The Favourite (2018) (9 Viewers)

[Malcolm R]

There are no restrictions that I can find, screen time or otherwise, that dictate whether a performance is Lead or Supporting. I believe it's up to the studio mounting the Oscar campaigns to suggest categories, then it's dependent upon the voting for the nominees as to which category in which they are ultimately listed.

The Academy rules say:

3. A performance by an actor or actress in any role shall be eligible for nomination either for the leading role or supporting role categories....

4. The leading role and supporting role categories will be tabulated simultaneously. If any performance should receive votes in both categories, the achievement shall be placed only on the ballot in that category in which, during the tabulation process, it first receives the required number of votes to be nominated. In the event that the performance receives the number of votes required to be nominated in both categories simultaneously, the achievement shall be placed only on the ballot in that category in which it receives the greater percentage of the total votes.

5. In the event that two achievements by an actor or actress receive sufficient votes to be nominated in the same category, only one shall be nominated using the preferential tabulation process and such other allied procedures as may be necessary to achieve that result.

https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/91aa_rules.pdf

So it sounds like a majority of the members voting for the nominees felt that Colman was the Lead, while the others were Supporting. Just a simple numbers game, in the end.

 

[Tino]

OK, so I can now say I have seen The Favourite...

Let's just get this out of the way first, this is an absolutely gorgeously photographed film. I totally disagree with the Academy on who they gave Best Cinematography to. Roma is a pretty black and white picture but Robbie Ryan took things to another level here. There are a lot of drop dead stunning shots in this picture that show an amazing use of light and dark mostly seeming to be lit with candles and fireplaces that blow anything in Roma away. Combine this with the beautiful settings, locations, production design, costumes and this film is truly visually stunning from beginning to end.

The way this film looks alone should cause anybody that loves movies to want to see this.

On the acting...

I did not see The Wife so I have no idea how Glenn Close is in it but it seems to me it would be very hard to top what Olivia Colman does here just based on the range of what she has to play. The role here allows her to play comic, tragic, anger, passion, fear, madness, various degrees of ill health and pain, submission and dominance all in a single film and she nails it all. I don't know what Close does in The Wife but hard to imagine that any actress was asked to do more in a film last year than Colman. Plus her role and how she plays it was pivotal to picture. I did feel she was the lead in the film and everything revolves around her. So, yes I thought she was very deserving of Best Actress. Weisz and Stone are also excellent in their parts but obviously they are not asked to do as much as Colman as she has the most complex role in the picture. So we get a truly great performance from Colman and excellent support from Weisz and Stone. Plus all the men in the film, while being mostly played as comic, are a lot of fun to watch as well. So, this is a wonderfully acted film.

On what the film is...

I know this got some bad marks from some folks because it is based on real historical characters but I never really felt the point here was to delivery a history lesson. This is a film that seemed very much designed to allow a group of female actors to tear into their roles with complete abandon and on that front it totally delivers. I would classify it as a black comedy as it is loaded with humor as revenge and vicious power plays unfold. It also seems to me to be about the madness of this queen who is losing it as the film progresses and often does not know who to trust...as the audience watching this we pretty much know she really should not trust anybody. So, rather than going for historical accuracy the film is attempting to portray the intimate goings on in the lives of three women who find themselves at the top of the power establishment but aware that their grip on that power is quite precarious.

On questions and complaints about the film...

I found the film very funny and it seemed to me to be meant to be comic. I know Terry was asking what people found funny and I would say a lot. A lot of the queen's reactions were funny as was her line delivery.

"Badger."

I thought the relationship between Abigail and Harley was very funny. The way he is always shoving her around and the physicality of that back and forth was funny. Also Abigail physically abusing Masham and taking full advantage of his obsession with her. The general behavior of the ruling class racing ducks, throwing fruit at a naked man, and generally having a grand old time while there is a war going on with France...which seems nearly an afterthought for most of them.

Obviously, the actors in the film are not really attempting to speak and act like people from the period, things are all jacked up and played in a more modern manner for comic effect. I also think this is done to specifically tell the audience they are not going for historical accuracy it is more about hysterical accuracy.

The woman I read calling this film pornographic...well...I just did not see that. The characters drop enough F-bombs to get you an R-rating and the use of the C-word happens quite a few times...so they are quite liberal with the cursing...which is both funny, as this is mostly done in amusing ways and as the characters insult each other, and generally not the kind of dialogue lovers of Masterpiece Theater might expect but it falls in line with the anachronistic approach the filmmakers are taking. The picture is pretty light on nudity, some bottoms and I think one full on look at a boob, but without the cursing it may have qualified as PG-13. So, I could find nothing pornographic about the film.

On the dance scene that is obviously not historically accurate...

I believe this serves a couple purposes. One being again, to tell the audience we are having fun here not attempting an accurate depiction of these characters or the period and two to tell us about the state of mind of the queen...which is obviously deteriorating. The title that appears for the section of the film where the dance occurs is a clue. The film is broken up into chapters. Second, the queen has a rather adverse reaction to music in the story. She really seems to go off the rails at the sound. It seems to stir in her memories and feelings she can't cope with and you will note that the music becomes discordant as the camera begins a slow zoom on the queen's face during the dance. I believe this is to tell us what we are seeing and hearing are in the queen's mind. So, there is a dance taking place and there is music playing but the crazy dancing is likely an exaggeration of what is actually happening to reflect the madness of the queen. She is deeply jealous and upset by her infirmity and so the crazed dancing is a depiction of her emotional state.

In terms of how it stands up as a Yorgos Lanthimos picture, I think I would agree with Jake who said this was his most accessible film. If you did not like this or found it too odd, yeah, you will want to stay miles away from his other pictures.

So, overall I loved it. Outstanding direction, beautiful photography, wonderful acting, and very funny satirical black comedy. I mean, to me it was a great night at the movies. My wife also loved it but described the ending as creepy.

One of the few times I agree with you on all your points. Well done Reggie.

 

[TJPC]

We did not see the same movie with the same type of audience.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Re: pr0nographic-ness: The handjob.

 

[Tino]

We did not see the same movie with the same type of audience.

Huh

 

[bujaki]

Tino, it was a different cut of the movie for Canadians.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Tino, it was a different cut of the movie for Canadians.

Was it? I ask because that would not surprise me. With Polanski's film The Ghost Writer Americans got a different cut than Canadians. Swearing was edited out of the American version but left in the Canadian release. This also applies to the blu-ray releases. Canadians got an unedited blu-ray but the United States got the edited version on blu-ray.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Re: pr0nographic-ness: The handjob.

That is a scene of a sexual nature but you don't see anything in it and it is played for laughs as he seems to enjoy it while she is doing it while talking and thinking about something else entirely.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

There are no restrictions that I can find, screen time or otherwise, that dictate whether a performance is Lead or Supporting.

I read a lot of people were debating if Colman was the lead in the film and that because some felt she was not they were going to vote for Glenn Close.

I don't know...if you asked me as I walked out of the film who the lead was I would have said Colman. Her performance was huge and central to the film. I guess all three of the main women got significant screen time but I felt Colman's performance and character were just central to what went on and often dictated the tone of the picture.

So, sure I would have called Weisz and Stone supporting but I can also see somebody making a case for Stone being the lead.

 

[Tino]

Tino, it was a different cut of the movie for Canadians.

Are you being serious?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

So, sure I would have called Weisz and Stone supporting but I can also see somebody making a case for Stone being the lead.

I still think all 3 were fairly equal and wouldn't place 1 in a category without the others, but if forced to choose, I'd put Weisz as the "main lead", Stone 2nd and Colman 3rd...

 

[Tino]

I still think all 3 were fairly equal and wouldn't place 1 in a category without the others, but if forced to choose, I'd put Weisz as the "main lead", Stone 2nd and Colman 3rd...

I would reverse that.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I still think all 3 were fairly equal and wouldn't place 1 in a category without the others, but if forced to choose, I'd put Weisz as the "main lead", Stone 2nd and Colman 3rd...

I was looking at it though the impact of each character. I think the queen is the central figure and a lot of what goes on and how we view it is impacted by that character. Stone's character I believe has the second most impact on the film. Her arrival is the catalyst for change in the film. Also her maneuvering is what impacts the Weisz character and what happens to her. To me the Weisz character has the least impact on the story of the three. Also the film ends in such a way that I think this is supported.

With the three basically getting the same screen time that's how I saw it. However, you are not at all alone. When I was reading discussions about Best Actress several people stated they thought Colman should not win because she was a supporting actress and Weisz should have been moved to the Best Actress category.

After seeing the film I did not agree with this and thought Colman belonged in Best Actress as she gave one of the best performances of the year regardless of gender.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

To put another spin on it...

I think the argument could be made that the Stone character is the lead in the film and the story is mostly her story. She is the character that is likely the one that is the doorway into what is going on in the story. She shows up after her life took a terrible turn. She is trying to work her way into the palace. She starts at the bottom and has to figure out the queen and Lady Marlborough. She has to sort out what their relationship is, she is the one that Harley pursues for information, and she discovers the keys to the kingdom so to speak.

Spoiler: SPOILER

Basically, Lady Marlborough is on her way down. Abigail is on her way up and the queen is descending into madness as her health declines. So, Abigail is the one taking charge of what is happening in the story and she and the queen are the two present at the end. Lady Marlborough has been dispatched and all of Abigail's manipulation has won the day for her...she now is the one that gets to rub the queen's gout infested legs.

 

[bujaki]

Are you being serious?

Of course not. Just pointing out that Terry had posted that he had seen a different film with a different audience. Therefore, tongue in cheek, what other explanation could there be?

 

[TJPC]

You know, my film must have been the dull, boring, serious, pornographic version, with crazy dancing, and the weird camera angles etc. etc. that no one laughed at!, not the cinematic art piece you all saw!

 

[Tino]

Of course not. Just pointing out that Terry had posted that he had seen a different film with a different audience. Therefore, tongue in cheek, what other explanation could there be?

Sorry. Couldn’t tell due to lack of a smiley.

 

[bujaki]

You know, my film must have been the dull, boring, serious, pornographic version, with crazy dancing, and the weird camera angles etc. etc. that no one laughed at!, not the cinematic art piece you all saw!

Amen to that!

 

[Jake Lipson]

So it sounds like a majority of the members voting for the nominees felt that Colman was the Lead, while the others were Supporting. Just a simple numbers game, in the end.

This just means that most voters didn't disagree with the placements by the studio enough to vote for them in the opposite category. Fox Searchlight campaigned Weisz and Stone as supporting and Coleman as lead. The members could alter that if they felt that strongly about it, but they didn't. I don't think this means they would have put them in the categories they were in if they had the initial choice in the matter, but they probably didn't care enough to object, especially in a crowded field, which it was this year.

The only time I can recall where a studio mounted a campaign in one category and the Academy changed it is Keisha Castle-Hughes in Whale Rider, where she was submitted in Supporting (probably because she was a kid and the studio didn't think she would be likely to receive a nomination in lead), but the Academy chose to nominate her in the leading category after all because she was the lead.

 

[Patrick Sun]

That is a scene of a sexual nature but you don't see anything in it and it is played for laughs as he seems to enjoy it while she is doing it while talking and thinking about something else entirely.

For some uptight people, just the depiction of such an act makes it pr0nographic. Just saying...