Joaquin’s Greatest Acting Performance

Joaquin Phoenix is a great actor. He was amazing in films likes Gladiator, To Die For, Quills, The Village, Signs, and Walk the Line, among many others. He’s been nominated for two Academy Awards. He’s an actor of mysterious, artsy repute, born of cultish hippie Vegans in Puerto Rico and brother of the late River Phoenix. But Joaquin’s best acting performance so far is happening right now, in 2009, and you can see it in theaters.

I’m talking about his work in the new film, Two Lovers.

The film, directed by James Gray, is a moody romance about a guy in Brooklyn named Leonard (Phoenix) who falls in love with two women (Gwyneth Paltrow and Vinessa Shaw), for different reasons. To put it simplistically, the film is about Leonard’s struggle to decide which woman and which life he wants to pursue.

But don’t be deceived by how trite or familiar this film sounds. It is a totally fresh, beautifully told, heartbreaking film from start to finish. When I saw it this weekend, it was exactly the thing I needed to wash the lingering Watchmen bad taste out of my mouth. Unlike Watchmen, which glories in depravity and makes a pop art spectacle out of sin and frailty, Two Lovers approaches the subject delicately and with admirable nuance. The film captures the tensions and torments of the human psyche—which so often leads us astray, even when we long for the good.

Undoubtedly, Joaquin Phoenix’s performance in this film is the thing to write home about. It is stunning. He makes his character simultaneously lovable and loathsome, identifiable and alien. It’s a deep, layered performance that always errs on the side of restraint, normalcy, and empathy—even when so much of the “let’s bring the house down!” brand of show-offy acting (which seems so fashionable these days) would easily beckon Joaquin to go elsewhere with the character. Instead, Joaquin imbues Leonard with a tender, quiet, acutely felt brokenness that is never expressly rendered but rather sketched in silhouette.

In many ways, the character of Leonard is an archetype. He’s a grown man, living with his parents and working for their laundromat, unsure of what he wants in life and generally prone to misanthropy and bouts of suicidal depression. He’s haunted by the departure from his life of his former fiancé, and is sincerely stumbling through a recovery period in which he wants to do the best by himself, but has an excuse if things turn out otherwise. The way he talks, walks, works, interacts… it’s all working class normal. Leonard is just another messed up thirtysomething in New York.

And yet it is a testament to Joaquin Phoenix and his formidable talents, that Leonard becomes the most engrossing, tragic, life-encompassing film character I have seen in some time. Perhaps I am reading more depth into this character than I should, but that is sort of the beauty of this performance: it is refreshingly open-ended and complicated in a good way. We know who Leonard is, to be sure. We know him well. But there is a mystery and unknowable (and yet familiar) quality to him as well, in the same way that Monet’s Water Lilies can be mundane and comprehensible one minute and abstract and surprising the next.

I don’t mean to compare Joaquin Phoenix to Monet or anything. I just want to point out that this performance—if indeed it is his last film performance (hopefully not the case)—is definitely his Water Lilies.

6 responses to “Joaquin’s Greatest Acting Performance

  1. Okay, now shed some light on why he was “acting” on Letterman!

  2. Wow. Interesting review. Kirk and I were contemplating seeing this last weekend, after “Che” left our independent art house much sooner than we expected it would, before we’d had a chance to see it. “Two Lovers” took its place, and I love Gwyneth and respect Joaquin … but couldn’t bring myself to see it because I feared it would end up being a film about two people who morally compromise themselves into affairs and try to bring the rest of us along into agreement with it.

    You’ve given me a much different perspective, and I appreciate that. It makes me want to go see it before it leaves.

    Next up at the art house for us: “Wendy and Lucy.” Can’t wait!

  3. sorry to go off on a tangent, but aside from what you mentioned in your review, did you have any problem with Watchmen, Brett? i thought it was a fascinating deconstruction of the superhero. i’d like to see a more expounded review, since usually i completely agree with your thoughts on movies.

  4. Josh-
    I had a quite a few problems with Watchmen. I think the premise–deconstruction of the superhero, etc–is fine (though I feel like we are being saturated with “deconstruction of superhero” movies these days), but it was just the total over-the-topness and gratuity of the whole thing that bothered me. Whatever serious point it was trying to make was completely undermined by its giddy obsession with all things profane. It just felt like a 21st century-by-way-of-Nixon pop art spectacle that was needless in almost every way. It’s one thing when you’re Warhol in the 60s making a statement about mass consumption via Campbell’s soup. It’s another to make a point about depravity via overblown sex, violence, nudity, and bitterness. Our culture has seen it all before. What’s new?

  5. Well Brett, to be fair, the reason we’ve seen the deconstruction of the superhero and critique of violence-as-justice is because of a book from1985 called Watchmen.

  6. Dang it! And here I thought your post title had to do with Phoenix’s shaggy, incoherent, rapper schtick. Hmm. Come to think of it, maybe that is his best acting performance to date.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s