MovieChat Forums > Good (2009) Discussion > panning of understated performances

panning of understated performances

posted 15 years ago by Caranfiniel
57 replies | jump to latest

Here's something i genuinely don't understand - why are quieter, more understated movies so frequently shunned and "dissed" by the critics these days? Is it that difficult to sit through something that isn't loud, flashy, and cheesy? Do the critics need a side of Ritalin to go with their popcorn and Sprite? That's not to say anything against the occasional big blockbuster, but what's the matter with quiet sometimes?

I've not yet seen Good (not released in my town yet), but from all the major reviews i've read i'm getting the sense that this film doesn't shove anything in your face. And the critics don't seem to like that. The reviews for Valkyrie, however, are glowing... but i'm so sick of seeing commericals for that one i doubt i'll bother seeing the movie (then there's the fact that Tom Cruise is only a half-step above Keanu Reeves on the acting ladding).

Many of the better rated movies i've seen over the last few years are the absolute least of my favorites, especially the ones that don't have an ending but just STOP. Last year's Oscar favorites were full of those. Valley of Elah? Michael Clayton? Ending, anybody, please??? Recent movies like The Constant Gardener bored the tears out of me, and Babble could have been a good movie if the storylines weren't chopped up the way they were.

I'm starting to think the best measure of a good film is one that the critics disliked and i'm getting wary of anything that gets big reviews.

[–] lorilyn478 15 years ago

Caranfiniel I share your frustrations. As soon as I saw the trailer for Good I was very intrigued by it and I thought it looked like it would be a very good movie. I very much want to see it. I am surprised by the bad reviews and it isn't getting any promotion at all. I just hope I will be able to see it sometime.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lorilyn478 15 years ago

Yes I remember reading that. It's too bad this movie will suffer for it and not be widely seen.

[–] TrevorAclea 15 years ago

Because sometimes people use the word 'understated' when they really mean tedious and one-note. Certainly it's something Mortensen can suffer from with bad direction: with a strong director like Cronenberg or Jackson he can bring in a layered performance, but in something like Alatriste he just mumbles his way through every scene in exactly the same bored way, shedding no light on the character and slowing the film to a crawl. Other performers, like Clive Owen, simply cannot act at all but their fans use the 'understated' excuse because they fancy th em. It's not a matter of being loud or flashy, it's a matter of bringing the character to life, which can be done subtly enough - but too often some actors, left to their own devices, only seem to be giving a performance in their own head.

"Security - release the badgers."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TrevorAclea 15 years ago

The concensus both in Spain and elsewhere seems pretty much to have been that the film was terrible - one reason it's so hard to find was it wasn't given much of a release outside Spain (where his accent didn't exactly meet with universal approval - http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117931703.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 ). It's a film that plays to his weaknesses rather than his strengths (outlined in Emmanuel Levy's review - http://www.emanuellevy.com/search/details.cfm?id=4647), and a better director would have seen that. Mind you, a better director wouldn't have provided such a terrible script. The reviews on this site aren't exactly an overwhelming vote of confidence either.

You're also completely contradicting yourself: on one hand you acknowledge he worked closely with Cronenberg, and then claim that that doesn't sound like someone who needs to work with a director to get the best out of him. Mortensen can be excellent, but he's always been erratic.

"Security - release the badgers."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TrevorAclea 15 years ago

Which he didn't win. And Alatriste (which, unfortunately, I have seen) is a classic example of a director and an actor giving each other - and the audience - nothing. It's a single note performance, which is a pretty limited and desperately dull take on a character in a film that covers the last third of the character's life. What you see at the beginning of the film is what you get at the end: there's no growth, just exactly the same approach to every scene, leaving you with a character you know as little about at the end as you do five minutes into the movie. What makes the performance so much the worse is that he is capable of so much more.

You'll also notice I laid the blame for the script firmly at the director's door, not Mortensen's. It's pretty clear that the director wasn't interested in much more than the look of the film, with performances suffering as badly as the story itself. The film is stuck in as much of a monotone asthe performances.

"Security - release the badgers."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TrevorAclea 15 years ago

It assumes too much of its audience. If you haven't read the books, if you're not familiar with that period in history (and by most accounts it's not even taught very thoroughly in Spanish schools), you're lost. Why was the assassination plot made on the Duke? Why did the aftermath filter out? What plot did the girl have planned for the boy that meant Alatriste had to be kept alive? What became of the stolen gold? Unless you've read the books (and they're not available in English last I looked), you'll simply never know because the film never tells you. The film simply does not stand on its own.

"Security - release the badgers."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TrevorAclea 15 years ago

- it is simplistic in the extreme, constantly setting up plot points it has no interest in exploring while the 'drama' constantly evaporates through directorial indifference. There is no character study because the characters never change or develop, nor is it especially historically accurate (especially regarding the campaign in Flanders). What you're describing is simply a coffee table picture book for people who read the books, which is the very antithesis of filmmaking or art - if you need to cram for an entrance exam, learn a foreign language to read the books and study Spanish history to appreciate it, it's failed before it's even started. In fact, it could easily be argued that you were too busy liking it because it had your favorite actor (in what's the weakest and most superficially one-note performance I've seen him give) that you didn't notice how bad it was for all your need to take the high ground against the 'philistines.' Occasional beauty it may have, but of romance, intrigue, adventure or character study there was little or none.

"Security - release the badgers."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TrevorAclea 15 years ago

Now you're just sounding pompous, Sam - and it's always the weakest of arguments to play the 'you're too stupid to understand it' card, just as it is to claim majority support when it's hardly forthcoming for that particular film. But again, you damn the performance by trying to excuse it - the purpose of art is to communicate. When someone fails to communicate to so many (and it's been heavily criticised by fans and naysayers alike), it's a failure. Blaming the audience for the actor and filmmakers' failure to convey what is in their head (beyond Alatriste being sullen and pissed off for 145 minutes) but not on the screen is just a copout. The same kind of copout as not understanding why an 'understated' performance can be just as bad as an over the top one, simply in a different way.

"Security - release the badgers."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TrevorAclea 15 years ago

'The Spanish loved it, and said so.'

You seem to have a highly selective definition there, and once again are trying to impose your opinion on the majority. The Spanish reviews were very mixed (international reviews were largely negative) while the reviews written by Spanish IMDBers are largely negative. And it didn't exactly sweep the boards at Spanish award ceremonies either.

'Thoughtful films require thoughtful and informed viewers to appreciate them the best. If you can't judge it out of knowledge, then it isn't intended for you. So what? There are plenty of other films you can watch, and better understand.... Pompous, am I?'

I'd say yes, you definitely are - the assumption that not like a film you like indicates that a person isn't 'thoughtful' is the very height of pomposity. The 'you're too stupid to understand it' argument is generally one only adopted by people who aren't that bright to boost their own ego.

'That isn't his character, and it seems to me that anyone with any sophistication about human character, and any knowledge of the society of the time at all, would have understood that.'

Yet more arrogance and pomposity. That may not be his character in the books, but it is all that's presented in the film and it's the only note that Mortensen and the director present. As I have frequently pointed out - and you lack the thoughtfulness to understand - the film does not stand on its own because it gives the audience so little to work with. The assumption once again that only an ignorant simpleton with no knowledge of history could fail to appreciate it is the height of arrogance (especially considering the film's wildly inaccurate portrayal of the Flemish campaign as religious rather than a territorial war).

'Have you by any chance read any of the books? Do you know the historical premises with which the author and screenwriter were working? If you don't, then of course you may have trouble with the film, but that's not their problem.'

You already know the answer to that if you'd been paying attention, and it most certainly is their problem - the purpose of art is to communicate. Preaching to a very small number of converts is hardly an achievement.

'it wasn't designed to appeal to a blockbuster audience, or an internaitional audience'

On the contrary - that's exactly what it was intended to do (as the filmmakers readily admitted when justofyng the subsidies they got) but failed to.

'How do you know that majority support is hardly forthcoming, anyway?'

Hmm, let's see - the overwhelmingly negative reviews, the lage number of bad reviews on this site, the box-office failure of the film... But as a dire hard Viggo-can-do-no-wrong fan, I doubt they'll cut much ice because you lack the objectivity to see that even great actors are capable of delivering terrible performances and take any contrary opinion to your own as the ravings of an ignorant peon. For you it seems not enough to like the film - you must assume that all who don't are idiots, no matter how childish and petty it makes you look.

"Security - release the badgers."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TrevorAclea 15 years ago

You can keep on trying to insult me and taking my remarks personally,

On the contrary, that's what you've been doing, intentionally or not, with your insistence that only ignorant peons could not share your opinion. Your argument comes down to 'you're entitled to your opinion but that only means you're an idiot who isn't as smart as me' - very petty and self-righteous.

'I at least know what I'm talking about, and you don't seem to in this case.'

See what I mean. And you certainly don't know much about the Flemish campaign if you think that was accurate.

You just can't seem to stand the idea that maybe this time you missed something.

Onthe contrary, you're insiusting that this Emperor is wearing a fine suit of clothes based on information you gleaned from the books, not the film.

Come on, tripping, get over the fact that I liked it, and I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the facts about it,

Do they do hats in your size or is that head of yours just too big? And since when did subjective opinions become facts?

You talk as if anything you failed to see or understand isn't in the film, and there is nothing to be said about that except "you missed it." It's there, all right.

Not at all. None of the points I raised are dealt with if you were going to be honest for once. I'll repeat them though, since you choose to ignore them:

Why was the assassination plot made on the Duke?

Why did the aftermath filter out?

What plot did the girl have planned for the boy that meant Alatriste had to be kept alive?

What became of the stolen gold?

That's just four plot points the film brings up and completely abandons. There's nothing to miss - they're not in the film, no matter how much you pretend they are. Try judging from what is actually in the film, not what you brought to it and you'd see how little is there.

If you look at what he did here, without prejudice, you can see that.

I did, and there's nothing to see. As you frequently overlook, I like the guy generally, but he can be erratic, and this is him at his worst. The prejudice is all yours.

But you have to look objectively,

Something you refuse to do, coming from an admittedly biased position.

and consider that maybe he knew more about his character than you do.

And conveyed none of that. Knowing isn't enough - you have to communicate more than one surly note. But with your insistence that there were no bad reviews or that if they were it was just more ignorant perons who aren't as devastingly intelligent as you are, it's pretty obvious that that simple point won't ever penetrate.

"Security - release the badgers."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TrevorAclea 15 years ago

So, you don't have an answer for the specific questions about plot points and can only respond with more childish "I'm smarter and grown up than you are" insults while pretending you're the innocent party? It's not an opinion that those plot points aren't followed up - it's a fact, which is presumably why you resolutely refuse to address them. There are no followup scenes. There are no answers in the film. As for knowing the difference between an opinion and a fact, simple: your assumption that the film flopped because of 'marketing' is an opinion just as my assumption that it flopped because it was a bad film is an opinion. That the film is wrong in its portrayal of the Flemish campaign was a religious war rather than a territorial one is a fact. But I guess it's just easier for you to get on your high horse and throw a hissy fit than deal with the points raised, which you continually ignore. Typical fangrrl logic. And all this anger and furious self-righteous snobbery from you because someone dared think your favorite actor had an offday.

"Security - release the badgers."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TrevorAclea 15 years ago

Preferring to assert your superior intellect rather than demonstrate it?

"Security - release the badgers."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TrevorAclea 15 years ago

- and while you'll continue to reply without ever providing the 'facts' you supposedly have about scenes which seem to exist only in your head, not on the screen. In fact, go back over your posts, and aside from insisting you're more intelligent and cultured than anyone else without bothering to provide any proof, you don't actually say anything at all (aside from VM making God look like a shallow underachiever, of course).

"Security - release the badgers."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dr_Hess 14 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6hOBVaMGFI

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Pearl425 10 years ago

Too bad she (http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5139603/) deleted all her posts in shame. This would have been even more fun to read!

[–] samantha3 10 years ago

Pearl, you seem to be trying to say something nasty about me and my posts-- "in shame"? Really? What made you think that? One deletes posts for many reasons, but I don't recall being ashamed of any of mine. There are still a great many of them left, if you look.

Whatever, it's puzzling, this apparent malice. Did I somehow do you some good deed sometime?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Wot_larks 14 years ago

Well, now that "Good" is out on DVD and I've seen it, I think VM's performance is terrific. It's definitely understated, but his character is a meek and rather passive person who gets caught up in the current of events, both in political and his private life, and never seems quite able to find a solid enough place within himself to take a stand - as was true of many Germans then and may be true of many of us today. I wonder if the critics disliked it because there is never a truly cathartic moment, so beloved of Hollywood, where the hero finally acts and saves the day against all odds. This movie doesn't give us that. It merely warns us.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ladybast 15 years ago

Would you provide some links to reviews you've read?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aiscoff 15 years ago

couldn't agree more, main trouble is that it is an intelligent movie that many can't seem to understand.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jussie1014 14 years ago

Oh, wp, this is just as ignorant and untrue as most of the things you keep saying about me. It's not even worth writing any refutation, since you wouldn't understand what I was talking about, and nobody else cares.

Then why bother?

Personally, I'd rather talk about VM

Then why not do so?

You are being quite contradictory.

"Genitalia is just God's way of accessorizing." Debbie Novotny, QAF

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] samantha3 14 years ago

" I'm sure we could all benefit from your vast knowlege and experience!"

I'm sure you could. You obviously need lessons in manners, for a start.

[–] Jussie1014 14 years ago

One would think you might try to find something you feel positively about to talk about.

And who are you, Miss Susie Sunshine? Your entire post is just one long complaint.

Why don't you follow your own advice and find something positive to talk about instead of insulting everyone else?

"Genitalia is just God's way of accessorizing." Debbie Novotny, QAF

[–] jenette-graham93 12 years ago

"Good" is a movie produced in the style of a subtle French movie. It showcases the depth which Viggo Mortensen and others bring to the craft of acting.I watched it twice each time seeing more clues in the lighting,music and motifs. It is beautifully crafted with scenes moving seamlessly into each other and has many poignant moments.Lighting works well with murky interiors and some powerful mob scenes where the Jewish people are harassed before being captured and placed on trucks for transportation to the gas chambers and prison camps.
The theme of friendship is a powerful motif which underlies most of the key scenes.Germany in the grips of Nazism has been faithfully recreated.If you enjoy well-made, subtle movies with a message, then this movie ticks all these boxes. Images linger long after the movie has finished.

[–] Child_of_Pluto 12 years ago

Have you seen the movie since then? I've just seen it a few days ago and I was afraid it would be too slow-paced or even boring, but not at all. A very good effort, insightful and tragic, but not moralizing, heroic or flashy like other war films I've seen. Just the story of a "good man" who makes all the wrong choices. Viggo Mortensen's performance is very subtle and the rest of the cast is good too. Understated performances indeed...

[–] samantha3 12 years ago

"Viggo Mortensen's performance is very subtle..."

He is always one of the subtlest of actors. I especially loved the way he became physically less clumsy as his character rose in influence and position. And it's always good to see someone who successfully plays against a "star" persona. I'm reminded of William Goldman's ADVENTURES IN THE SCREEN TRADE where he talks about the difference between writing for a Star and writing for an actor. Needless to say, perhaps, WG preferred the latter.

[–] Child_of_Pluto 12 years ago

Well, I'm in a phase in which I'm curious about Viggo Mortensen roles. I've had this phase before with Klaus Kinski/ Werner Herzog, very interesting, captivating films. So, as of now I've seen Good, A History of Violence, Eastern Promises and LOTR of course (maybe a few more, I don't know). A friend recommended The Road but I wasn't in the mood. I will get back later to it. You're right about him being subtle, the way his characters evolve through small gestures, mimic, glances, stuff like this. I was just thinking right now that he also has something of Alain Delon's acting (or lack of) in films like The Samurai for example. I hope it's not too much of a comparison :D In any case, what I liked most about Good was the simple story-telling and the ending much like A History of Violence or Eastern Promises to a certain extent, but that was more of an action movie, slightly different. I'm always left wondering and with a smile on my face at the end of such films :) Can you recommend anything else from VM? Does he have favorite directors or actors to work with? Thanks.

Our first intuitions are the true ones.

[–] samantha3 12 years ago

I like some of his earlier character work, if the director saw and used used what he gave the character. His director on PERFECT MURDER said he didn't realize at first what VM was doing because he was watching MIchael Douglas do a scene in which he was supposed to dominate. The director said later that on the dailies he watched VM "come in under Michael's radar". It's a fine scene, one of several. Roger Ebert commented on VM's ability to change his character in mid-scene just by "turning off his people-pleasing face." (a similar comment was made by many critics about the yard scene in HISTORY OF VIOLENCE). I recommend PM for VM's work in it, though it's a pretty good thriller (not great) in its own right.

You might like -- if you can find it -- a rather strange early film of his, made with Ashley Judd and Brendan Fraser (one of BF's forays into actual acting, which he can do quite well) called THE PASSION OF DARKLY NOON. VM plays a mute. According to several people who had no particular reason to tell the story, none of the actors knew he really could talk until the wrap of the final scene. He does a mute person perfectly, down to the exaggerated gestures some of them use (I knew one). I liked to imagine the two actors, VM and AJ, blocking out their torrid sex scene when she didn't know he could talk...

And INDIAN RUNNER, of course, which was Sean Penn's debut as a director, and is not hard to find. SP wanted to play VM's role himself, decided not to, and edited VM very well.

His Spanish films are very good, too, but you can watch him better if you don't have to stop to read subtitles.

He has been very good, over the years, in some very bad or mediocre films. As he has said, it was work, and he had a family. The worst of them might be worth watching to see what he could do with a character, but you would have to be a real fan. I certainly haven't seen them all, and a couple I just wish I hadn't bothered with. I can't fail to mention TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE III, in which he plays one of the cannibals. Believe it or not, it's a lot of fun to watch, but only in the (relatively) uncut version, which is on the DVD with the theatrical release. However, NOBODY is subtle in that movie.

[–] zentist-563-976986 10 years ago

I am a little late in commenting on your message, but I only saw the movie today...
it was very much as you said, but clearly on purpose. The slow change over time of a "good" man from critic of the nazis to being an integral part of the machine.
The Tom Cruise movie Valkyrie was unwatchable for me, but this one was enjoyable and thought provoking - altho slow!

[–] Pankakesnotstellar 8 years ago

This a very old thread but I just watched this film by chance on TV and thought it was terrific! I came here to see what the critics thought of it, expecting to read glowing reviews, and I found a 40/100 metascore!!! I couldn't believe it.

This was an absolutely excellent and brilliant film! Viggo and Jason were doing some of the best acting I've ever seen! God they were great! And the writing was just marvellous. The language and the dialogues raised the hair on my skin. I need more superlatives to describe all of my thoughts regarding this film....so much packed in so little! Lighting, music, atmosphere and production design, just....perfect.
________________________________________________
You seem surprised, all your eyebrows have gone..

[–] psdhart 8 years ago

Did you also watch it on BBC?

I agree, it was a good film with solid performances

[–] Pankakesnotstellar 8 years ago

Yes I did. It's an excellent little gem. I recorded it so I'll be watching it again soon.
---------------
Our knowledge has made us cynical, our cleverness has made us hard and unkind.