Could Kieran Culkin Win an Oscar for Playing Himself?

by

Over the past weekend at the Critics Choice Awards, there was little doubt about who would take home the Best Supporting Actor award. Just as it had been at the Golden Globes, the National Board of Review Awards, the New York Film Critics Circle Awards, and the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards, among others, Kieran Culkin from “A Real Pain” was the clear favorite. The only twist was that he wasn’t there in person to accept the award, denying the audience a beloved ritual of this awards season. When Kieran Culkin wins an award, he accepts it in much the same way as he earned it – with a string of off-the-cuff, free-flowing speeches. In a sea filled with polished professionals, Culkin’s unpolished podium moments are a breath of fresh air, offering an authenticity that stands out as both exciting and genuine – powerful examples of the art of anti-campaigning.

Despite the fact that Macaulay Culkin’s character in “A Real Pain” is known for being a charismatic, disorganized individual who often speaks in spontaneous monologues, this has sparked a lingering question among awards season spectators. Essentially, they wonder if Culkin is winning so many awards because he’s essentially playing a version of himself.

Anthony Abeson, my acting teacher, posed a question that delves deep into the essence of acting: “Is it more about portraying characters or expressing oneself?” He finds this conundrum, which has intrigued him for quite some time, to be a paradox.

Fundamentally, the core dilemma lies in a philosophical contrast between European acting approach and American acting – essentially, the divide between performing as a means to achieve an ideal goal versus performing as self-expression. As Abeson stated, “We are the unique western nation that has nurtured actors, both subtly and overtly, to ‘just be yourself.'” The optimal performances, according to him, blend these perspectives. “Romeo cannot exist without the actor portraying him,” he said, “yet at the same time, Romeo should not merely be a self-portrait of the actor. I must begin with myself because who else would play Romeo, but I have a responsibility and duty to not end with myself.

A Real Pain”

Character Analysis: Macaulay Culkin portrays Benji, a high-strung troublemaker who seeks to reconcile with his conservative cousin David (played by Jesse Eisenberg). In Poland, they embark on a tour focused on the Holocaust. This character is deeply flawed and lives at home, yet he showcases an unusual, self-centered compassion; his emotions towards others are so intense that they become lost in his tumultuous whirlwind of feelings. His acting prowess exhibits remarkable personal charm. Critic Richard Brody describes this empathy as “weird, narcissistic,” suggesting it’s so powerful that the people around him almost vanish within his stormy chaos. Manohla Dargis, another critic, praised Culkin’s performance, stating it was “transparently readable” and at times “viscerally destabilizing.” She commended his emotional sensitivity as an actor who doesn’t seek the audience’s affection, and instead delivers a stunning portrayal in this film.

In a way reminiscent of Kieran Culkin’s Emmy-winning portrayal as Roman Roy in Succession, the character I play, Benji, hides his inner turmoil beneath a barrage of talk. However, Terry Knickerbocker, my acting coach who has also guided stars like Daniel Craig and Sam Rockwell, emphasizes that Benji is not merely a carbon copy of Roman. While Kieran excels at portraying cockiness and irreverence, both characters share these traits. Yet, the profound sorrow that underpins A Real Pain is something Kieran doesn’t exhibit in Succession or his public appearances. Instead, Kieran comes across as a regular, balanced individual who bears none of Benji’s burdens.

It seems people are finding it hard to distinguish Macaulay Culkin’s roles due to his consistent voice and behaviors across them. His acting in “Succession” and “A Real Pain,” characterized by a free-flowing style, is not exactly improvisation as he described to Rachel Handler last year; instead, he terms it as “blagging,” which is British slang for fast talk. Essentially, he says, the lines are written, he understands the character, and at times spontaneous expressions emerge; that’s all there is to it. The key element here is a casual approach: he doesn’t force it.

It’s worth considering that the history of the Oscars might have slightly distorted our perception of what constitutes a great performance. After all, the Academy has a tendency to favor actors who undergo significant transformations. The award-winning performances often emphasize the hard work involved in embodying someone entirely different from themselves – be it through masterful makeup or learning to sing like their character. Consequently, we sometimes overlook that there are other forms of impressive acting beyond physical transformation. As Knickerbocker pointed out, “It’s not better acting because it’s flashy or grandiose.

In simpler terms, the performance of Macaulay Culkin was likened to Robert Duvall’s in the 1983 movie “Tender Mercies.” Both delivered subtle, understated acting that seemed effortless and natural. When a character is less flamboyant or dramatic, it requires great talent to portray them authentically. While some might question if Culkin’s performance accurately reflects the script, it should not be criticized for being more relatable or realistic.

It could be stated that it makes sense for Culkin to take on a supporting role in this film due to its narrative focusing on David’s complex feelings towards his cousin, Benji. He feels affection and fascination towards him, yet there is also jealousy and resentment present. In portraying this character, the audience can relate to the same intricate emotional mix. As Knickerbocker put it, “He’s a charismatic, deeply emotional, intensely alive, introspective person.” It would be difficult to find another actor who could capture these nuances as effectively as Culkin.

Abeson conceded that Culkin’s critics might be correct in their assessment: “He hasn’t fully utilized his special talent to completely and profoundly transform into another person, as Stanislavski suggested – a form of spiritual rebirth.” In essence, they were offering him constructive criticism, he explained. “They’re telling him, ‘Your self-portrait is good, but we want more from you.’ It’s fascinating how public feedback can sometimes foster an artist’s growth.

Why Did Pundits Underestimate Anora?

For the members of Team Anora, last Saturday could have been the most remarkable day they’ve ever experienced. Just like a Russian princess reclaiming her rightful place, the Palme d’Or-winning comedy about strip clubs regained its leading position with two wins at the DGA and PGA Awards over the weekend. To add to this success, Anora clinched the Best Picture award at the Critics Choice Awards on Friday night – although it may not be a major Oscar predictor, it still added some sparkle to their prospects. In just 24 hours, the fortune of Anora for the Oscars escalated from rhinestones to diamonds.

It’s essential not to assume that the Best Picture race is already decided, especially considering that “La La Land” and “1917” have both won multiple awards. However, this unpredictable Oscar season is finally revealing some clarity, and recently, the film “Anora” has been gaining attention from pundits. This movie is heartwarming, humorous, and full of emotion. It also possesses an underdog spirit that seems to resonate with the current Academy. Moreover, nearly everyone seems to enjoy it, which could be advantageous given the preferential ballot system used by both the PGA and the Academy. However, these factors have always been present. So why did many Oscar prognosticators disregard them during the final stages of the season? Let’s delve into why pundits were hesitant to fully endorse “Anora”.

It Blanked at the Golden Globes.

In a surprising turn of events, the Golden Globe Awards are decided by a relatively small group of journalists with no direct ties to the film industry. Despite this, as the first significant televised awards ceremony, their impact on the movie race is immense. Regrettably, they overlooked the film “Anora” entirely, a decision that seemed to have long-lasting consequences. The timing was particularly unfortunate, as the wildfires in Los Angeles temporarily halted the season, causing the Globes’ results to linger in our collective memory longer than usual. We’ve witnessed instances where a snub from the Golden Globe Awards can transform a presumed frontrunner into an also-ran, as seen with 2018’s “A Star Is Born”. To add salt to the wound, one of the films that benefited most from the Globes was “The Substance”, which propelled Demi Moore to a lead-actress win. This victory in a category where “Anora” was expected to excel significantly undermined its chances.

It’s Not Crafts-y.

On Oscar nomination day, _Anora_ garnered recognition in categories such as Picture, Director, Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, and Editing. However, if you’ve moved past kindergarten, you understand that these six nominations are significantly less than the high numbers achieved by competitors like _The Brutalist_ and _Emilia Pérez_. Although nomination tallies don’t carry the same weight as they once did due to preferential voting, considering that _The Brutalist_ and _Emilia Pérez_ outshone _Anora_ at the Globes, it was hard not to feel that they were the ones gaining momentum in the race.

It’s Less Explicitly Political.

In the initial stages of the second term of the Trump administration, it appeared that voters looking to make a statement were leaning towards Emilia Pérez, whose platform on trans empowerment seemed like a rejection of the new president’s policies (though the opinions of actual trans people may have differed). Before Emilia Pérez faced issues, she was seen as a strong contender, particularly in light of how Moonlight, which capitalized on Hollywood’s anti-Trump sentiments, won Best Picture eight years prior. This year, Anora, a film exploring the significant influence of foreign oligarchs, carries its own political relevance. However, its promotional efforts focused more on the film’s complex love story rather than its political undertones.

It’s Raunchy.

Even though some Academy members who admired “Anora” found it challenging to envision it as the Best Picture winner, its explicit content, including sex, nudity, and twerking, along with a gritty portrayal of sex work, lacks both the sentimental tone of “Forrest Gump” and the romantic elements of “Pretty Woman.” Last year’s winner, “Poor Things,” also featured adult themes, but it was more favorably received by the Oscars due to its narrative focusing on a woman’s personal growth. However, while “Anora” has a strong emotional impact, it doesn’t offer the same uplifting vibe as “Poor Things.

It Was the Early Front-runner.

Occasionally, Oscar predictors remind me of a quote from Mad Men: They seem to criticize a movie just because it’s too familiar or predictable. Anora had been leading the race since May, but it wasn’t an Oppenheimer-scale phenomenon. As more contenders entered the fray, these critics started to grow restless and their attention began to waver. Didn’t Wicked look appealing today? Wasn’t Emilia Pérez catching their eye in the elevator? In a way, not being recognized at the Golden Globes was beneficial for Anora: It gave Oscar-watchers a brief respite from it. Now that Sean Baker’s film has regained its position as the frontrunner, these critics are looking at it with fresh eyes, as if they’ve rediscovered it. They’re seeing it in a completely new light, much like a long-married partner might realize they’ve been taking their spouse for granted and then start appreciating them all over again.

Read More

2025-02-15 18:55