By Laura McCarthy.
Your leading actor – or actress – is perhaps the most important decision in filmmaking. Actor performance can make or break your film. And that’s exactly why I believe you shouldn’t cast Timothee Chalamet in your next picture.
Let me be fair. He does do one role well: whiny teenage boy.
I thought he was a good fit for Laurie in Little Women and was a suitable choice in Lady Bird, though let’s not pretend that he wasn’t elevated by brilliant direction from Greta Gerwig and the performances of every single female member of the cast in these pictures. Clearly, Gerwig knows how to get a decent performance out of him.
Beyond that, I am less impressed. In The King, he is blank faced and unconvincing. In Wonka, he lacks both the charm and the creeping insanity of Gene Wilder, and is outshone by the light-hearted, humorous performances of everyone else around him, including Paterson Joseph and Matthew Baynton. In Dune, the “epic speech” which asserts Paul Atreides’ power is anything but powerful; Chalamet puts on a Batman voice and hopes for the best, with his performance once again screaming insincerity.
Chalamet is not Oscar-nominated for any of these pictures though, he is nominated for Marty Supreme. Is he any better in this? Well, no. He is as flat and disingenuous as ever, mumbling and slurring his lines as if that makes it seem more realistic – it doesn’t. He is like a wax figurine, a glossy imitation of life with no real bite.
So, who would be a better choice?
Firstly, let’s make it clear that in my opinion, any of the other nominees on the list would be a better choice. Wagner Moura made history by being the first Brazilian to be nominated as Best Actor at the Oscars. Better known for playing Pablo Escobar in Narcos, in The Secret Agent, Moura delivers an incredibly realistic and grounded performance, with more heightened moments carried out with consistency to his character. It is also refreshing to see him perform in his native Portuguese, an experience which Moura described as “freeing”.
As a horror fan, I am also pleased that Michael B. Jordan is receiving recognition for his work on Sinners. In the film, he portrays twin brothers Smoke and Stack. Not only did Jordan need to differentiate the brothers from one another, he also had to show the difference between human and vampire. I won’t spoil exactly what happens and to who, but one of the brothers is turned into a blood-sucking beast of the night, and the contrast between each phase is well handled. This is a much bigger task than what Chalamet has had to deal with (even with the prescription glasses!) and should be commended. On top of this, it would be a wonderful thing to see more meaningful horror performances getting awards over another biographical snore-fest about a terrible man.
Now, let me go a little off-piste.
I first saw Jack O’Connell in Eden Lake, back in 2008, where he stole the show with his performance as a psychopathic teenager who gets carried away by violent behaviour. It is a bleak but powerful film which deserved more praise than it got. You perhaps first came across him as Cook in Skins. This is an actor who has consistently delivered on challenging roles, though has received more nominations than wins and I would like to see him get the credit he deserves.
Jack O’Connell is not on the nominee list for Best Actor, nor is he on the list for Best Supporting Actor, but has been described by Simon Mayo as a “breath of fresh air”. And Mayo’s not wrong. In a sea of many pretentious, posh boys which take up the acting sphere, Jack from Derby brings a fresh perspective and an authenticity which feels rare. As Christopher Eccleston has recently commented, we need to elevate our working class actors, especially in a time when the career path is becoming increasingly closed off to those who aren’t in the upper classes.
Now, he has rightfully been praised by audiences for his recent horror villain portrayals, both in Sinners and in 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple. In the zombie sequel, O’Connell’s character, Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal, is a walking, talking oxymoron, who represents a world turned upside down.
He is immediately unsettling in attire which references Jimmy Saville. Somehow, O’Connell balances both the absurd and the horrific aspects of such a character to great effect. The complex and contradictory nature of this antagonist makes it a big ask; in the hands of an amateur (or Timothee Chalamet), it would either be wholly unconvincing or would ruin the tone of the entire film.
Interestingly, within the film’s timeline, the public would never have learnt of Saville’s crimes because of the infection outbreak. Still, to British viewers this is a potent symbol of evil – a symbol which O’Connell embodies throughout his performance.
In his work on the film, he reflects a sense of innocence corrupted. His character has a childish obsession with the Teletubbies, which contrasts with his nihilistic and destructive beliefs. He is frozen in time as the child he was when the infection struck the UK, whilst also having physically aged into a sadistic manipulator. And, when torturing victims, Sir Lord Jimmy refers to the act as “charity” – again, a clear juxtaposition between kindness and cruelty. This feeling of the oxymoronic is heightened by Jack O’Connell’s performance, which simultaneously handles the childishness of the character with the grotesque.
One way in which he does this is through his Scottish accent. O’Connell worked with a dialect coach to get this right and it is work well done. Jimmy speaks in a rather soft, lilting Scottish voice – the kind of voice which should be reassuring. In another life, he’d be working in human relations. This version, however, should be doing anything but. There is something snake-like about his voice. It is charismatic, alluring…on the surface at least. But, much like other cult leaders of his ilk, can be undercut by harsh, explosive moments in which it seems he might do anything.
The use of movement and the body develops this complicated character further. At one moment, he can prowl cat-like, slinking around the outskirts of a scene as he contemplates his next action; the next, he can burst with fury. Each scene shows a developed consideration of character, in which he may seem chaotic, careless, insane, level, balanced, or even childishly nervous. This is a multifaceted character, delivered through a multifaceted performance.
There are numerous other actors deserving of Best Actor that I could discuss at length here but, for now, let me leave you with his: Timothee Chalamet is not one of them.
- In Common is not for profit. We rely on donations from readers to keep the site running. Could you help to support us for as little as 25p a week? Please help us to carry on offering independent grass roots media. Visit: https://www.patreon.com/incommonsoton