Oscars Countdown 2014 - American Hustle

Ensign Lestat's Oscars Countdown, 25/01/2014

Well, it had to be done, and I am glad to say mission accomplished. I sat and made it through 'American Hustle'. This was, again, not a film I would have normally watched, because hysterical dolled up women and mumbling, supposedly mysterious, uglified men, don't make for the kind of cinema I like (as is obvious from my previous posts which usually sing the praises of fluffy superhero films, which have dolled up males). That is just me. As much as I'd like to claim to be a film aficionado, at the end of the day, movies will always be, primarily, a source of entertainment for me.

However, superhero films are unlikely to get nominated by the Academy, unless they're seminal performances like that of the late Heath Ledger in 'The Dark Knight'. Everyone will have an opinion, some were for, others were against, his win, it is the way of the world. We cannot agree on anything - perhaps that's the best thing about being human.

'American Hustle'

Nominations - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Actor (Christian Bale), Best Actress (Amy Adams), Best Supporting Actor (Bradley Cooper), Best Supporting Actress (Jennifer Lawrence), Best Costume Design, Best Editing, Best Production Design
Pseudo-sociological theories aside, 'AH' appeared to be a stylistic tale of a con, featuring a rather vile-looking Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) and his henchman Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams). Only when I saw the film did I realise that... Okay, wait, there will be spoilers here, so don't look any further if you intend to watch this film.

Turns out, in the film Jennifer Lawrence plays Irving's super-young wife Rosalyn. That was a terrible shock for me - she just appears way too young to play such a character, even though her character is supposed to be in her early twenties. More of that later.

This story is that of the conman Irving who enlists the intelligent Sydney to help his business. They're in the middle of an affair, which is only occasionally inconvenienced by his dysfunctional wife. Things are on the up when they're busted by FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). They're about to break when Richie gives them a new lease of life, work for the cops to catch a corrupt politician in the act of taking bribes. This politician is Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner).

Unfortunately, Richie is overeager and ruins their initial attempts to catch Polito red-handed. Irving saves the day and develops a rapport with him. The deal goes sideways from this moment on. Richie tries to get a foot in, because without him they have no proof of the bribe-taking, Sydney gets put on the back-burner because Irving is taking Rosalyn to meet the Politos and Irving begins to develop a heart.

Eventually, all of it is wrapped up, and the bad guys end up living happily ever after and a bunch of politicians end up in jail instead. This be our film.

The film is stylistic and embodies the period it is set in - the 70s, the disco era, the era of depression, of excess. The costumes seem correct (plunging necklines aside), the soundtrack is brilliant (I didn't hear Danny Elfman's music, but I heard the fabulous songs which appeared at the best moments, and were, unfortunately, the most memorable aspects of the film). The con is on, and there are a few tense moments thrown in to get your heart racing.

But this film is uneven. The editing is poor, with characters jumping from place to place (I understand that a lot of scenes were left out, which may explain the jarring cuts). There are momentary scenes that make no sense - Adams' scream-laughing, Cooper cry-screaming - they're really bizarre. The occasional voice-over is exceptionally annoying. I am not a fan of voice-over narratives, and in this film, it seems like a tac-on. No, really, it does. Our three protagonists all have a go at it, which detracts from the story-telling, because the backstory should have been worked into the narrative, instead of being told to us. Perhaps this was part of the deleted scenes. In which case, its editing nomination seems bizarre.

The film doesn't come across as accomplished at all. Apparently the dialogue and interactions were improvised, which makes me wonder how it qualifies for a screenplay nomination, if a lot of it was made up by, not the writers, but by the actors (I don't know this for sure).

It's got nominations in the four acting categories. I will say this again, I feel Cooper's nom robbed Daniel Brühl of a much more deserved one. But, if a nom had to be given to anyone from this film for this category, it should have gone to Jeremy Renner, who at least puts on a believable performance. Cooper plays Cooper, with additional histrionics. I'm sorry, but he was either normal or over-the-top. And he was always himself.

I think Renner lost out because his character was poorly drawn. The FBI are trying to bring down Carmine, but at no point in the film does Carmine come across as intentionally corrupt. In fact, he only takes bribes on the behest of Irving and Richie, and his fate is particularly uncomfortable to swallow due to this. But he was great in his role and really made his character sympathetic (though that was probably not the intention).

I am very disappointed with Jennfier Lawrence's nomination. I just don't know why people are so taken with her. Her character may be aggravating, but her overacting is even more so. She comes across as too young and completely at sea about how her character would react. I know she has talent, but I haven't seen it yet. She has to learn the balance between a hysterical performance and being plain hysterical. I'm hoping she doesn't win.

I'm in two minds about Adams. Her accent is very uneven, and, I couldn't make out whether she was actually putting on an English accent or just occasionally slipping into it. Turns out she was putting on the accent all along, but it didn't come across. Is this her fault, or the director's? She was wasted in the third act, having nothing to do, and was sidelined in the main scenes. She drew me in, I believed her as the character, but... she didn't stand out. She is unlikely to win an award, as Cate Blanchett is a sure-shot winner. I don't know how good she was in 'Blue Jasmine', so I can't comment. I am really unsure about this nom. Should she get it? Maybe, maybe not.

Now I come to my favourite performance of the film and the only consistent aspect of it - Christian Bale's Irving was unlikeable but attempts to be redeemable (this is tenuous, at best). I am not going to side-step the fact that I do enjoy his acting, but I'm not biased when I say he is scarily good at what he does. I'm not talking about his transformation. We're used to these changes by him, and they wouldn't matter if he didn't do justice to the character's performance. He was a scene-stealer, and I was frustrated whenever he wasn't on screen. That mesmeric look on his face when first he saw Sydney is memorable, along with his heartbroken look as he watched Polito praise him and his potential contributions to Atlantic City. His interactions with Renner were unbelievable - they shared an on-screen rapport that belied a greater understanding of the characters' professional relationship. You were rooting for Irving to save Polito because you could see the visible change in him every time Polito talked to him. That final scene between the two of them was an amazing and emotionally-wrought moment. It finally made the film come alive, but it was a brief moment. That's it. I want Christian to win because he's fantastic, but I will reserve my judgement till I watch Chiwetel Ejiofor in '12 Years a Slave' (if I make it through that film).

I won't apologise for gushing over Bale's work, because it's actually worth it. He gives each of his characters his all, it's just his style.

I know this film's garnered a lot of momentum in the awards season, but it's a truly unfortunate effort. I am surprised by how poor it is. I really liked David O. Russell's 'The Fighter', but the little I saw of 'Silver Linings Playbook' is proof enough that the Academy is losing its mind and is just sticking with what and who they know. The film pauses at several moments to introduce what should be emotional elements of the character, but those scenes don't actually add to the character (for example, all of a sudden Irving is taking heart meds, but this doesn't add it his character nor does it enhance the fact that Sydney still has feelings for him, it's just a scene and has no substance).

Essentially, style over substance appears to be the key in this film. If that is why the film is nominated, then we have even more to worry about. A film where two dolled up and attractive female characters are fighting over the 'love' of an overly unattractive and unlikeable man (played by one of the most attractive male actors in Hollywood) appears to me to be a film pandering to a certain audience. Also, if IMDb forums are anything to go by, very few people actually saw Adams' and Lawrence's performances. Is this their or the director's fault? It shouldn't be, because they should be able to wear what they want (or what is appropriate for the storyline) and still be taken seriously and commended if they've done a good job. But society is such that I wonder now why the two women did get nominated. Okay, that may be a bit unfair, considering the wardrobe or lack of isn't always what gets women nominated (I'm just annoyed by the forums, I mean no harm, Academy).

This is my third log about a nominated film, and I have been relatively disappointed so far. This does not bode well for this season. I hope the rest live up to the hype. I really do.

Comments