On famous people playing famous people.

Okay so I said I was going to review ‘Invictus’ and ‘Up in the air’ but I didn’t. No excuses. Just plain old laziness. However I do want to write on an ‘Invictus’ related topic so I guess I’m not quite as bad as originally thought.

In a nutshell here is my ‘Invictus’ review: I don’t like Clint Eastwood films. I quite liked this Clint Eastwood film. What an amazing review eh? But who cares about reviews anyway Robot Socks world? I want to talk about something far more interesting.

It seems that every year when the Oscar nominations come out we have at least one familiar face nominated for portraying another familiar face. Needless to say I was less than staggered when Morgan Freeman got the nod for his depiction of Nelson Mandela in the aforementioned ‘Invictus’. I will not quibble with this decision as I thought Freeman did a commendable job as Mandela. What I will question however is why we are so interested in seeing famous faces playing famous historical figures.

I will confess that whenever I hear of a project based on a famous figure such as ‘Invictus’ I am immediately intrigued. All the questions that run through my mind relate to the depiction of this character. Will they get the voice right? Will they accentuate the positives of this figure too much? Will they have the correct physicality? Amidst these questions there is no assessment of what the film itself will actually be like. And I guess in a way this is not necessary as we most likely know the basics of the story beforehand. For example I wanted to see ‘The Queen’ not because I didn’t remember what happened when Diana died but because I did remember it and I wanted to see how well it was presented. Is this a legitimate reason for seeing a film?

Then once you have seen the film the next question arises; did I actually enjoy it? Invariably I will come out of a film like say last years ‘Frost/Nixon’ and say, ‘Langella really nailed Nixon’s voice’ but I won’t say ‘I liked the arc of the story’. My point is that something of the film gets lost because we are too busy scrutinizing the mimicry for its accuracy. A prime case in point is Oliver Stone’s drab George Bush flick ‘W’, which featured an array of hammy caricatures and little else. There seemed no aim to Stone’s film other than to showcase a grotesque parade of impressions from Thandie Newton’s infuriating Condoleeza Rice to Jeffrey Wright’s frustrating Colin Powell. In this case I was so bombarded by impersonations that I lost any interest in the story whatsoever.

I’m not saying that these films shouldn’t exist I’m just trying to find out why the focus needs to be on performance rather than story. Although it was inconsistent, and at times incoherent, I was fascinated by Todd Haynes’ ‘I’m Not There’. It didn’t try to do an impersonation of Dylan and it didn’t even care about his race or sex. Instead it attempted to capture some of his spirit, which meant that the stories in the movie were more prevalent than the performances that peppered them. However just to throw another spanner in the works I should note that I am not a fan of Dylan and have pretty much no knowledge of his life or work so maybe I was just viewing ‘I’m Not There’ from a different perspective to say ‘Invictus’ or ‘The Queen’.

I suppose there is no resolution to my plight. I will undoubtedly rush to the movies the next time Michael Sheen plays Blair and I will sit there judging Dennis Quad as he imitates Bill Clinton in ‘The Special Relationship’ (released later this year). And beyond question some esteemed actor will receive a nomination for their portrayal of some esteemed historical figure at next years Oscars. And without a doubt I will still be asking myself the same questions.

Please my dear Robot Socks friends help me with this problem. Tell me how I can avoid this cycle of interest and disillusion. I need you.