I’ve been blogging about the Oscars so long I often forget that most people out there don’t really know as much about the Academy’s recent history as I do. Part of knowing that history is, in effect, shutting down. Bit by bit, year by year, loss by loss, one learns – or tries to learn – to stop caring. Or as my site’s tagline used to say, “The trick is not minding.” One of the most curious things about Oscar season is how the cult of personality can sometimes overtake an Oscar season so that the win comes not from the most deserving but from the most likable at the moment – the Mr. Right Now instead of the Mr. Right. This year, there are many Mr. Rights, and Ian McKellen is among them. The trick will be for one of those Mr. Rights to also become a Mr. Right Now.
McKellen has been up for two Oscars – just two. I will say that his performance of Richard III is maybe the best thing I’ve ever seen an actor do – but most certainly the best thing I’ve ever seen an actor do doing Shakespeare. It was mind blowing. He did not, however, receive a nomination for it.
McKellen was the favorite to win for Gods and Monsters in 1998. Things were very different back then for out gay actors in Hollywood – or even gay subject matter at the Oscars – a barrier that would slowly break down in the coming decade. To date, no publicly out gay actor has won in Best Actor. But back then? Things were far more oppressive than they are now. Even still, Ian McKellen’s performance was extraordinary and everybody knew it. He was headed straight for a Best Actor win, having collected:
Los Angeles Film Critics
Kansas City Film Critics
The National Board of Review
He was up against two really strong performances – Nick Nolte in Affliction and Edward Norton in American History X, which split the New York and National Society Film Critics, not to mention Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan. It was such a weird year, though, because it was also the year Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan. Maybe that is how Roberto Benigni managed to swoop in and take the top prizes at SAG and at the Oscars for Life is Beautiful. It wasn’t that his performance was winning – it was that people liked seeing him win. They liked watching him climb all over the audience and make them laugh and cry with his gratitude. When something like that happens, you can’t predict it and you can’t control it.
It makes sense, though, because the other four performances were staggering and dramatic and unforgettable. The one that wasn’t like the others beat them all.
Many of us back then – despite our admiration for Nolte, Norton, and Hanks – were hoping Ian McKellen would win for Gods and Monsters not just for the performance alone but because there was something about it that felt revolutionary at the time. It was a groundbreaking work of cinema that came out of nowhere and really did, in its own subversive yet accessible way, break down barriers in the way we view gay characters in mainstream film.
Cut to – The Lord of the Rings juggernaut that seized the Oscar race for three consecutive years. Ian McKellen was once again brought powerfully into the collective consciousness with his performance as Gandalf. Surely this would at last be an easy win for a long overdue actor whose entire life had been devoted to the craft. He did win the SAG, a miracle unto itself, but when it came to the Oscars he lost to a performance that should have been a lead – Jim Broadbent in Iris. That’s a neat trick, getting a lead performance in the supporting category. It makes it incredibly hard to compete against.
Now McKellen is back with Mr. Holmes. While at first the Best Actor race seemed to be too crowded to even consider him in the running. Though he’s being predicted at various sites, he’s been considered a long shot. But the recent spate of public appearances to help promote the DVD release of Mr. Holmes seems to have uncorked something in the McKellen campaign — he suddenly has serious Oscar buzz and the potential to take the “gold watch” slot, as it’s been deemed.
Mr. Holmes reteams McKellen with Gods and Monsters director Bill Condon. He plays Sherlock Holmes in his last years as he bonds with a single mother and her child way out in the countryside. He solves one last mystery, this time involving a woman, her glove and long lost love. As usual the actor delivers one his best performances quietly, focusing purely on craft and internal combustion as opposed to outward bluster.
Perhaps most convincing of all is that McKellen is very much a force: not only an icon of the modern gay rights movement, he’s adapted quickly and gracefully to social media. In some ways, he has never been more popular than he is right now, beloved by all.
So where does that leave us with Best Actor? Given his recent appearances I personally am much more willing to take him seriously as a potential contender. It’s still a competitive year and there are still only five slots to fill. He’ll have to knock someone out of the top five:
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant
Johnny Depp, Black Mass
Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs
Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl
Matt Damon, The Martian
And slip past those hovering on the fringe:
Michael Caine, Youth
Will Smith, Concussion
Tom Hanks, Bridge of Spies
Steve Carell, The Big Short
That’s a tough crunch right there but it’s not as impossible as I used to think it was. It feels even probable at the moment because of McKellen’s overall appeal in the industry and mostly that he’s only been nominated once for lead actor. He’s way, way overdue.
Just a few of the appearances McKellen has been making of late to help promote the DVD release of Mr. Holmes:
– Governors Awards
– Sunday Brunch in his honor hosted by British Consul General, Kathy Bates & Laura Linney in the garden at the home of the Consul General
– Monday, a packed to the rafters BAFTA/LA q&a
– Tuesday, American Cinematheque tribute highlighted with a conversation between Guillermo Del Toro and McKellen, plus a screening of Mr. Holmes
– Wednesday, dinner in his honor hosted by Patrick Stewart and Elijah Wood at Chateau Marmont
– Thursday, a unique “Women I’ve Filmed With”, one-man show at the Fine Arts Theater
Either way, McKellen remains a vital part of the acting community who is doing his best work and by all accounts appears to be in the prime of his life.
I’d nom Milo Parker from that film…. the kid.
plays his character as a (late) middle aged man and as ninety year old man….. pre-WWI and post WWII.
I’d forgotten about “Mr Holmes” as I saw it some time ago – but yes, McKellen gives a stellar performance and must surely be a major awards contender. He is so interesting to watch. He makes every other character around him more believable and gives credibility to any situation. He deserves more recognition.
I can definitely see Sir Ian making the Best Actor cut since so few of the contenders are backing legit good movies. Now, ‘Mr. Holmes’ is a good film but no masterpiece itself, yet I’d still argue it’s been better received than Steve Jobs, Black Mass, Danish Girl and (by the early reviews) Concussion. So if it comes down to a personality/narrative contest, the beloved Sir Ian has the advantage of knocking out a few of those guys.
The more I think about it, the better it seems. Imagine on Oscar night if the Academy got every single other award wrong, but everyone watching sees Sir Ian McKellen finally win. Everyone would be so happy they’d forget about all the rest. Oh, I really think it’s a winning move for the Academy, who so often are seen as “out of touch” with moviegoers.
I would so much rather see McKellen here than Redmayne. The other frontrunners I can work with. But come on, give Sir Ian his due.
He was tweeting with the IMDb last night and although I’d taken MR. HOLMES out of the redbox, I hadn’t watched it yet. Watching the live tweet, I remarked again how friendly and normal he seems for a Knight of the British Empire and one of our best actors. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t love him. He transcends all genres and has done Broadway and TV all in this past year. So I thought to myself, ‘he could sneak this out’.
And then I watched it. I really loved it. The performance is there and it’s a great movie to boot. RICHARD III was actually the first thing I’d seen him in. Then APT PUPIL. I’d see SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION on video later. He’s had so many great performances, so he’s probably the most due of all the actors in contention this year and he’s probably worked with everybody. My choice for Best Actor this year has been Johnny Depp having not seen a lot of what’s coming. But if Sir Ian starts rolling, I can get behind that as well. As I was just going over his filmography there was a great one that I’m sure plenty of people missed called NEVERWAS. Check it out if you have time.
I just watched Iris for the first time a week ago. I was appalled Broadbent wasn’t campaigned as lead. He was very good in the role, a bit goofy at times but good. The Oscar? Truly should’ve gone to McKellan.
I love that movie to death and especially love Broadbent in it. (It also helps to know the work of the great Iris Murdoch and John Bayley.) Remember, that year Broadbent also played the entirely different Harry Zidler in the great MOULIN ROUGE! (A performance that deserves an Oscar win by any rationale.) So I feel like Broadbent won partly because it was an all-around awesome year for him.
Broadbent was very good in Iris and terrific in Moulin Rouge!
And yes, he’s a co-lead in Iris, but to some, so is McKellen in Lord of the Rings. But let’s not forget about Kingsley as well.
The thing is McKellen should have swept for Gods and Monsters. A great performance and a really underrated little gem of a movie. I believe its adapted screenplay was a result of many voters wanting to give it a win on Oscar night.
I don’t think Benigni was an “all-time low” or the worst Oscar winner ever. Life is Beautiful is not a masterpiece, but it is a nicely made movie and his performance in it is sweet, tender, and moving. Unfortunately, each of Hanks, Nolte, Norton and McKellen deserved it more that year, but Benigni was fine. I do think it is fair to say that he won because Oscar voters connected emotionally with the film and, as Sasha said, because “people liked seeing him win”, as opposed to them thinking he delivered a great performance.
He wasn’t even nominated in the British Independent film awards. If he gets in it will be a tribute to British charm on the campaign trail.
Glad to see that the commenters here agree on one thing: Benigni was an all-time low at the Oscars.
Sorry, but the “Women I’ve Filmed With” presentation was not exactly unique, because he did it first at the Mill Valley Film Festival last month–one of two extended conversations that went along with his MVFF award, an early part of the MR. HOLMES Oscar campaign. Remember that the 3rd highest concentration of Academy members is in the SF Bay Area, and he was an enormous hit.
http://deadline.com/2015/09/ian-mckellen-lifetime-achievement-oscar-campaign-1201548669/
https://vimeo.com/143203600
It is still surprising that Begnini beat out the other four, isn’t it?
I remember at the time that movie goers simply fell HEAD OVER HEALS GA-GA IN LOVE with “Life is Beautiful”. It was a truly original work – something nobody had ever seen before – a romance and a comedy set in a concentration camp. It still sounds ludicrous, but the film worked.
I don’t find Begnini’s performance underwhelming (as a lot of bloggers on this site apparently do), as I do think there is a strong poignancy and very moving relationship with Begnini and his wife and son in the film, and his undying love for them, and his commitment to keep his son safe. I don’t think it’s the worst Best Actor given, as I have found elements of his performance in the film to be really wonderful.
Having said all that, Ian McKellen gave the best male performance that year, and I was really hoping he’d win for Gods and Monsters.
One other thing about Mr. Holmes, not only do the director and actor reunite for this film after Gods and Monsters, the great Carter Burwell also did the score for both films, and his contribution helps the movie transcend into art.
I love the ending of Mr. Holmes. It moved me deeply. McKellen for the win.
Sasha, I too, feel Sir Ian’s performance in Richard III was one of the great WS performances on screen. His scenes with a rather unknown Annette Bening at the time were pure gold. After watching it a third time, this movie just gets better and better with repeated viewings.
How that dancing clown Roberto Begnini beat out Norton and McKellan i’ll never know. Anyways if the Academy nominates a geezer I hope they go McKellan and not Caine. I could see it happen.
Campaign or no campaign, out or closeted, gay or straight or whatever. So what! Ian McKellen’s performance is breathtaking and would be deserving in any year. I’ve been predicting him to win for a while now. If only he can get nominated… I know luck has as much to do with it as actual quality of performance, but I’m optimistic (But then again last year my money was on Jake Gyllenhaal. You lose some, you lose some)
P.S. Roberto Begnini is the most undeserving Best Actor winner. Ever. Maybe even the most undeserving ACTING winner (can’t think of a more undeserving actress offhand)
That’s easy. Sandra Bullock. Call Benigni’s performance whatever you like. Yes, it’s not Oscar-wothy but the very least I couldn’t take my eyes off him. There’s humanity to the performance. Bullock’s performance is a badly calculated soap opera.
Yes, the Blind Side was a badly calculated soap opera (and self-congratulatory and racist-lite), but Sandra Bullock wasn’t all that bad. How she won the Oscar over Meryl Streep or Carrey Mulligan, is among those mysteries the Oscars spew forth annually. I, too, couldn’t take my eyes off Benigni That was the problem. I’d’ve paid good money to un-see his cavorting through the concentration camps. Could Jerry Lewis’s concentration camp comedy be that much worse? Or different?