Posts Tagged ‘Jeremy Renner’

Jeff Bridges, who has four nominations under his belt, is this year's front-runner for Best Lead Actor for his powerful performance in "Crazy Heart"

Continuing our analyses of the top categories for the upcoming Academy Awards, here is an in-depth look at the nominees up for Best Actor in a Leading Role by our own Marisa Carpico. Tell us what you think!

Also see Best Supporting Actress

Best Actor in a Leading Role

Jeff Bridges already won the Screen Actor’s Guild Award and the Golden Globe for his role in Crazy Heart, so he’s expected to win the Oscar as well.  However, he faces some strong competition from Jeremy Renner, who won an award from the National Board of Review for his role in The Hurt Locker.  If Bridges or Renner don’t win, the next most likely candidate is George Clooney for his charismatic performance in Up in the Air.  Surprisingly, Colin Firth’s powerful performance in A Single Man gives him an advantage over Oscar-veteran Morgan Freeman. Freeman’s portrayal as Nelson Mandela is impressive, but his nomination wasn’t exactly considered a sure thing so he is the least likely to win. Read the rest of this entry »

Jeremy Renner as danger-addicted SFC William James in "The Hurt Locker"

In looking closer at some of the movies released this past year, another connection has revealed itself between two films that on the surface could not be more different. Fantastic Mr. Fox and The Hurt Locker might appear to have nothing in common, with one being an animated feature involving social relationships and animals and the other involving bomb disarming in the Iraq War, but a connection exists between the two films’ main male characters: Mr. Fox (George Clooney) and SFC William James (Jeremy Renner).

Both characters reveal that their personalities revel in danger, needing it’s presence to withhold a sense of fulfillment in their occupations (for Mr. Fox it’s stealing chickens and cider, for William it’s disarming bombs during wartime). Perhaps this need for danger is a modification of the Male Ideal offered by Charles Reich, about which he explains that a man’s value is “derived from the function he performs for society, and whose satisfaction lies in how well he performs his job. Men dominated by technique and training [take] seriously the meritocracy of ability and accomplishment…dedicated to work [towards] goals beyond the individual.” However, I would argue that both characters do not share the same sense of social pressure that Reich’s definition of the Male Ideal implies. So, the “need” for danger must be spawned internally – perhaps within the psyche?

I did some research to try and find a name for the personality trait that Mr. Fox and William share, and came up short. In looking at all of the psychological disorders that seemed even semi-relevant, I found none that matched the characters’ trait entirely. Some classifications had one or two elements that might explain their mindset, but nothing in full fit the bill. For instance, there is a condition called Borderline Personality Disorder, which reads, “The major symptoms of this disorder revolve around unstable relationships, poor or negative sense of self, inconsistent moods, and significant impulsivity.” These traits fit very well with the two characters in discussion. Both have unstable relationships with their spouses, arguably don’t think highly of themselves (at least at certain points in their films), and constantly succumb to their impulses (I would argue that William undergoes the occasional mood swing while Mr. Fox maintains a fairly mellow temperament, marking their one divergence on this short list). However the disorder proves unfitting in the end, as the explanation continues on to say that, “There is an intense fear of abandonment with this disorder that interferes with many aspects of the individual’s life.  This fear often acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy as they cling to others, are very needy, feel helpless, and become overly involved and immediately attached.  When the fear of abandonment becomes overwhelming, they will often push others out of their life as if trying to avoid getting rejected.  The cycle most often continues as the individual will then try everything to get people back in his or her life and once again becomes clingy, needy, and helpless.” Neither character displays a clinginess, helplessness, or feeling of gross inferiority on screen (if anything they’re charismatic), however in the spirit of open-mindedness one could possibly fathom William possibly showing them when off-screen with his wife.

With no psychological disorder to explain Mr. Fox’s and William’s addiction to danger, the explanation must lie somewhere else in the field of psychology, or perhaps even spirituality. Or, could there be a social or cultural determinant? Which do you think it is? We welcome anyone’s explanation and accompanying citation where appropriate/possible. Something tells me that the answer, once we discover it, is extremely interesting. Let’s get to it!

List of Psychological Disorders

Actor Enver Gjokaj, a man who Marisa says is one to keep an eye on because of his impressive range

We here at Movie-Thoughts find it very interesting to keep tabs on actors throughout their careers, especially from the time when they make their big break to when they become a full-fledged star. Below is a list of 7 actors and actresses from movies and/or television shows that our writer Marisa Carpico contests are worth keeping a close eye on, because you’re bound to see more of them in the future. Some names you might recognize, as they’ve been in the professional acting arena for several years, but they might not have thus far had the kind of notoriety that propels the gifted few into the “A” Class of Hollywood.

————————————————————————————————

Lea Michele: Glee fans will know her as the borderline-obnoxious overachiever, Rachel from Fox’s hit show, but before she lusted over the cute quarterback, she lusted over the cute rebel in the Tony Award-winning Broadway musical Spring Awakening.  As a successful Broadway actress with plays like Awakening, for which she was nominated for a Drama Desk Award, and Les Misérables on her résumé, Michele clearly has talent.  Her abilities are on display in every episode of Glee where she lends her incredible vocals to tracks like “Don’t Stop Believing” and “My Life Would Suck Without You,” both of which had strong performances on the Billboard Top 100 Chart.  However, though her singing is certainly excellent, her acting is just as interesting.  During her show-stopping performance of “Don’t Rain on My Parade” from Funny Girl during the “Sectionals” episode, Michele lent the song an energy and abandon that made her character’s desperate need for fame evident.  Michele’s skill at bringing Rachel to the point of unbearable, but always making her vulnerable and talented enough to keep viewers from hating her is likely what garnered her a Golden Globe nomination.  The big challenge for Michele in 2010 will be to find roles that show off more than just her vocal talents. Read the rest of this entry »

Maryl Streep as Julia Child in "Julie and Julia"

An article on HollywoodReporter.com, written by Steven Zeitchik, talks about how up to this point in time in the Oscar race very few actresses have made much of an impression. Maryl Streep will likely be nominated (yet again) for her role as Julia Child in Julie and Julia, and Zeitchik claims that only two other leading actresses (Carey Mulligan and Gabourey Sidibe for An Education and Precious) have a shot at taking home the gold statuette.

One possible reason that Zeitchik postulates deals with the kinds of roles available for women in mainstream Hollywood. Independent films (such as An Education and Precious) offer many more dynamic, “serious” leading roles for women than Hollywood does (the reasons for which are up for speculation), but being in an independent flick doesn’t downgrade one’s performance in the eyes of the award voters. The Academy is not averse to giving the Best Leading Actress award to a “new face,” so-to-speak (ex. Jennifer Hudson, Marion Cotillard, etc.). Zeitchik later argues that unless you’re the likes of Angelina Jolie or Hillary Swank it’s hard for a woman to land a “serious” part in mainstream Hollywood. So shallow is the Oscar nomination pool for leading actresses, Zeitchik says, that Sandra Bullock is getting award buzz (for her role in The Blind Side).

Those who don’t think much of this year’s lack of standout performances by leading actresses chalk the issue up to the cyclical nature of each category, while some others speculate that it relates to bigger (supposed) issues like Hollywood making less award-worthy films. Zeitchik attempts to debunk such a speculation by noting that the Best Leading Actor category is overflowing with quality nomination possibilities (ex. George Clooney, Colin Firth, Jeff Bridges, Jeremy Renner, etc.).

You can read the full article here, which includes other related topics such as the possibility for three women to be nominated for Best Director, which is an unprecedented feat.

Quick Opinion: I can’t be certain that the number of quality leading roles for women in Hollywood is going down, if for no other reason than because it’s a more complex issue than one might think at first. Sure, maybe this year’s crop isn’t all that extensive, but last year saw 5 great actresses in the nomination pool, which led to hugely diverse speculation before the awards show about who was going to win. And being that Hollywood is still a big supporter of patriarchal ideology (for better or worse), there is and probably always will be plenty of quality leading roles available for men. Who’s to say, though, that there simply aren’t a lot of good scripts with great leading roles for women making the rounds around Hollywood? Script ‘X’ may have a dynamite female lead character, but if its overall story stinks then it doesn’t matter. Studios don’t typically buy works-in-progress. In any case, why would they take a chance on a lousy script just to satisfy a male/female ratio of leading roles? I’m all for equal representation of the sexes in the arts, but the film industry is a business (the biggest financial risk-takers being Hollywood studios) and if it were to adopt some brand of affirmative action to assure such equality I would speculate that the industry would suffer both financially and artistically. Simply put, you can’t tell an industry dealing in creativity what to create.