Transformations

Photo used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of metimbers2000.

I went to see Julie & Julia tonight, which confirmed my happy impression that Meryl Streep can do no wrong, and my less happy impression that I just am not particularly fond of Amy Adams (who, admittedly, is given whiny material with which to work. It's not her fault Julie Powell seems less than awesome.). But I don't particularly want to talk about their work, or the food, which is lovely, or the score, which is somewhat intrusive. Instead, I want to talk about Jane Lynch. Before I get to Jane Lynch though, I want to try to explain something about her performance that makes me very excited for the winter movie season this year. I sometimes feel like there are two turning points in an actor's career: the moment when they break out, when they find the role that lets them show people what they can do, and the moment when they find a role that lets them show people what else they can do. Some actors, like Streep, are so marvelous and protean that we believe they can do anything, but they're an exceedingly small minority. Most other folks, we know what they can do, and in a way, it's comforting. We can count on Keanu Reeves to be blank and a little amazed; we're aware that Sandra Bullock will be winning, but probably will do something slightly questionable, like lie about being engaged to a guy in a coma or force her assistant to marry her that will make us question that charm; Channing Tatum won't say much, but he'll look good (It is a measure of how dreadful G.I. Joe was that I felt I didn't even get my quota of Channing Tatum with his shirt off. My standards are low, people.).

But occasionally, actors get a role that lets them do something beyond the range they've established for themselves, or, through force of will or inspiration, transform material they've been given and transform themselves along with it. I can see three performances that I think could be that moment for three actors, either in theaters already or coming up this fall.

I. Jane Lynch

Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy rachel_bunting.

One of Julie & Julia's great strengths in the Julia Child sections is the way the movie sketches in information quickly and makes it deeply felt, particularly Julia's sadness at not being able to get pregnant. Nowhere does this happen better than in a brief part of the movie where Julia's sister, played by Jane Lynch, comes to visit. Lynch's zone of awesomeness lies in the kind of role I'd call contemporary surreal. There's always something off about her, whether she's managing an electronics store, running a mentor program, or coaching a cheerleading team. Whatever she's doing is broadly normal, but there's always a kind of misplaced intensity about her characters, whether she's buying a lot of weed off of one of her employees and attempting to seduce another, dealing with a judge she used to sleep with when she was on drug binges, or mixing questionable-looking supplements into her smoothies in her office in the high school she terrorizes. (Now that I think about it, there are a lot of substances involved in her performances.)

Lynch brings some of that intensity and gawky physicality to her role as Child's sister--a scene where she and Streep examine themselves in a mirror before a party, and Streep declares that they look "Good...But not great," is priceless, both for its confidence and honesty of assessment. But for once, Lynch is not the most outrageous person in a scene, and when a short guy at a party starts chatting her up, she's attractive in a way I've never seen her before. She's also, though off-screen, the agent of one of the worst hurts in the movie, and that's new, too. Lynch has always reminded me of a British actress, both in her sense of humor, and in the fact that if she lived in the UK, I think she'd get more work: they cast actors who look like real people over there, and I feel like she'd find a place. I'd never thought that a good place for her might be historical drama, but I like it. In a setting where she doesn't have to be the odd-looking quirky chick, and can just be a person, Lynch might have a chance to open up as an actress.

II. Mark Wahlberg

Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Lessio.

I think it says something very interesting that the part of Jack Salmon in Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Lovely Bones originally was going to be filled by Ryan Gosling. I finally broke down and read the novel this weekend (thoughts forthcoming later today), and I'd be very curious as to the process by which Gosling was replaced by Mark Wahlberg, not simply because I think the two actors are generally considered to operate in very different parts of the jungle, but because I think they embody very different versions of masculine tenderness. Gosling, I think, often builds his roles from a foundation of vulnerability, while Wahlberg's toughness is much more at his core.

That said, I think Wahlberg may actually be a much better fit for the part. Jack Salmon's character is entirely about what happens when one kind of masculine strength fails a man--his ability to protect his children, provide both financially and emotionally for his family, and to stay rational in difficult circumstances--and he has to learn how to find and embody a very different self. Jack's character is extremely gentle in certain ways--he builds ships in bottles, for instance--but violent in others--he contemplates killing the man who he believes murdered his daughter. That continuum is in his character from the beginning, and as he becomes physically weaker throughout the book, suffering a debilitating knee injury and a heart attack, he becomes a much emotionally stronger person (not that he was a weak one at the beginning of the novel). I think Wahlberg will embody that physical strength better than Gosling would have. And I think he showed fascinating hints of emotional struggle in I Heart Huckabees, which is otherwise a movie I feel hugely ambivalent about. I'll be really curious to see him combine that sense of a fracturing reality with responsibilities as a family man, particularly acting against Rachel Weisz (who is cast precisely within her range in The Lovely Bones, but in a way that I think will be very effective).

III. Alec Baldwin

The best Creative Commons picture I could find of Alec Baldwin was one of his face stenciled onto a piece of cheese. This blog has some editorial standards, so I didn't use it.

I feel like Alec Baldwin already had his second-act moment with 30 Rock, so his inclusion on this list is kind of dubious. But I am really, REALLY excited for Nancy Meyer's new movie, It's Complicated, which looks like a mashup of things I like a lot: Shopgirl, 30 Rock, and Meryl Streep:

And I'm excited for Baldwin to be in it, even if what it sort of looks like he's doing is bringing Jack Donaghy back down to earth. His "Okay, good note," to Meryl Streep, after she tells him he's trying too hard by kissing her, is very much Jack. But I think there are deeper notes of disappointment in Baldwin's performance in this movie, and hints of a kind of grown-up sexiness, not Harrison-Ford-still-landing-Callista-Flockhart, sexiness, but a guy who knows himself and what he's capable of. It's been a long time since Baldwin did fantastic, non-character, non-voice (oh, but what would The Royal Tenenbaums be without his narration?) work in a major motion picture, and I think this would be an important return to form for him. I also think it seems like an interesting picture for him to mine some of the personal experience with his divorce that's clearly been a huge factor for him over the past couple of years (I'm curious, too, as to how Wahlberg's recent marriage interacted with an intense performance as a family man), without necessarily falling into just conveying his actual feelings on-screen.

Baldwin is one of the actors I most want to succeed, I just like the guy, and if this movie is part of an ascent back to serious, sustained success, I'll be very happy for him.

I may be wrong about any of these performances, but they're giving me a lot of reason to hope. This summer broke the blockbuster for me, at least a little bit, and I'm trying to be optimistic that the performance of some terrific actors, ones who don't feel the need to hide behind CGI (exemption for The Lovely Bones, because it's heaven, not explosions, and because it looks rad) and airbrushing will restore my love of the movies. Jane Lynch has already made a good start.