s interesting to see her set loose the straps and really go for it. She looks grotesque, indeed. Imagine, Keira Knightley looking grotesque. But if you’re a woman, raise your hand if your sick of women always having to look good and behave themselves?
Knightley’s willingness to let go in this film remind me of Kate Winslet in Jane Campion’s Holy Smoke, which I consider to be Winslet’s best. Only in Carnage, when she spews chunky vomit all over Jodie Foster’s art books, do we remember the Winslet in her early career, before she too began playing hemmed in, pretty leading ladies. It’s been a while since the Kate Winslet in Holy Smoke, Jude the Obscure and Heavenly Creatures revealed herself, but how nice to see her back, however briefly.
Melissa McCarthy is doing what no actress has done in quite a while: she’s taking the rules laid out for fat women in our society and upending them. This isn’t about “fat acceptance,” but about the notion that fat men can be funny and vulgar and sloppy on screen but women can’t. Women are supposed to hide their bodies and live in shame if they’re fat, so why on earth would they ever think of being funny? Even on Saturday Night Live going back to the 1970s and all of that cocaine to stay thin, women usually fare better in Hollywood by staying in their good and proper place. And yet, Melissa McCarthy, known to most of us as the affable best friend of Lorelei Gilmore on The Gilmore Girls says, in one movie and on one appearance on Saturday Night Live – manages to access not just a void where fat women rarely dare to tread, but also to say women are allowed to be gross on occasion, too. And not only are they still funny while doing so but they’re funny without the added caveat of being a woman.
Women in comedies are allowed to be funny if they’re also pretty, or, at the very least, be thin. This is not to launch into a tirade of health versus non-health or who’s a role model and who isn’t or who is going to die first and who isn’t – just to say that Melissa McCarthy wasn’t just the “funny fat girl.” She was one of the funniest characters on screen in any film, male or female.
What McCarthy did on Saturday Night Live this past Saturday was also beyond the realm of what we women are told we can and can’t do. Like her character in Bridesmaids, McCarthy made fun of the stereotype of the overtly sexual fat girl — yet somehow, though the rules of society tell us we should be disgusted by her, her charm won out in the end. In her characters, I think, she finds truth. It’s more funny to hear her talk about how painful her life in high school was, as she does near the end of Bridesmaids, than to see her say she can lift her leg all the way over her head (also funny).
Knightley and McCarthy found the truth in their characters, which is what motivates what they do physically but both of them engage their bodies in ways we just aren’t used to – and they couldn’t be more opposite in type.
Oscar voters, it’s been said, aren’t inclined towards comedy, which puts McCarthy at a slight disadvantage until you actually watch her performance. It’s funny, yes, but there’s depth to it. It’s every bit as new and unique as Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda and yet, because the Bridesmaids crew are mostly American and not British it is written off, just as every other comedy that samples in vulgarity usually is.
Knightley, additionally, it’s been said that — and something in me puckers when I hear this — it “might be too much for Oscar voters to handle.” That question always leads me to think, “who are these crybabies?” If enough American moviegoers can love Bridesmaids enough to push it over the $150 million mark, who are Academy voters to recoil in horror at something that goes beyond the boundaries of acceptable behavior?
The funny part is, Knightley’s performance truly grows in every scene after that first one. It’s set up to try to give us an idea of what it was like to have, what they called, hysteria back then before the “talking cure” was put in place. Women, so Mr. Cronenberg tells me, were revered as untouchable goddesses who weren’t really supposed to express themselves sexually — pregnancy was hidden away and upper class women were not expected to breastfeed – Cronenberg, it’s worth mentioning, makes use of all of that. Eventually, and on some women the frustration of the time, of not being able to name what was wrong with them, manifested itself in severe ticks and spasms. According to Cronenberg, as far as Knightley goes, and she goes far, they could have made it a lot more severe.
For me, that was one of the things about the movie that not only makes it good, but it ties it to other Cronenberg films – the physical and the sexual constantly doing battle.
Of the two women, who has the better chance at a nomination? Keira Knightley for lead, McCarthy for supporting, or both?
McCarthy is a good and funny….but this is not that special of a performance, or a movie.
Come on. It wasn’t even that shocking really. I just saw the film and after everything I had heard I was only shocked that it ultimately was just another chick flick.
McCarthy is a good and funny….but this is not that special of a performance, or a movie.
Come on. It wasn’t even that shocking really. I just saw the film and after everything I had heard I was only shocked that it ultimately was just another chick flick.
SPOILERS ALERT, people. For crying out loud.
SPOILERS ALERT, people. For crying out loud.
haqyunus & Mike – I totally agree about Kate Winslet. What is she supposed to do? Doing the free spirit thing all her life? I loved her 90s’s work and I love her 00s’s work. Precisely because they are different kind of greats. She has matured and she is still challenging herself like she always did. And yes, she acted her heart out in The Reader, she just did it with more subtlety.
Keira has the better chance at a nomination. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if she is ultimately pushed in supporting seeing how divisive her performance appears to be, to assure better that nod.
haqyunus & Mike – I totally agree about Kate Winslet. What is she supposed to do? Doing the free spirit thing all her life? I loved her 90s’s work and I love her 00s’s work. Precisely because they are different kind of greats. She has matured and she is still challenging herself like she always did. And yes, she acted her heart out in The Reader, she just did it with more subtlety.
Keira has the better chance at a nomination. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if she is ultimately pushed in supporting seeing how divisive her performance appears to be, to assure better that nod.
A fantastic interview with Keira Knightley by Andrew O’heir of Salon at http://entertainment.salon.com/2011/10/05/keira_knightley_talks_about_ freud_jung_cronenberg_and_spanking/singleton/
A fantastic interview with Keira Knightley by Andrew O’heir of Salon at http://entertainment.salon.com/2011/10/05/keira_knightley_talks_about_ freud_jung_cronenberg_and_spanking/singleton/
McCarthy is NOT getting in. First of all, the performance is cool and funny but nothing special at all. Secondly, there are way too many supporting performances coming in the next months that will dominate the awards talk. Kate Winslet (Carnage), Janet McTeer (Albert Nobbs), Vanessa Redgrave (Coriolanus), Judi Dench (My Week with Marilyn & J.Edgar), Naomi Watts (J.Edgar), Emily Watson (War Horse), Sandra Bullock (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close), Robin Wright (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), Shailene Woodley (The Descendants), Scarlett Johansson (We Bought A Zoo), Berenice Bejo (The Artist) and already possible nominees Octavia Spencer (The Help), Jessica Chastain (The Help & The Tree of Life) and Marion Cotillard (Midnight in Paris).
It’s going to be way too competitive and McCarthy doesn’t stand a chance. At all. She came out of the blue, everyone’s been talking about her funny but nothing great SNL show and she has suddenly become a lock for a nomination? Seriously? Yes she has receives some solid publicity and a nomination for a Golden Globe isn’t out of the question, but an Oscar nomination? No way.
Concerning Keira Knightley (A Dangerous Method), I think that she has an outside shot for a nomination in the Best Lead Actress category. One can argue that her performance is supporting, because, in a way, it is Jung’s story, but, having seen the film, I disagree. Knightley dominates the film with her performance and her character is not only the most interesting and fleshed out one, but also the central character of the film. So I consider her Fassbender’s co-lead. I think it’s her best performance to date, without a doubt.
McCarthy is NOT getting in. First of all, the performance is cool and funny but nothing special at all. Secondly, there are way too many supporting performances coming in the next months that will dominate the awards talk. Kate Winslet (Carnage), Janet McTeer (Albert Nobbs), Vanessa Redgrave (Coriolanus), Judi Dench (My Week with Marilyn & J.Edgar), Naomi Watts (J.Edgar), Emily Watson (War Horse), Sandra Bullock (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close), Robin Wright (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), Shailene Woodley (The Descendants), Scarlett Johansson (We Bought A Zoo), Berenice Bejo (The Artist) and already possible nominees Octavia Spencer (The Help), Jessica Chastain (The Help & The Tree of Life) and Marion Cotillard (Midnight in Paris).
It’s going to be way too competitive and McCarthy doesn’t stand a chance. At all. She came out of the blue, everyone’s been talking about her funny but nothing great SNL show and she has suddenly become a lock for a nomination? Seriously? Yes she has receives some solid publicity and a nomination for a Golden Globe isn’t out of the question, but an Oscar nomination? No way.
Concerning Keira Knightley (A Dangerous Method), I think that she has an outside shot for a nomination in the Best Lead Actress category. One can argue that her performance is supporting, because, in a way, it is Jung’s story, but, having seen the film, I disagree. Knightley dominates the film with her performance and her character is not only the most interesting and fleshed out one, but also the central character of the film. So I consider her Fassbender’s co-lead. I think it’s her best performance to date, without a doubt.
The studio have been very clear in pushing her as a co-lead (with Fassbender).
The studio have been very clear in pushing her as a co-lead (with Fassbender).
Melissa McCarthy all the way! Watching her in Gilmore Girls and then in Bridesmaids you truly get to see how brilliant her performance is.
Melissa McCarthy all the way! Watching her in Gilmore Girls and then in Bridesmaids you truly get to see how brilliant her performance is.
Nominating Keira for supporting actress would be in direct opposition to how the film portrays her character as a pioneer and woman of great importance who impacted psychoanalysis in many important ways. It would be again saying that Freud and Jung’s stories are more important than this woman that history has forgotten about. It is ridiculous that she is even being discussed as supporting. Dynamic character, dynamic performance, in a significant portion of the film, acted by one of the biggest international superstars = LEAD. To demote her is insulting to the character and the actress.
Nominating Keira for supporting actress would be in direct opposition to how the film portrays her character as a pioneer and woman of great importance who impacted psychoanalysis in many important ways. It would be again saying that Freud and Jung’s stories are more important than this woman that history has forgotten about. It is ridiculous that she is even being discussed as supporting. Dynamic character, dynamic performance, in a significant portion of the film, acted by one of the biggest international superstars = LEAD. To demote her is insulting to the character and the actress.
Kate Winslet is a terrific actress, the only problem I have with her is that she so clearly won for the wrong part in the wrong movie! Her turn in The Reader is definitely my LEAST favorite of hers, ever. But the again, you probably won’t find anyone on this godforsaken earth that dislikes The Reader with a vengeance like I do.
Kate Winslet is a terrific actress, the only problem I have with her is that she so clearly won for the wrong part in the wrong movie! Her turn in The Reader is definitely my LEAST favorite of hers, ever. But the again, you probably won’t find anyone on this godforsaken earth that dislikes The Reader with a vengeance like I do.
so Sasha, do you think Knightley can make it in, either lead or supporting? There have been some incredible reviews for her coming out of NYFF. Hopefully this time she will be at least a lock for the BAFTA
so Sasha, do you think Knightley can make it in, either lead or supporting? There have been some incredible reviews for her coming out of NYFF. Hopefully this time she will be at least a lock for the BAFTA
I don’t get the disrespect for Kate Winslet’s recent work. Little Children? Revolutionary Road? Mildred Freaking Pierce? And especially The Reader, where she did nothing like she’d ever done before and was astonishing.
I don’t get the disrespect for Kate Winslet’s recent work. Little Children? Revolutionary Road? Mildred Freaking Pierce? And especially The Reader, where she did nothing like she’d ever done before and was astonishing.
keira does have a better shot to get in for supporting. lead is just way too crowded this year
keira does have a better shot to get in for supporting. lead is just way too crowded this year
I have a question concerning category “confusion“. How does it actually occur? I have a feeling that when people wouldn’t speculate so much and instead would reserve their predictions on nominations after they have seen the actual performance, the studios would probably more often campaign for the actors in the right categories. Studios shape their awards strategies according to “buzz” which starts well before anybody has seen the performance, i.e. what they gather from the often baseless chatter. Sure, sometimes the category may really be kinda confusing, but rocket science it isn’t and only this way can be avoided that blunders like Hailee Steinfeld do not happen (how many people really thought that she was supporting? Whom did she support? Hell, Jeff Bridges was more of a supporting performer than Steinfeld). If Thelma Adams (who actually has seen the performance) speculates that KK has a better shot in supporting, what does that actually mean, and what’s the purpose of this? Speculations like this create only one thing – category fraud, and critics and bloggers should do what little they can to avoid it. Just go out and say in what category the performance IYO belongs to and leave it at that. Both critics and sites like AD should practice more of an “objective/subjective” approach – first establish the category for themselves and then going to the prediction phase, generating “buzz” for the actor in the right category and by doing so, influence, at least a little, the campaign.
rocket science it isn’t and only this way can be avoided that blunders like Hailee Steinfeld do not happen
Hailee Steinfeld wasn’t going to win the Oscar out from under Natalie Portman or Melissa Leo. Those two winners were pre-engraved by the first of December.
But had Hailee Steinfeld been thrust into the lead actress category, it’s doubtful she’d even have been nominated. Is that what we wanted? No nomination at all?
There’s no category confusion. Actors (who do the nominating) are not confused about these things.
I have a question concerning category “confusion“. How does it actually occur? I have a feeling that when people wouldn’t speculate so much and instead would reserve their predictions on nominations after they have seen the actual performance, the studios would probably more often campaign for the actors in the right categories. Studios shape their awards strategies according to “buzz” which starts well before anybody has seen the performance, i.e. what they gather from the often baseless chatter. Sure, sometimes the category may really be kinda confusing, but rocket science it isn’t and only this way can be avoided that blunders like Hailee Steinfeld do not happen (how many people really thought that she was supporting? Whom did she support? Hell, Jeff Bridges was more of a supporting performer than Steinfeld). If Thelma Adams (who actually has seen the performance) speculates that KK has a better shot in supporting, what does that actually mean, and what’s the purpose of this? Speculations like this create only one thing – category fraud, and critics and bloggers should do what little they can to avoid it. Just go out and say in what category the performance IYO belongs to and leave it at that. Both critics and sites like AD should practice more of an “objective/subjective” approach – first establish the category for themselves and then going to the prediction phase, generating “buzz” for the actor in the right category and by doing so, influence, at least a little, the campaign.
rocket science it isn’t and only this way can be avoided that blunders like Hailee Steinfeld do not happen
Hailee Steinfeld wasn’t going to win the Oscar out from under Natalie Portman or Melissa Leo. Those two winners were pre-engraved by the first of December.
But had Hailee Steinfeld been thrust into the lead actress category, it’s doubtful she’d even have been nominated. Is that what we wanted? No nomination at all?
There’s no category confusion. Actors (who do the nominating) are not confused about these things.
I would love to see both of them get nominated! I love Keira and I love Melissa!
I would love to see both of them get nominated! I love Keira and I love Melissa!
Ryan – I totally agree. I said not in the same ballpark. 🙂
Didn’t mean my reply to sound like an argument, Mark! I knew we were on the same page. I was only emphasizing.
I think we have to go all the way back to Madeline Kahn’s 2 consecutive supporting actress nominations in the ’70s to find a meaningful McCarthy parallel. (Those would be the precedents I’d cite to the Oscar Supreme Court.)
Ryan – I totally agree. I said not in the same ballpark. 🙂
Didn’t mean my reply to sound like an argument, Mark! I knew we were on the same page. I was only emphasizing.
I think we have to go all the way back to Madeline Kahn’s 2 consecutive supporting actress nominations in the ’70s to find a meaningful McCarthy parallel. (Those would be the precedents I’d cite to the Oscar Supreme Court.)
I def think Knightley’s best chance is in the supporting category. I talked to the very beautiful actress — OK, her chin is distinctive — at the Toronto International Film Festival. And she discussed the research she did for the role, and that the extremity of her behavior was derived from the woman’s own letters/writing. Here’s my piece for more from Keira on the subject: http://thelmadams.com/wordpress/?p=1524
I def think Knightley’s best chance is in the supporting category. I talked to the very beautiful actress — OK, her chin is distinctive — at the Toronto International Film Festival. And she discussed the research she did for the role, and that the extremity of her behavior was derived from the woman’s own letters/writing. Here’s my piece for more from Keira on the subject: http://thelmadams.com/wordpress/?p=1524
GOSH! Knightley looks like Anne Bancroft’s twin sister on this picture! I’ve rarely seen such uncanny resemblance.
GOSH! Knightley looks like Anne Bancroft’s twin sister on this picture! I’ve rarely seen such uncanny resemblance.
I am not commenting whether Winslet was better in Holy Smoke or Heavenly Creatures or not but she did reveal herself (physically and emotionally) and act her heart out in The Reader (again not commenting on whether the movie was good or not).
I am not commenting whether Winslet was better in Holy Smoke or Heavenly Creatures or not but she did reveal herself (physically and emotionally) and act her heart out in The Reader (again not commenting on whether the movie was good or not).
Melissa McCarthy deserves all the love she is getting. Literally made me laugh out loud in Bridesmaids and Snl. At the same time it seems it’s easier for the “fat chick” to be supported than the attractive female who is always dismissed as cold. Bridesmaids is the white dreamgirls where the more attractive lead is overlooked in favour of the big girl when both are pretty great. It’s the Diana Ross vs Aretha Franklin argument.
Melissa McCarthy deserves all the love she is getting. Literally made me laugh out loud in Bridesmaids and Snl. At the same time it seems it’s easier for the “fat chick” to be supported than the attractive female who is always dismissed as cold. Bridesmaids is the white dreamgirls where the more attractive lead is overlooked in favour of the big girl when both are pretty great. It’s the Diana Ross vs Aretha Franklin argument.
If Knightley is lead, I most likely won’t be predicting her. Too many veterans (Streep, Close), too many pretty faces (Olsen, Williams), and too many great performances (Davis, Swinton) that will probably get in over her. But what do I know at this point. Just a hunch.
I’d love to see McCarthy get in for Supporting. But I think her run probably ends with a GG win. I just think it is too obscene for Oscar. Is there any track record for a performance like that getting in? I wouldn’t say Tomei is in the same ballpark, subject matter wise…
Mark, Comparisons to MarisaTomei make no sense on any level. Tomei had a massive amount of screen time. She dominated the entire last half hour of the film. She was essentially lead actress in My Cousin Vinny. The movie would’ve been nothing without her.
If Knightley is lead, I most likely won’t be predicting her. Too many veterans (Streep, Close), too many pretty faces (Olsen, Williams), and too many great performances (Davis, Swinton) that will probably get in over her. But what do I know at this point. Just a hunch.
I’d love to see McCarthy get in for Supporting. But I think her run probably ends with a GG win. I just think it is too obscene for Oscar. Is there any track record for a performance like that getting in? I wouldn’t say Tomei is in the same ballpark, subject matter wise…
Mark, Comparisons to MarisaTomei make no sense on any level. Tomei had a massive amount of screen time. She dominated the entire last half hour of the film. She was essentially lead actress in My Cousin Vinny. The movie would’ve been nothing without her.
I think, if the buzz keeps up for McCarthy the way it has the past two weeks, she’s going to get nominated. It’s just too hard to miss when everyone is talking about you.
For Knightley, they’ve gotta cure her category confusion before any voters even think about whether she’s too much or not. Unfortunately, I think she’s going to accidentally miss out because voters won’t know where to put her.
I think, if the buzz keeps up for McCarthy the way it has the past two weeks, she’s going to get nominated. It’s just too hard to miss when everyone is talking about you.
For Knightley, they’ve gotta cure her category confusion before any voters even think about whether she’s too much or not. Unfortunately, I think she’s going to accidentally miss out because voters won’t know where to put her.
I can definitely see McCarthy pulling off a Tomei this year. Talented actor in comedic role manages, against all odds, to trump well-established heavyweights. Wouldn’t surprise me.
I can definitely see McCarthy pulling off a Tomei this year. Talented actor in comedic role manages, against all odds, to trump well-established heavyweights. Wouldn’t surprise me.