MovieChat Forums > BeginnersĀ (2010) Discussion > Can someone explain Plummer's acclaim?

Can someone explain Plummer's acclaim?


I thought his performance was good, but I didn't feel it lived up to all of the hype. he seems to be the dead set winner for the Oscars, and i'm still not sure why. Does anyone care to explain their views?

reply

I don't know why either. It's Albert Brooks that should be winning all the awards for Drive. Plummer does nothing at all in the film Beginners except just b!tch about dying and talks how happy it is to finally come out of the closet. Doesn't add on to the story at all or Ewan McGregor's character. For what he had to work with, he did okay but is NOTHING compared to the rest of those getting nominated.

Follow my leader! Catch you later!

reply

The only thing more puzzling is how Albert Brooks hamming it up for twenty minutes in Drive is really any better.

In other news, Im not wearing pants. Film at 11.

reply

What's puzzling is how you don't get that Albert Brooks is OBVIOUSLY better.

Follow my leader! Catch you later!

reply

only to you

reply

No to everyone. You don't get that you don't get why.

Follow my leader! Catch you later!

reply

For me, between Brooks and Plummer, I'll take Brooks any day of the week.

Having grown up with both of them being pretty prominent in my entertainment intake, Brooks is the more interesting and memorable performance because he's never done a character like Bernie Rose before. We've seen him as Aaron in Broadcast News or the various benevolent/malevolent Simpsons characters, but never this. All throughout, despite knowing he's got something sinister up his sleeve, there's an unpredictability to the WHEN that makes it all the more effective when it finally comes.

With Plummer, his scenes really in the film are the best, but to be honest, I could never get into Beginners. I had no connection with McGregor's relationship with Laurent, which took up a good deal of the movie, By the time it ended, I was thinking, "Well, Plummer's good and I can see why he's going to be up for awards, but does it have to be for this EXACT film?"

I have a message for Germany...

reply

Actually, if anyone should have been nominated and won the supporting actor oscar in Drive, it should have been Bryan Cranston. He was brilliant and understated.

You must have said something real smart, 'cause I didn't understand a word.

reply

everyone sucked

reply

"The only thing more puzzling is how Albert Brooks hamming it up for twenty minutes in Drive is really any better."

For Real! I was starting to wonder if I was the only one who didn't think Albert Brooks was all that special. Completely agree he was hamming it up. I liked Drive and all, but sometimes its nice to see someone play someone who is....how do you say?.....Believable as a person who could really exist.

reply

When does Plummer bitch about dying? I don't remember him complaining about that once, aside from having to take his tablets.

It's Albert Brooks performance that's overrated!



REMEMBER ME?

reply

He's pretty much a complete rip-off of Jason Robard's character from Magnolia only he's gay this time. Albert Brooks gives a performance 1000000000000 times better than Plummer. His character was original, intense and literally everything interesting that Plummer's character wasn't. Brooks >>>>>>>>>>>> Plummer.

Follow my leader! Catch you later!

reply

The only thing those two characters have in common, is that they're both dying. Why on earth would you relate the two?

And what was so original about the big bad boss that Brooks played?



REMEMBER ME?

reply

Brooks was so intense because its unlike any role he's ever played. Brooks was original because you actually had no idea what he was going to do next where as we knew Plummer was gay and was going to die because we've seen it 100000 times before. Brooks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plummer

Follow my leader! Catch you later!

reply

Brooks was so intense because its unlike any role he's ever played.

It was pretty much his character from "Weeds", only stabbing people and a bit more angry... and anger is not hard to play.

Hard to play is: disorientation, ennui, depression, sense of mortality, love which overlooks flaws...

Which is why Plummer is A) the superior actor overall (and, honestly, if you doubt that based on this film then just consult his resume and compare it with Brooks) and B) The superior actor in this film.

Good actors make it look effortless, so it's a common mistake to walk away saying they didn't have to stretch.


----------------------------------------
"But what about my previous kids?" - Job

reply

He never played a mob boss or movie producer in Weeds. That's already a different character right there. Sure actors sound the same, but at least Brooks DID SOMETHING unlike Plummer to where he just sat there talking about dying and how happy it is to be gay... yawn.

Follow my leader! Catch you later!

reply

He never played a mob boss or movie producer in Weeds. That's already a different character right there.

Labels aren't roles. They're labels. It's the character you put behind them that is the role, and the character he played was dead-on the same as Weeds: angry, a bit funny, ascerbic. (It's not like this is surprising. I love Brooks but he's not known for his range - he's either wimpy/funny like "Lost in America" or he's gruff/funny like "Weeds" or "Drive".)

but at least Brooks DID SOMETHING

Yes, he acted very hard.

unlike Plummer to where he just sat there talking about dying and how happy it is to be gay...

Like I said, good actors make it look easy.
----------------------------------------
"But what about my previous kids?" - Job

reply

Yes, and there was only one good actor among the two and that is Brooks.

Follow my leader! Catch you later!

reply

[deleted]

What are you an advertising major? Plummer is not a good or great actor AT ALL compared to Brooks. Brooks is a good, great astounding, compelling, fantastic, terrific actor who did so much better than Plummer by a million long shots that I feel sorry for the Academy for snubbing the BETTER actor who is Albert Brooks.

Follow my leader! Catch you later!

reply

I don't want to say which one of the two actors has been better but your arguments completely suck. What you've described has nothing to do with their performances. Your writing describes their characters, not their acting abilities.

____________
www.reviewmaze.com/p/movies.html

reply

mr Plummer was just god in this i agree but hi never won an oscar before thats why hi won. watch him in the insider ,twelwe monkeys ,malcolm x ,star trek 6 hi is great !

reply

[deleted]

I love Christopher Plummer, a fellow Canadian, but I couldn't agree with you more! Albert Brooks was fantastic in Drive; the highlight of that film for me.

reply

It was a change of pace role for him. But I think it's also true that they want to give him one.

reply

people keep talking about Chris Plummer and Albert Brooks, but I'm baffled that Nick Nolte is completely left out of the conversation. Anyone who's seen Warrior will know that Nolte was extraordinary in it, and imo, he should get the Oscar.

reply

how about because he is a really great actor and has deserved many oscars in years gone by. i think this performance is getting attention simply because they feel playing gay must require a greater degree of acting but plummer is no less brilliant in this than every other film hes in....

reply

Overall it was a weak year, so Christopher Plummer is going to snatch his long overdue Oscar. I agree that Nick Nolte was great but Plummer was great too during a weak year.

reply

I thought Plummer was outstanding in this film. I believe he's Hal. His scenes were the only ones that's pleasurable watching. When Ewan and that French actress are on screen, I just wanted to fast forward.

--

reply

Probably because he's 82 and never gotten an Oscar, but then the same could be said about Peter O'Toole and Lauren Bacall, and they DIDN'T win when nominated, and O'Toole is one of the greatest actors of all time.
Never saw the film, so I can't judge.

Life sucks, then you're reincarnated

reply

To give a serious answer without mentioning Albert Brooks (whoops, I just did), the Best Supporting Actor/Actress categories have often been used to give some dues to veteran actors who have long deserved an Oscar, but have never won one. Jack Palance is a very famous example of this. Basically, it's less about who deserves the award *that year*, and more about who may deserve it for past services rendered.

By the same token, you may or may not know that in film circles the Best Original Screenplay Oscar is known as 'The Citizen Kane Consolation Prize', and is often given to films - often made by writer/directors - that are considered too brave and daring to win Best Picture.

Remember that for all its good and bad points the AMPAS is - when all is said and done - a very conservative entity.



Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

reply

I knew Christopher would get an Oscar nomination from the moment I saw the trailer. He's both really funny and poignant as Hal.
Also, the reason Albert Brooks ain't nominated is because the Academy have decided that the Best Supporting Actor Oscar can't always go to actors who play psychopaths (Bardem, Ledger, Waltz, to name but three). That's also why Ezra Miller is not getting any nods fo 'We Need To Talk About Kevin'.

I don't have to conform to the vagaries of time and space. I'm a looney for God's sake!

reply

I actually wouldn't call Waltz's performance psychopathic, at least not in the sense than Bardem and Ledger's characters were. True, he is a Nazi with constantly dishonorable intentions, but it's such a multifaceted character and performance that leaves you somewhat in awe of the actions he's capable of as the story progresses, no matter how vile they end up being.

I have a message for Germany...

reply

I just watched beginners, and i LOVED drive (my fav. of 2011). That being said, Plummer is miles better than Brooks. I am still in tears from the end of this movie and I hate to admit that but I am. This movie really emotionally reached me

reply

The category this year is really a contest between Christopher Plummer and Nick Nolte. Kenneth Branagh is the dark horse to upset. Jonah Hill & Max Von Sydow have absolutely no chance.

reply

Branagh is incredible in 'My Week With Marilyn'. He gets Olivier to a tee! He should have got the BAFTA instead of Plummer.

I don't have to conform to the vagaries of time and space. I'm a looney for God's sake!

reply

BECAUSE HE IS CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER.

reply