Princess Diana in THE QUEEN

[My entry in the Supporting Actress Blog-a-Thon hosted by the divine StinkyLulu.]

No, I'm almost serious here. When I looked back over the best performances by actresses in supporting roles in the past year, I found myself drawing a blank. There are two main reasons for this:

1. I live in southeastern Virginia. We can't have nice things here, and that often includes films that don't involve explosions or Adam Sandler. Almost half of the films with critical buzz haven't even opened here yet, or they played at the one artsy theater in the region for a few days. I sometimes wonder if this area is so jacked up because Pat Robertson is headquartered here, or if he decided to base his operation here because it's such a jacked-up area. We may never know.

2. I am an asshole. I have ridiculously high criteria, considering that I haven't seen (or, in many cases, had the chance to see) quite a few of the films that have generated so much supporting-actress buzz. So even though there were quite a few good and great actresses in supporting roles this year, I can't quite bring myself to bestow the "best" accolade on them. Let's look at a few.

Jennifer Hudson in DREAMGIRLS: Oh, this is the major one. This is the performance that is sure to win the Globe, the Oscar, etc. I just have one problem with that: this is not an acting performance. All the emotional action takes place in the songs, and don't get me wrong, Jennifer Hudson knocks those songs straight out of the park. But it's not acting, it's interpreting a song. They're two different things. Hell, I'd say Anika Noni Rose did a much better job of acting than anyone in that film not named Eddie Murphy. I hope she gets some buzz from this movie; she was fantastic.

Emily Blunt in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA: Another critical-darling performance. My problem with this one isn't actually a problem with Blunt's performance (I told you I was an asshole). My problem is that the character of Emily is a comic device. There's no depth there; all Blunt had to do was portray a caricature. And she did a great job of it, no mistake. She looked like she was having a great time doing it, too. But... I just don't see this as a Best Supporting Performance.

Angelina Jolie in THE GOOD SHEPHERD: This is a hard one for me, because I am the biggest Angelina Jolie fangirl in the universe. I love that woman, and she can do no wrong in my eyes. And, really, she doesn't do anything wrong here. But the character of Margaret is such a cipher that I can't get onboard the Jolie Oscar train (and that pains me greatly). I saw Jolie doing her best to find some sort of depth or meaning to that character, but there's simply none in the script to be had.

Julianne Moore in CHILDREN OF MEN: This will likely be a hard one for Nathaniel, because although Moore is her usual awesome self, she's barely in the film. It would be a total Judi Dench Oscar, and we all know that isn't right. Still, she and Clive Owen have a great scene on a bus together. They say hello, chat a moment, he makes one comment and BAM! years of pain and fury come right out ('cause they were never that far from the surface for either of them). Great work, but I just can't consider it, 'cause she just doesn't log enough screen time.

Abigail Breslin in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE: I'm not nominating Breslin, sorry to say, simply because I can't remember anything remarkable about her performance. In a way, it means she did very well, because usually child actors make me want to oil my chainsaw, so I remember them in the worst possible way. I'd say it was a solid performance with some really nice work in the diner ice cream scene. Still, I can't move it into the "best" category.

Jennifer Connelly in BLOOD DIAMOND: On the one hand, it was really lovely to see Jennifer Connelly smile. I hadn't seen that on film in a long, long time. It was great to see her be light and charming for an impressive amount of a very dire film. (A film I really liked, for the record.) But her character, unfortunately, has no real depth of her own -- is anybody noticing a theme here? Maddy Bowen has no backstory, no history, nothing to make her anything more than a plot device. She's mostly there for plot exposition and to help reveal other characters' personalities. Again, this is no fault of Connelly's, but it still puts her out of the running for me.

Vera Farmiga in THE DEPARTED: It was kind of funny to see the "For Your Consideration" ads for this movie, with half a dozen dudes listed for supporting actor and exactly one woman -- practically the only woman in the cast. Farmiga does a great job with what little she has to work with: a woman who becomes a pawn between the two male forces in her life and is treated like a pawn by the screenwriters. I'm a fan of Farmiga's and I'm glad she was able to work on such a high-profile project. I hope she'll find a role worthy of her someday soon.

You'll note that BABEL, BOBBY, VOLVER, NOTES ON A SCANDAL and THE GOOD GERMAN are all absent from the list. That's because they either haven't opened here yet, or, in the case of BABEL, played for one week and abruptly closed. That's the only reason for the Cate Blanchett shut-out; I just haven't had a chance to see any of her work this year. (Arrrrrgggggh...)

So those are the performances that I think will probably get nominated by the main organizations, along with reasons I just can't get behind them. I racked my brains, trying to think of any other supporting actresses I could... um, support. And I came up with a couple.

Diane Lane in HOLLYWOODLAND: Of course she's good. She's Diane Freaking Lane. And her character,  Toni Mannix, definitely has some depth, given to her both by Lane's incredible way of hinting at subtext and by the script itself. As she interacts with George Reeves, she's coquettish, jaded, hopeful, generous, frightened, bitter, furious -- it's a great performance, and I'm almost positive it's going to be overlooked this awards season.

Mia Kirshner in THE BLACK DAHLIA: Now, here I'm breaking my own "Judi Dench Oscar" rule, recommending a performance that probably logs less than 5 minutes of screen time. But Kirshner is just freaking hypnotic in her few scenes. The movie itself was uneven, and work like Kirshner's was overshadowed by the stench of Hilary Swank's campy performance. But during the few times we see Kirshner as Elizabeth Short, there's a sense of actual tragedy to it, of genuine loss.

And just so I keep my promise to StinkyLulu...
Princess Diana in THE QUEEN: Going into the film, I was unsure of how well Diana would be able to convey the reality of a modern princess on the big screen, but I came out impressed by her very spare, unaffected performance. Diana is a pivotal character in the film; she shapes the lives of those around her and there simply wouldn't be a movie without her influence. We never see her interact with the other characters, but that's such a clear stylistic choice by director Stephen Frears that I withdraw my usual demands for scenes involving dialogue. This is a virtuoso performance by a total unknown, so I can't help but wonder if perhaps Diana will be the "wild card" Oscar nominee this year. What do you think she'll wear?

Comments

[Craig Hickman]

What a clever post. You're a great asshole.

I've seen four performances on your list.

On Emily Blunt and Jennifer Connelly we mostly agree, except that I'd go a step further and say Connelly is woeful in Blood Diamond, a movie I couldn't grade higher than a C (and the only movie I've yet to review from 2006... shows how thrilled I was about the year's crop!)

Emily Blunt had fun in that role, but yes, it was a cartoon, and I gave up on those years ago.

Angelina always lights up the screen. But I think she painfully miscast in this role. And the look on her face throughout much of the film told me as much.

And Jennifer Hudson. Interpeting a song is acting, m'dear. But even if you don't believe that it is, the official categories tend to read something like "Best Performance by a Actress in a Supporting Role." A performance in a film is a performance in a film. Did Joel Gray doing any "acting" in "Cabaret"? According to you, none at all. But the performance was great and he repeated his Tony with an Oscar. Jennifer's performance (call it whatever you want) is the shizzit of the year and it ought to win all that it has and will. And I call it acting, you call it it interpreting a song. I say tomato, you say tomahto.

Let's call the whole thing off.

[redtown]

The one character not directly presented in "The Queen" is that of Diana herself.

Prince Charles tells his mother, "The Diana we knew was very different than the Diana idolized by the public", but this truth is never developed in the film.  I'll mention it here.

While the "people's princess" remains the icon of superficial popular culture, the Royals knew a very different, darker character behind the facades of glamour and pseudo-compassion.

Both Diana and her brother, Charles Spencer, suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder caused by their mother's abandoning them as young children.  A google search reveals that Diana is considered a case study in BPD by mental health professionals.

For Charles Spencer, BPD meant insatiable sexual promiscuity (his wife was divorcing him at the time of Diana's death). For Diana, BPD meant intense insecurity and insatiable need for attention and affection which even the best husband could never fulfill. 

Clinically, it's clear that the Royal family did not cause her "problems". Rather, Diana brought her multiple issues into the marriage, and the Royal family was hapless to deal with them.

Her illness, untreated, sowed the seeds of her fast and unstable lifestyle, and sadly, her tragic fate.

Thus the Queen's reactions to Diana's death surely covered a range of ambivalent feelings, and was not just a cold insistence on protocol, as suggested by the film.

[stinkylulu]

(Wow. Look what happens when you put "Princess Diana" in a title...)

Thanks for an excellent, tart serving of actress appreciation.

I tend to appreciate Blunt's performance a little more than you. (See my riff @ http://stinkylulu.blogspot.com/2006/07/emily-blunt-in-devil-wears-prada.html). I see surprising shading inside the scripts bold cartoon lines. But hey. And I too think JHud's great in the songs where she sings lead and adequate-to-bad everywhere else. (BTW - Joel Grey's entire role was in song, which is a little different.)

Thanks for joining the fun...

[Craig Hickman]

Adequate to bad everywhere else?

Interesting.

We'll agree to disagree.

A "little different" yes, but not all that much.

He still won the Oscar for a role with no "acting" in it, if one takes the definition suggested here at face value.

[SamuraiFrog]

Excellent. I like the harsh judgments on each and every one; I wish that there was more harsh scrutiny like this, instead of the Most Popular awards we get now.

[Lucas]

OMG!! All the Helen Mirren over-love has made a bit annoyed about The Queen, even before actually watching it [you live in southeastern Virginia, dear, but I live in Brasil... so my theatres here beat yours asses good... hehehe]. But your post made me laugh so much that I'll see The Queen with gentle eyes for the sake of our lovely princess Diana. Your bitchiness is adorable!!

[Adam K.]

Wow, you really are an asshole. It's beautiful.

I disagree about both Breslin and Blunt, though. Blunt is elevating her material, and Breslin is just priceless for the whole running time.

Semi-agree on JHud. Yes, interpreting a song is acting (I don't suggest you use your opinion as a conversation starter with musical theatre actors), but the non-singing acting by JHud was not quite as great as the singing. Not bad, but just... not really award-worthy either.

[Cath]

Okay, so I've been thinking overnight about the acting vs. interpreting a song thing, and my conclusion is this: interpreting a song is a *form* of acting, but a distant, easier form. It's acting with a booster seat.

The music that surrounds the singer, as well as the music the singer is producing, provides a crapload of emotion that is simply unavailable for regular acting. Also, by taking the performer and the scene outside the realm of everyday life, the music allows a much bigger range of emotion *and motion* -- a gesture that works perfectly to punctuate a song would look bizarre accompanying a spoken statement.

That's not to say that interpreting a song and acting can't coexist. In Dreamgirls, there's just such a moment, as Anika Noni Rose sings "Patience" with Eddie Murphy. Her face clearly shows her growing confidence in herself as a performer, an artist and a person. That's acting -- but it has nothing to do with the words she's singing or the way she's interpreting the song. It's just subtext, which is what actors do. (Then again, the Effie character doesn't have much in the way of subtext.)

The Joel Grey Oscar argument doesn't really hold water to me; there's a bunch of Oscars I'd like to see returned, so I don't count winning one as automatic validation of a performer, a movie or a thesis.

[huntergrayson]

I think y'all mean "adequite."

And I am terrified that GNC and I have mindmelded into the SAME PERSON.

Film trivia: the voice of "the director" in Mia's audition scenes is DePalma himself. Great, cruel joke.

[Catherine Cantieri]

Over at Cinemarati (www.cinemarati.org), we're having a pretty good discussion on the topic of acting and interpreting a song. Gabriel of Modern Fabulousity, who's directed some musicals in his time, is taking me to school.

[RC of strangeculture]

This post is hillarious as is your selection! Hillarious!!