I’ve started on my awards season film watching again, and this is pretty much the only reason I watched Mud. Turns out, this makes me an idiot. Matthew McConaughey was indeed nominated (and indeed won) a Golden Globe and an Oscar, but not for this film. Phew, I say, because he’s just fine in this, but I wouldn’t have thought it was award-worthy.
Mud is set in the deep south and follows a fourteen-year-old boy and his mate who have discovered a boat in a tree on an island in the middle of the swamps. When they return to it, they discover Mud, a strange character who is living a strange existence, and before they know it, they are assisting him in his endeavours.
Tye Sheridan was marvellous as the main character; a boy who, despite his rough exterior, believes in love and will do anything for it; for his own love and for that which he sees in others. This belief leads to him getting hurt; both physically and emotionally, and you can see in his face that this hurt is so real.
Overall, I didn’t think it was a totally brilliant film, but it is worth watching just for the performances of the teenagers.
Beveley Weston (Sam Shepard) an alcoholic academic goes missing, and the three daughters he had with pill-popping wife Violet (Meryl Streep) return to support her. But each have their secrets and problems leading to a massively volatile time.
I saw this as a play by MTC a few years ago and loved it. I especially loved the set, but seemed to recall that the script was very impressive. Hence, I was concerned about watching the film; would it hold up? Would it be overwhelmed by the big names in the cast? (Meryl Streep, Sam Shepard, Julia Roberts, Chris Cooper, Ewan McGregor, Dermot Mulroney, Juliette Lewis, Abigail Breslin and Benedict Cumberbatch as the main names)
I think it held up extremely well. It’s certainly not a happy film; if you are ever feeling that you are taking your family for granted, watch this. You will love them so much more. So many horrible people in one place.
It is surprising that the film has only been nominated for awards for acting in the Oscars and Golden Globes. With such a strong story and excellent performances, I would have expected it would at least be nominated for Best Film. It’s a far better film that The Wolf of Wall Street. But then, it wasn’t directed by Martin Scorsese, and the main performances are by women. It seems to be a bit of a pattern for the awards I’ve noticed; the films that have been nominated for best performances by actresses are less likely to appear in the best film category than the films nominated for best performance by actor. Sexist? Or are women just not getting leads in good films? Are male stories better? Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?
Interestingly, just after I wrote this, I was sent a link to an article about sexism in the film industry featuring Olivia Wilde. Here it is. She took part in an experiment with some male actors reading aloud from the script of American Pie, only swapping male and female parts. The ladies got the laughs, the guys got bored. Interesting. (I should note that I don’t know anything about PolicyMic. It’s just the link I read. Lazy journalism? I’m not a journalist. FYI)
August: Osage County was nominated for Oscars for Best Actress in a Leading Role (Meryl Streep), Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Julia Roberts), for Golden Globes for Best Actress in A Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy (Meryl Streep), Best Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture (Julia Roberts) and for a BAFTA Supporting Actress (Julia Roberts).
ireckonthat 