Not Coming to a Theater Near You

The Last King of Scotland / UK / 2006

Fully unraveling Forest Whitaker’s performance requires a lot of time and multiple viewings, not to mention an unshakable constitution. It’s an astounding turn for an actor I knew only as “that guy” from films like Phone Booth and Panic Room. (For now, we’ll pretend Battlefield Earth never happened—a bad dream, of sorts.) The second-by-second changes in temperament—from paranoia to elation, sadness to unshakable confidence, congeniality to downright viciousness—leave you struggling for air. Without a doubt, Whitaker is this movie.

A few weeks ago, I had the misfortune of watching an episode of Ebert and Roeper in which Kevin Smith, substituting for the now healthy Ebert, made the observation that Whitaker was assured the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Interesting notion, since Macdonald’s film concentrates more on McAvoy’s Nicholas Garrigan than Whitaker’s Amin, yet ultimately misguided. There is little doubt that Whitaker is the star of the film, a guaranteed Best Actor nominee whose lesser screen time means absolutely nothing. (Think Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs.) The only obstacle in his way is a gray-haired gent named Peter O’Toole, who’s getting rave reviews for his performance in Venus.

by Adam Balz | Source: 35MM Theatrical Print
14 Oct 2006 11:36 PM | Comments (9)

Comments / 9 total / Submit Comment

1. Patrick / 20 October 2006 / 12:14 AM

   I agree with you, Adam, in that Whitaker will be nominated [and has a GREAT chance of pulling it out]; however, after just seeing The Departed, I believe we may have to add Jack to the party as well.

2. Adam B. / 20 October 2006 / 6:20 AM / URL

   Although I’m one of the four or five people who hasn’t yet seen The Departed—sorry, but I haven’t been in the mood for a Damon-DiCaprio combo just yet—I know for a fact that Nicholson is a supporting actor, whereas Whitaker is a leading actor. Yes, Jack can come to the party, but he won’t be in the same room.

3. Chiranjit / 20 October 2006 / 6:56 AM / URL

   Oscar politics have a weird way off forgetting screen-time and focusing more on the presence the actor’s performance within the film… or just an actor’s ego in general. Jack probably wouldn’t be inclined to take a back seat to Leo. He’ll at least want to ride up front with him, so WB will probably campaign for both as lead actors.

4. leo / 20 October 2006 / 8:00 AM / URL

   These metaphors are confusing me. Are the Oscars a party or a car-ride?

5. Chiranjit / 20 October 2006 / 10:41 AM / URL

   Uh… let me try to decipher this. Let’s see… I think the Oscars are the party and the Oscar marketing campaigns are the car-ride that gets someone to the party. Don’t ask me who is catering.

6. tom / 20 October 2006 / 10:48 AM / URL

   If Oscar marketing is a car ride and the Oscars themselves are a party, what are the post- Oscar parties? Are they, in fact, the next morning?

7. Adam B. / 20 October 2006 / 10:57 AM / URL

   They’re the hangover.

8. leo / 20 October 2006 / 10:59 AM / URL

   … and maybe the Golden Globes are the Evite?

9. Mark / 20 October 2006 / 2:29 PM

   If only the Golden Globes were as usefull as an Evite.

   more like a junior prom where the less hopeful of prospects get to feel a little bit special. where else could Phantom of the Opera share a Best Picture category with Bruce Almighty? if they’re singing, it must be comedy!

   i wonder though, if there was no champagne and no $45,000 gift bag [how DO they squeeze that Honda in there with all those Botox certificates?] would there be anything to watch?