Crazy Heart
I might have missed the point here, or I might have got the wrong end of the stick altogether. Having been unable to avoid the plaudits for Jeff Bridges everywhere you look coming up to the Oscars tonight, (this is the last film I will review before the awards ceremony takes place) I had been under the impression that there was more to ‘Crazy Heart’ than just Bridges’ performance in the lead role of ‘Bad Blake’. Maggie Gyllenhaal for instance, is up for a best supporting actress nod at the Oscars. Given that both of these actors have been given the honour, and that they both take up the screen either individually or together for the larger portion of the film, you would expect the film would therefore be as least as popular as its two biggest players. What you will notice from the list of ten Best Picture nominees is that ‘Crazy Heart’ is notorious only by its absence.
So how does a film that boasts two Oscar nominations for its two main performers not also get a nod for Best Picture? Well, there’s a question I don’t think I can answer. What I can say is that I wonder if the Academy voters have not been a little too kind to Jeff Bridges and offered him the chance of an Oscar on one of his least deserving performances.
This is Jeff Bridges we are talking about and his least deserving efforts are, to be fair, best than most other best efforts. But you cannot help but feel the Academy are giving a nomination not for the performance here, but for a collection of performances over the years that should, with hindsight, have been afforded the honour long before now. From ‘The Fabulous Bakers Boys’ to ‘The Big Lebowski’, Bridges could easily feel snubbed by the Academy in the past, but you do have to question whether they would be right awarding Bridges the Oscar for this performance. Personally, I would never have gotten into this position in the first place, and this would therefore have never become an issue. For my money, I would have given him an Oscar for The Dude, but still...
The story is now a familiar one. A washed-up, burnt out star that is now plying his trade at the less glamorous end of his profession has now lost his way and is drifting through life just waiting for a pay check and some inspiration. He finds love in the arms of an unexpected woman who is undeniably too good for him, but sees something in him that others apparently do not, but there is the occasional bout of recognition of his earlier heydays from the odd fan that is almost as old as he is. No, were not talking about Mickey Rourke in ‘The Wrestler’, but do you see where this is going? Are we to believe then that this story (or derivative thereof) is now what passes for an Oscar nomination? Well, it may not have been spotted by others, but it’s all too clear to this reviewer that we have been here before, more than once, and that this fight for salvation, be it through pain, loathing, the grape or the love of a good woman is all a little predictable. And this may be the reason why the film did not get one of the ten spots available for the Best Picture category.
So assuming the story is not up to much in the way of originality, then what are we left with? Well, if Mickey Rourke can get an Oscar nomination, then why not Bridges. As I’ve said, Bridges’ best is better than most and even his most average days are also more than other actors can handle. Bridges makes a great washed out country singer and you find it easy to forget everything that has gone before in a career littered with outstanding character studies. Blake’s slow burn medical decrepitude rears every so often, as does his emotional vulnerability. As the picture evolves into a story with weight and gravitas through Blake’s turmoil, Bridges has the ability to carry the burden.
The supporting cast are amiable enough, but let there be no doubt it that this is Bridges’ picture. Gyllenhaal and Bridges display a likeable if lazy chemistry when on screen and it comes across as easy for the pair of them to work together. Better than Phoenix and Witherspoon in ‘Walk The Line’, for example, and we all know what happened there.
Both Colin Farrell and Robert Duvall are also to be found lurking in the cinematic shadows here, only seeing the light of day intermittently, and with good reason. Both of them have their moment in the company of Bad Blake, and if we’re honest, both come off second best to the man in the ten gallon hat.
Character development here is key, but it should be said that Blake is the only one really getting any of this kind of treatment. What there is, however, is excellent and you can almost chew on Bridges’ performance, being well worth slow digestion.
The pace of the film is occasionally aggravating and you do find yourself wishing they would hurry it along a little or at the very least, give the audience some bright lights and catchy tunes and these quibbles are particularly true in the films’ second half, where you do sometimes want for something to lighten the mood and chivvy up the characters. The soundtrack, most evident in the first act of the film, seems very authentic, but to someone who knows little or nothing about country music, it would be difficult for me to make any worthy comment. It sounded good, and had my foot-a-tapping.
In all, an entertaining piece of cinema, aimed squarely at fans of quality acting performances and an appreciation of character, if not plot, development. Oscar worthy though? Like I said, this Oscar, if Bridges wins it, may have come a decade too late to have any real meaning for an intelligent actor who must know even himself that his best work, his most deserving work, is not what he will win an award for tonight.
