Tuesday, February 13, 2007


I forgot to blog about this after I saw it on Thursday. Peter O'Toole is absolutely marvellous.

It has to be incredibly difficult to choose between him and Forest Whitaker for the Oscar. The roles are so different with one a sensitive and touching role and the other a larger than life villain.

Venus is far better as a film. It felt genuinely touching as an exploration of the human response to decline and the male response to women. The other characters are well thought through and the rest of the cast encourage O'Toole as opposed to the rest of the cast in Last King of Scotland who are best when they simply get out of Whitaker's way.

On balance I would probably choose O'Toole's more rounded performance but I think to a certain extent this shows the futility of awards like the Oscars. How can two, so different but both so brilliant, performances really be compared and one judged better?

1 comment:

Mr Eugenides said...

They can't, of course. But given that both are "small" films, I think the fact that O'Toole has been nominated seven? times, I think, without winning, may - just - give him an edge.