Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 358-360: Days of Future Past Part One

Since I started this quest four years ago, a lot of the older movies that I once hadn't been able to track down have since popped up online. So I thought, before I left the twentieth century entirely behind, I'd look back at some of these offerings from prior decades.

I started with Smilin' Through a film nominated at the sixth Oscar ceremony back in 1934. Upon first watching it I'd forgotten just how basic some of these films from the 1930s were and it was evident that the actors were still struggling to deal with the cameras. Based on the play by Jane Cowl and Jane Murfin; Smilin' Through was the story of Leslie Howard's John Carteret who learnt to love again after adopting his young niece. John had been heartbroken after the death of his wife, at the hands of her jealous former lover, and had sunk into a deep depression. Raising Kathleen, John finds a new purpose but oddly doesn't seem perturbed by the fact that she looks exactly like his late love due to the fact both are played by Norma Shearer. The rest of the film deals with Kathleen's feelings towards Kenneth Wayne, the son of the man who killed her uncle's love and John's refusal to accept their romance. Despite Kenneth being played by the brilliant Frederic March, I still didn't feel much sympathy for the character when he was injured during the first world war. I think part of the reason for this is that I didn't buy into the romance between Kenneth and Kathleen primarily due to the lack of chemistry between March and Shearer. Furthermore I've never been a massive fan of Leslie Howard's acting and found he struggled with the filmic setting the most. Of the three key players I found that Shearer was the most engaging as she shone in the scene in which she had to perform the film's titular tune. The film is at its strongest in the flashback scenes which add some context to John's feelings and the love he had for Moonyeen. But for a lot of the times the film was confined to characters speaking in rooms and so it felt like director Sidney Franklin had simply recorded a version of the original play. Smilin' Through was a film I really wanted to like more, and it was an easy watch, but unfortunately it felt quite stagy and too melodramatic for my liking.

Nominated for Best Picture that same year, State Fair is an adaptation of Philip Strong's novel and is directed by Henry King. Many of you will know State Fair better as a Rogers and Hammerstein musical, which itself had two film adaptations, but this version predates both of those. Following the exploits of the Frake family, State Fair basically does what it says on the tin as we see the clan prepare for the titular event. The film features moments of big drama such as when Ma Frake over-brandies her mincemeat or when her husband uses her hairbrush to beautify his prize pig. The main draw for the majority of the audience would be the film's central romance between Janet Gaynor's naive Margy and Lew Ayres' newspaper reporter Pat Gilbert. Their whirlwind fling that begins on a rollercoaster is certainly the film's most involving plot but one that I felt needed more time devoted to it. It doesn't help that the story about Margy's brother Wayne's relationship with a trapeze artist basically mirrors that essential plot. Controversially Wayne's relationship troubled censors at the time as his seduction at the hands of Emily was strongly hinted at on screen which angered certain moralists. I can certainly see why State Fair later became a musical, because this straight version is a little dry and extremely dull at times. Director King at least attempted to make State Fair visually appealing and the rollercoaster scene was particularly well-executed given the time the film was released. The film certainly did its job in recreating a State Fair as I felt immersed in all of the pickle judging and hoop-tossing that came along with the event. Of the cast, Gaynor gave an incredibly breezy turn as the sweet-natured Margy whilst Will Rogers was perfectly convincing as Frake patriarch Abel. Although State Fair hasn't aged well, it was at least an interesting watch and it was clear to see that King had tried his best to visually recreate the original novel.

Our final film comes from the next year's Oscar ceremony in the form of operatic drama One Night of Love. The film features operatic soprano Grace Moore as Mary, a talented singer who journeys from New York to Italy in order to broaden her musical horizons. Whilst performing in a restaurant, Mary catches the eye of music teacher Guilio Monteverdi who agrees to tutor her as long as she does everything he says. The fact that Guilio insists that none of his pupils ever fall in love with him gives you the sort of idea as to where One Night of Love goes next. However the path of true love never did run smooth and the couple's potential relationship is tested by one of Guilio's ex-students as well as a friend of Mary's from New York who proposes to her. Although the story in One Night of Love is quite basic, the film thrives thanks to its musical scenes and the multiple performances by Grace Moore. The film climaxes with two performances as Mary stars in Carmen in Italy and then returns to New York to star in Madame Butterfly. In addition to her brilliant singing, Moore is an accomplished actress and convinces as the trainee opera diva attempting to make her mark in the world. One Night of Love won three Oscars; all of which were related to its musical score and sound recording. Aside from winning the sound and music awards, One Night of Love won a special achievement Oscar for its revolutionary use of the Vertical Cut Disc Method in order to present the musical sequences on screen. The production design throughout the film is also quite impressive given the time period and I was particularly taken by the fact that the entire Metropolitan Opera House was recreated on Columbia Studio's largest sound stage. Though it never blew me away, One Night of Love was a fun little film which was easy to watch and was ultimately a showcase for the incredibly talented Grace Moore.

I'll return soon with more films from the 1930s.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge: Reviewing the Ceremonies 62-71 (1990-1999)

So we've to the end of another decade and in fact the end of the century as we've watched the last Oscar-nominated films of the 20th century. As a whole the decade saw the beginning of the trend of the Oscar campaign. The name of Harvey Weinstein and his Miramax company has frequently been mention throughout the decade sometimes in a negative manner. Whilst Miramax were responsible for bringing Pulp Fiction and Good Will Hunting to the public they also aggressively pushed for Shakespeare in Love to win Best Picture. There was also an over-abundance of films set in the past being nominated, a trend that would continue into the new century. But for now we'll do what we always do and explore whether or not the 1990s Best Picture Winners actually deserved their prize.


Ceremony 62 (1990)
Winner: Driving Miss Daisy
Nominees: Born on the Fourth of July, Dead Poets Society, Field of Dreams, My Left Foot
Did the Right Film Win? No
Quaint as it was, Driving Miss Daisy was an unremarkable drama that was memorable purely for its performances. The fact that director Bruce Beresford wasn't even nominated for helming the film tells you all you that nobody expecting Miss Daisy to win the award in the first place. I'd probably say that Born on the Fourth of July deserved to win the most due to its fantastic visuals and Cruise's central performance. However my favourite film of the five was My Left Foot which felt like the underdog film that should have triumphed against the more famous competition.

Ceremony 63 (1991)
Winner: Dances with Wolves
Nominees: Awakenings, Ghost, The Godfather Part III, Goodfellas
Did the Right Film Win? No
I personally found Kevin Costner's Civil War epic to be tiresome and lacking in any real tension to speak off. Despite not considering it the classic that most do, I think that Goodfellas is the most accomplished film here and should have been given the Best Picture award at this year's ceremony.

Ceremony 64 (1992)
Winner: The Silence of the Lambs
Nominees: Beauty and the Beast, Bugsy, JFK, The Prince of Tides
Did the Right Film Win? Yes
By process of elimination I think that Jonathan Demme's psychological thriller was probably the most worthy winner this year. The Prince of Tides was too soppy, JFK was too long-winded and Bugsy was an enjoyable romp but nothing special. An argument can be made for Beauty and the Beast but I feel that the Academy saw it as too much of a children's film to grab the prize. Ultimately The Silence of the Lambs' win was a refreshing change as creepy films like it rarely get nominated let alone win.

Ceremony 65 (1993)
Winner: Unforgiven
Nominees: The Crying Game, A Few Good Men, Howard's End, Scent of a Woman
Did the Right Film Win? Yes
Of the five films nominated this year Clint Eastwood's measured and thoughtful western stands head and shoulders above the rest. Although A Few Good Men was well-paced and Howard's End had its moments this was definitely the year to honour the excellent work Eastwood had done throughout his career.

Ceremony 66 (1994)
Winner: Schindler's List
Nominees: The Fugitive, In the Name of the Father, The Piano, The Remains of the Day
Did the Right Film Win? Yes
As much as I enjoyed all of the nominees in different ways there's no denying that Schindler's List is oneo f the best films of all time.

Ceremony 67 (1995)
Winner: Forrest Gump
Nominees: Four Weddings and a Funeral, Pulp Fiction, Quiz Show, The Shawshank Redemption
Did the Right Film Win? No
It's fair to say that I enjoyed Forrest Gump more than I thought I would but to me it ranks third on the most deserving films nominated this year. Pulp Fiction was such an original concept at the time that I'm surprised it was nominated but a win would've shown that the academy were progressive. But if you were going to choose a feelgood winner then The Shawshank Redemption had the heart of Forrest Gump plus a lot of the grit that the ultimate winner didn't possess. Ultimately this award should have gone to Frank Darabont's prison drama rather than Robert Zemeckis' modern day fable.

Ceremony 68 (1996)
Winner: Braveheart
Nominees: Apollo 13, Babe, Il Postino, Sense and Sensibility
Did the Right Film Win? No
I didn't have as much of a problem with Braveheart as a lot of others have although the acting, particularly from Gibson was over the top. Still, I found Apollo 13 to be a lot more compelling and felt that a drama focusing on more modern history should have been given a win. In fact any of the nominees, with the exception of Babe, would've been a worthy alternative to Gibson's Scottish epic. On a personal note this is the first Oscar ceremony I remember watching pieces of probably due to the fact that I'd seen two of the nominated films.

Ceremony 69 (1997)
Winner: The English Patient
Nominees: Fargo, Jerry Maguire, Secrets and Lies, Shine
Did the Right Film Win? Yes
As much as I liked Fargo and Secrets and Lies there was only obvious choice to win Best Picture this year. With its sumptuous location shooting and brilliant ensemble cast, The English Patient was more than a deserving winner of Oscar's top accolade.

Ceremony 70 (1998)
Winner: Titanic
Nominees: As Good as it Gets, The Full Monty, Good Will Hunting, L.A. Confidential
Did the Right Film Win? Maybe
In some ways Titanic's place as the seventieth Best Picture winner makes sense. The film was full of groundbreaking technical advancements and contained some gripping moments. But in terms of storytelling and character development it was the weakest of the five films nominated that year. In its place I would've put L.A. Confidential; a stylish, well-written and well-acted piece which harks back to the style of earlier decades whilst at the same time feeling utterly modern.

Ceremony 71 (1999)
Winner: Shakespeare in Love
Nominees: Elizabeth, Life is Beautiful, Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line
Did the Right Film Win? No
While Shakespeare in Love was an enjoyable romp, it was nowhere near the masterpiece that Saving Private Ryan was. Spielberg's war epic should have won Best Picture this year and it's down to a number of dirty tactics that saw Shakespeare in Love triumph instead.

That's it for the 20th century, I will return sporadically throughout the next few months with posts concerning the early 2000s and I'm hoping to conclude this challenge somewhere around next year's Oscars.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 357: The Last to Five

All the way back on Day 8 of the challenge I discussed Oscar's Big Five awards; Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director and Best Screenplay. At the time I was looking at the first film to win the award, Frank Capra's It Happened One Night, and since then we also covered the next movie to achieve that honour in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Shockingly there is only one more film to date that has been able to snatch the Big Five awards that being Jonathan Demme's The Silence of the Lambs.
In my opinion, what's even more surprising about The Silence of the Lambs' multiple wins is the fact that it's the type of film that's rarely recognised by the Academy in the first place. Widely considered by some to be a horror film, The Silence of the Lambs is the second film of the genre to garner a Best Picture nod after The Exorcist. In my mind, The Silence of the Lambs is more of a psychological thriller as it deals with an FBI trainee's attempts to track down a serial killer by getting inside the head of another mass murderer. The trainee in question is Clarice Starling and the mass murderer is former psychiatrist turned cannibal Hannibal Lecter. Some of the best moments of the film focus on the interplay between Hannibal and Clarice as each try to outwit one another. Clarice's attempts to find out about serial killer 'Buffalo Bill' are exchanged with Hannibal''s need to hear about the FBI trainee's childhood. As we learn through a number of flashbacks, Clarice's upbringing wasn't the most stable as she was orphaned at an early age. The title of the film refers to Clarice's experiences at her uncle's farm in which she heard a group of lambs being slaughtered, something that has haunted her ever since. Clarice admits that she hopes to silence the sound of the lambs by bringing Buffalo Bill to justice especially after he kidnaps the daughter of U.S. senator Catherine Martin. When Hannibal claims to know the name and location of Buffalo Bill, Martin is forced to cut a deal with the psychopath promising him a new cell in which he can see outside. But a promise made from one of cinema's most famous villains isn't exactly going to be kept and, in one of the film's most thrilling sequences, Hannibal escapes. Meanwhile, it's up to rookie Clarice to follow her instincts and track down Buffalo Bill single-handedly after several of her superiors try to solve the crime as a way of attracting media glory.

I had a feeling after watching The Silence of the Lambs similar to the one I did after I'd finished The Fugitive. Both were refreshing changes to the cavalcade of historical dramas and feelgood flicks that I've been mostly subjected to throughout the last couple of decades. The Silence of the Lambs is particularly distinctive due to its themes of cannibalism and mass murder neither of which regularly feature in Best Picture nominees. As I've never watched the film some of the more shocking moments go to me and I found there were a number of genuine shocks throughout the movie. Jonathan Demme's Best Director Oscar was more than deserved as he kept each shocking sequence tightly paced and I never lost focus during the film. I rarely say this about any of the films on this challenge, but if anything I would've liked The Silence of the Lambs to be a little bit longer as I felt Clarice's capture of Buffalo Bill needed to have more time devoted to it. I found that Ted Tally's adaptation of Thomas Harris' source novel boiled down the essential elements to create a thrilling narrative. As Clarice, Jodie Foster is absolutely captivating and it's great to see her capitalising on the talent we already saw she had as a child star in Taxi Driver. Right from the opening training sequence, Foster conveys Clarice's inner turmoil and allows the audience to care for the character in order for us to root for her in the final scenes. Of the Big Five Oscars the film won the one that puzzles me the most is Anthony Hopkins' award for Best Actor especially considering that he's on screen for less than twenty minutes. There's no denying that Hopkins gives a captivating turn and bounces well off Foster, but Hannibal is much more of a supporting character than he is a lead. As I've previously mentioned, I would've preferred Hopkins to have won the Oscar for his turn in The Remains of the Day as his win here seems to be more for the character than the performance itself. But that's a minor niggle in a film that's a real treat to watch due to its tightly-paced script, genuinely terrifying moments and a great central performance.

Watching The Silence of the Lambs also got me thinking about why more films haven't won the Big Five in the following years. In fact of the almost 500 films nominated for Best Picture over the years, only 42 have been nominated in all five categories. The main issue appears to be that very few films are nominated in both the Best Actor and Actress category meaning that there are few opportunities for movies to get this very special accolade. But I don't think it's out of the question for another film to equal the success of It Happened One Night, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Silence of the Lambs and it's simply a case of when rather than if.

So that's the decade over and done with and in the next post I do my usual review of the ten Oscar ceremonies that occurred during the 1990s.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 355-356: Al and The Academy

We last checked in on Al Pacino back on Day 232 of the challenge as we saw him pick up his third of five Best Actor nominations for Dog Day Afternoon. Whilst Pacino was considered one of the biggest stars of the 1970s, the eighties presented somewhat of a creative slump for him. After garnering a fourth Best Actor nod, for the 1979 film ...And Justice For All, Pacino starred in a number of notable Box Office failures. The one exception to this rule occurred in 1983 when Pacino portrayed the iconic Tony Montana in Scarface, a role that was cruelly overlooked by Oscar. But Pacino's career would turn around in the 1990s with three more Oscar nominations as well as a reprisal of one of his most famous roles.

That role was of course Michael Corleone who was one of a number of familiar faces returning for the third and final instalment in The Godfather franchise. Pacino had previously been nominated for playing Michael in the prior two Godfather movies even though he was only given a Supporting Actor nod for his role in the original movie. Ever since I revisited the first two films I've had a problem with Brando winning Best Actor as Michael is really the leading character in the first film. Pacino is on screen longer than Brando and The Godfather is really about Michael's journey from military man to head of the family. Of the three Godfather films I have to admit that I've never watched this final instalment due to the fact that it's been panned critically. In fact the film only exists due to Francis Ford Coppola's financial problems after his previous film, One from the Heart, failed to draw an audience. Taking up Paramount's long standing desire to create a final film, Coppola created what he claimed to be an epilogue to The Godfather franchise and he originally wanted to call it The Death of Michael Corleone. There are definitely a lot of problems with The Godfather Part III but Pacino's performance isn't one of them as he perfectly portrays an ageing Michael. Now with greying hair and at one point suffering a diabetic stroke, Michael attempts to get out of the criminal enterprise once and for all until another murder pulls him back in. The film also concerns itself with introducing Michael's natural successor, Sonny's illegitimate son Vincent, who has made a lot of enemies prior to appearing on screen. Vincent soon starts a romance with Michael's daughter Mary a relationship that is soon quashed by Michael who believes that their pairing will ultimately end badly. The climax of the film occurs in Sicily as the family arrives to watch Michael's son Anthony take part in an opera. It's here at the opera that some of the Corleone's enemies are murdered and Michael suffers a particularly big loss.

Part of the problem with The Godfather Part III is its overly wordy script as I felt there were too many scenes featuring a lot of men talking in rooms. This started at an event to honour Michael's new role as the Commander of the Order of Saint Sebastian due to his charity work. Whilst the planning and the plotting worked in the first two Godfather films here it felt forced and I mentally switched off during a lot of these scenes. It was only when the family arrived in Sicily that I felt the film really got going especially in the scenes in which Michael and Kay reminisced about their past together. Pacino's chemistry with Diane Keaton was a great as ever with the latter conveying a tinge of regret in Kay's eyes before Michael inevitably started scheming again. The closing scenes at the opera were beautifully done as Coppola and his editing team deftly switched between the performers on stage and the murders that were happening at the same time. One of the most famous problems with the film was the casting of Coppola's daughter Sofia as Mary Corelone. Although viewed as pure nepotism on Coppola's part, the role of Mary was initially given to Winona Ryder before she dropped out at the last minute. I didn't have a problem with Sofia's performance in the early stages of the film but it was only during her romance with Andy Garcia's Vincent that the cracks began to show. The issue was that Sofia and Garcia had little chemistry so it was hard to care about their Romeo and Juliet love story which was one of the movie's major subplots. Similarly, as Sofia had done little to make me care about the character, I really didn't care that much when she was gunned down in the film's final moments. Garcia himself gave a decent turn as Vincent and was given a Best Supporting Actor nod as a character who was attempting to emulate Michael. The Godfather Part III did suffer from a lack of interesting characters as Fredo was murdered at the end of the second film whilst Tom Hagen was similarly absent due to Robert Duvall's refusal to be paid a lot less money than Pacino was getting. The ultimate result of these decisions meant that The Godfather Part III was a patchy film that sullied the memory of its predecessors. Though Pacino gave a memorable turn and the film got going during its final third, this was an unnecessary addition to what was a perfect franchise and it was evident that Coppola had returned to the Corleone family purely for monetary gain.  

The same year as The Godfather Part III was nominated for Best Picture, Pacino was given a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his role in gangster spoof Dick Tracy. Two years later Pacino finally won the Oscar that had alluded him for the past twenty years. If you include his Supporting Actor nod for Glengarry Glen Ross the same year, Pacino's winning turn in Scent of a Woman was his eighth Oscar nomination overall. In the film Pacino plays the drunken blind Army Lieutenant Frank Slade who changes his outlook on life after spending Thanksgiving weekend with a young companion. The companion in question is Charlie Simms, a scholarship student at a prestigious boarding school who agrees to be Slade's carer in order to earn more money. Scent of a Woman is Charlie's story as much as it is Frank's as we witness his moral dilemma of either shopping out some of his fellow students for performing a prank or taking up the headmaster's offer of a scholarship place at Harvard. Frank's first appearance in the film takes place about twenty minutes in as he's initially portrayed as quite an unlikeable man who has little time for anyone. This portrayal of the character continues into the next segment of the film as Frank cons Charlie into taking him to New York where they spend a memorable couple of days. Screenwriter Bo Goldman only really makes us sympathise with Frank when we see him spend time with his family and learn how he was blinded in the first place. This scene is soon followed by Scent of Woman's most iconic moment as Frank meets a young lady at a hotel and persuades her to tango with him. I found this tango scene to be perfectly shot with both Pacino and his female co-star Gabrielle Amwar succeeding in enticing the audience. We then continue to sympathise with Frank as he attempts to take his own life and its only due to a last minute arrival by Charlie that he changes his mind. I was perfectly conflicted about the film's rather predictable final scenes in which Charlie is threatened with expulsion after he refuses to give up the names of the pupils responsible for the prank. The disciplinary committee are forced to change their minds after Frank gives an impassioned speech on Charlie's behalf in which he berates the headmaster for casting the poor youngster as a scapegoat. Whilst this speech was well-delivered by Pacino I don't think it really deserved the standing ovation it was given by the school's pupils. This scene led in turn to Scent of a Woman having a rather cheesy ending which felt out of place after what had come before it.

Part of me feels that Pacino's Best Actor win for Scent of a Woman was the Academy's way of honouring his past achievements. His performance as Frank Slade certainly didn't top the turns he gave in either of The Godfather film or in Dog Day Afternoon. It certainly took me a while to warm to Frank and I think that Pacino's performance was a little too big for me to really take him seriously as a character. It was only after the aforementioned tango scene that Pacino captured the essence of the character and in turn Frank's attempted suicide was rather emotional. The Academy's trend of honouring an actor for his entire body of work really started with Henry Fonda in the early 1980s who won an Oscar for his turn in On Golden Pond which wasn't his best performance by a long shot. I do feel that Chris O'Donnell definitely made Charlie the most sympathetic character of the two as he was the one who the audience could identify with a lot more. O'Donnell conveyed Charlie's journey perfectly and as the journey progressed his on-screen chemistry with Pacino improved. As Scent of a Woman was primarily a two-hander there was very little room for any other cast members to make an impression. The exception to this rule comes from a young Philip Seymour Hoffman who is utterly detestable as Charlie's wimpy classmate who hides behind his lawyer father in attempt to avoid taking any responsibility for witnessing the prank. One of my main problems with Scent of a Woman was its length as it was a film that had no business running for two and half hours. Every scene felt over-stretched and I think that if each had a couple of minutes shaved off it Scent of a Woman would be better paced. I do ultimately think that Scent of a Woman is only memorable for being the film that Pacino won his sole Oscar for and if that wasn't the case the film wouldn't be as well-remembered as it. Overall I found the film to be a rather unremarkable road trip movie that contained a patchy performance from Pacino and a message that was presented in a heavy-handed manner by director Martin Brest.

To date Pacino hasn't been nominated for another Oscar but he will return once more on the challenge in his last appearance in a Best Picture movie.

Next time we come to the end of the 1990s as we invite a friend over for dinner.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 354: Keeping it Hush-Hush

As I've commented in previous posts, by the 1990s many films that were nominated for Best Picture were set in the past. This is certainly true of the next film on our list, Curtis Hanson's L.A. Confidential, which concentrated on 1950s Los Angeles. The film was adapted by Hanson and Brian Helgeland from the novel by James Elroy, with the pair boiling down a lot of the story to focus on three prominent characters. Those characters were Police Officers Jack Vincennes, Bud White and Ed Exley all of whom initially come into contact with one another during a Christmas brawl at the police station. Each man has a fatal flaw to his personality that makes it impossible for the audience to truly warm to them. Exley is incredibly ambitious, White flies off the handle too easily and the smooth Vincennes is more interested in the fame that his job allows. In fact Vincennes often aides magazine editor Sid Hudgens to track down exclusives for his tabloid rag 'Hush-Hush' and also offers advice on cop show 'Badge of Honor'. All three men are later involved in investigating the Nite Owl Killings which resulted in the death of six people at a local restaurant. Initially thought to be the work of a group of low-level criminals, further digging exposes prominent members of the Los Angeles community. The investigation also leads to a relationship between White and prostitute Lynn Bracken, who is one of many sex-workers who have been made over to look like famous movie stars. Through her relationship with White, Bracken hopes to be seen more as herself and less like somebody who looks like Veronica Lake. Hanson and Helgeland certainly craft an interesting story which has plenty of twists and turns along the way. But more than that they make you care about a trio of men who initially come across as unlikeable but are vindicated later when they decide to expose the truth. I did feel that the ending of the film was a little drawn out but nevertheless L.A. Confidential was a satisfying watch and harked back to plenty of films from the time. 

I certainly do feel that Hanson's inspiration for the film was the noir films of the 1940s as well as later offerings to the genre, most notably the L.A.-based Chinatown. Just like with Roman Polanski's film, L.A. Confidential makes the titular film the star of the show as Dante Spinotti's cinematography beautifully captures the Californian scenery of the time. The film's production design is excellent as it convincingly takes you back to a world of both sumptuous glamour and sleazy undertones. Jerry Goldsmith's fantastic score perfectly complements the film's storytelling with its jazzy notes evoking memories of the era. The film is bolstered with a trio of fine central performances, two of which came from men who were relative unknowns in North America at the time. Australian Guy Pearce had made his name on TV soap Neighbours before graduating to films courtesy of The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of The Desert. But his role as Ed Exley was certainly his big break as he captured the spirit of a man who was looking to climb the ladder of the police force by any means necessary. Pearce's clean-cut features, which were perfectly offset by a pair of glasses, made him the perfect poster boy for the police force but his facial expression also made the audience constantly mistrust his motives. New Zealander Russell Crowe had achieved similar success to Pearce in Australia with his role in Romper Stomper convincing Hanson that he'd be perfect as the brutish Bud White. Crowe demonstrated a certain intensity throughout the film but was similarly convincing at displaying Bud's more intelligent side. I'm not surprised that his enigmatic turn in this film propelled Crowe into the mainstream and as a result made him one of the biggest movie stars of the new millennium. The more famous Kevin Spacey was perfectly utilised as the charming Vincennes as he gave a charismatic turn as the celebrity policeman. The only Oscar nominee, and eventual winner, among the cast was Kim Basinger who gave a sensitive turn as faded beauty Lynn. Brilliant support was provided by Danny DeVito as the sleazy magazine editor and James Cromwell as the mighty Captain Dudley Smith. 

I'm not surprised that L.A. Confidential was nominated for an Oscar as it provided the perfect nostalgia trip for the Academy members. But at the same time Hanson's film didn't wallow in 1950s nostalgia and instead presented L.A. as a scandalous city in which anybody could be manipulated. The film was rightfully rewarded with a Best Screenplay Oscar and was the early favourite to win Best Picture before a certain ship steam-rolled its way to victory. But L.A. Confidential is definitely a well-rounded film which is great to look at, boasts an incredible cast and has an involving story from beginning to end. 

Next time we watch two films featuring an actor who finally won the Oscar he should rightfully have received in the 1970s. 

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 351-353: Hanks for the Memories

We continue our look at some of the biggest stars of the decade with somebody who has maintained their star presence over time. Initially a sitcom star, Tom Hanks moved to the big screen with hits such as Splash!, Dragnet and Punchline. Hanks was nominated for his first of five Best Actor awards for his role in the mostly comedic Big but it was his progression into drama that really saw him thrive. He won his first Best Actor award for his role as an AIDs-sufferer in Philadelphia and followed this up with appearances in three more Oscar nominated pictures.

In fact Hanks' first appearance in an Oscar-nominated film went on to win both Best Picture and the star's second Best Actor award. The film in question was Forrest Gump, a movie in which Hanks plays the titular simpleton who becomes part of some of the twentieth century's most important events. As this was my first time watching Forrest Gump I was in two-minds as I'd heard differing things about the quality of the film. Whilst some cite it as their favourite film, others view it as far too saccharine for their tastes but I sat somewhere in the middle. I wasn't a fan of the narrative device of having Gump tell his life story to other people whilst they wait for various buses. However this may be due to the fact that I'm a regular user of public transport and hate it whenever a stranger starts a conversation with me. Although the exploration of Forrest's childhood was necessary, especially in regards to his relationship with Jenny, I felt the pace lagged significantly at the start. It was only during his time in Vietnam and the introduction of Bubba and Lieutenant Dan that I warmed to both the character and the film as a whole. Though I wasn't overly charmed by all of Forrest's accomplishments I thought that the film was well-paced and that no segment really outstayed its welcome. Personally I felt the film was its best in the sequences featuring Jenny as they featured some of Forrest Gump's darkest moments. It was this balance of light and shade that Forrest Gump lacked and this is partly because the lead character doesn't always understand social situations. I don't think the final scenes of Forrest Gump tugged on my heartstrings as much as they probably should have done but I still think that this is an accomplished bit of film-making.

I do think that Forrest Gump would have fared better in an earlier decade as Robert Zemeckis' film has more than an air of Frank Capra about it. Most of the film's success is due to Hanks' central turn as he never turns Forrest into a caricature and instead makes the audience believe in his character's naivety. One of Hanks' best attributes is charm and he utilises this to great effect in order to make Forrest seem as likeable as possible. Hanks deals well with Eric Roth's screenplay and makes you really care about the character as the film progresses. I personally felt that Robin Wright's turn as Jenny was equally impressive and she deserved to be Oscar-nominated for her role in the film. She plays Jenny as somebody who has never really found her place in the world and experiments with various activities during the episode. One of the film's most memorable scenes was Jenny's attempted suicide and Wright brilliantly executed this uneasy moment. Wright and Hanks bounced well off one another, with the latter able to demonstrate another side to Forrest namely the anger that he produced every time that Jenny was in trouble. Gary Sinise added a little bit of comedy to the film as the self-hating Lieutenant Dan, who isn't given the death he wants due to Forrest's intervention. Sinise's brilliant turn in the film earned him a Supporting Actor nomination and I for one felt that was well-deserved. One of Forrest Gump's most groundbreaking elements was its use of CGI to successfully implant Forrest in a number of historical settings. Forrest's interaction with many of America's presidents was almost seamlessly executed and the visual effects team won an Oscar for their excellent work. I also loved the film's soundtrack which brought together the best musical aspects from each year in which the movie is set. Ultimately I can see why Forrest Gump's nostalgia appealed to the elderly members of the Academy and I was rather charmed by certain elements of the film. But I feel that there were better films released in the same year and therefore I think that Forrest Gump's shouldn't have received that year's Best Picture award.

Alongside his charm, one of Hanks' other great qualities his ability to make many of the characters he play feel down-to-Earth. For example, in Apollo 13, Hanks makes you care about Astronaut Jim Lovell almost instantly as the opening scene follows him interacting with friends and family at a moon landing party. Here Hanks shows that Jim is a likeable guy, who really cares about his wife and is also incredibly passionate about his job. Ron Howard's film feels almost like a drama documentary as it recounts in detail the ill-fated trip that Lovell, Jack Swigert and Fred Haise took in the titular vessel. What makes the film special is the way in which William Broyles, Jr. and Al Reinert's screenplay allows us to get to know the characters before they embark on their mission. Particular time is taken in establishing the relationship between Jim and his wife Marilyn, who becomes the emotional centre of the film following her husband's perils in space. We also learn about Swigert's playboy lifestyle and are made to care about original Apollo 13 crew-member Ken Mattingly who is let go after fears that he may infect the rest of the team. After getting to know the characters, Howard and the writers then propel us right into the spacecraft as we feel every inch of the fear that the astronauts experience. I personally was gripped right from the infamous 'Houston we have a problem' line to the trio's landing safely on Earth. The cramped confines of the lunar module were brilliantly recreated by the film's excellent production design team and were effectively utilised to make us experience the claustrophobic nature of the voyage. Similarly well-produced was the mission control centre, which was constructed at Universal Studios, and felt very convincing from the first time we saw it on screen. Along the way the film comments on the meanings of family, friendship and survival as well as looking at how the media are only interested in the seedier aspects of life.

The characters in Apollo 13 were splendidly brought to life by the film's ensemble cast all of whom injected plenty of personality into their roles. Hanks made you understand just why people were so ready to follow Jim's word and just how much of a family man he was. Hanks brought a likeability to the role and demonstrated how Lovell's fame hadn't made him either arrogant or selfish. Oddly, Hanks wasn't Oscar-nominated for his role here although two fellow cast members ranked up nods in the Supporting categories. As Lovell's wife Marilyn, Kathleen Quinlan was superb at tugging on the audience's heartstrings and conveying just how worried any woman would be in her situation. Even the real Marilyn praised Quinlan's turn and commented on how she made he remember the feelings that she experienced at the time. Ed Harris was also nominated for his role as the mission's Flight Director Gene Krantz, a part in which he undertook a lot of training in order to understand every piece of technical dialogue. I personally enjoyed Gary Sinise's turn here more than I did in Forrest Gump as he was able to employ more emotion as dejected astronaut Ken Matitngly. Sinise did a good job at portraying Mattingly's loyalty to his fellow astronauts as he returned to mission control to help ease the voyage home. Bill Paxton and Kevin Bacon were similarly on form as the other two crew members with the latter being particularly impressive as the inexperienced playboy Swigert. The film's art direction and costume design were superb throughout whilst Dean Cundey's cinematography was incredibly involving and helped to capture the mood of the crew. Surprisingly Cundey's work on the film was one of the only categories in which Apollo 13 wasn't nominated. The film did win two awards, in the Sound and Editing categories, however I feel that it was deserving of more accolades. Although this was another Oscar nominee that harked back to the past, I felt that Apollo 13's honouring of recent history was well-executed. Indeed I feel that its combination of visual effects, character development and superb direction made it one of the best films of the decade and therefore a fitting Best Picture winner. Unfortunately this wasn't to be the case as another historical film would triumph at that year's ceremony.

Three years later, Hanks would star in another film set in the past in which he once again proved how he was a master at portraying normal men in extreme situations. His character in Saving Private Ryan, Captain John Miller, is revealed to be a smalltown teacher who wants to get back home to his loving wife. But, as we see throughout the film, Miller is reluctant to be seen as anything else than a Captain to a group of men who appear to thoroughly respect him. As the title would suggest, the film deals with the search for a Private Ryan, a young soldier who is due to return home after all of his brothers were killed in action. The film follows Miller's squad of men on a quest that some of them are sceptical about and question why they're putting their lives at risk to save one man. Joining Miller's squad is nervous cartographer Upham who is drafted in as an interpreter having previously never been in the field. As the film progresses, tensions fray as two members of the group are killed in very different circumstances. What I like about Robert Rodat's script is the way in which each of the squad members are given very different characteristics which in turn allows the audience to get to know them individually. I think this is especially rare for a war film as I've previously found that a lot of the supporting players are given very little development throughout. Whether it be the loyal Hovarth, the realist Reiben, the practical Wade or the wise-cracking 'Fish' everybody has their own unique style. When Ryan is finally tracked down he doesn't want to abandon his team and this sets up a truly memorable final battle scene as the American soldiers do their best to defend a bridge. What spoiled the film slightly for me was the opening and closing scenes in the military graveyard in which the elderly Ryan visits Miller's grave. These scenes felt a little out of place as they were a lot cornier than anything that had happened previously and put a blemish on the face of what was otherwise a masterful piece of film-making.

I first saw Saving Private Ryan at the cinema when I was fifteen and it completely blew me away. From the opening half-an-hour reconstruction of the D-Day Landings to the aforementioned final battle; Saving Private Ryan draws its audience in to the horrors of World War II. I found it to be incredibly realistic in is depiction of the soldiers all of whom were just doing what they could to survive. Their reactions to risking their lives to save one man made sense as did Reiben's later attempt to leave the mission altogether. Saving Private Ryan was also a stylish war film due to its use of saturated colours and the fact that some of it was shot using handheld cameras. Janusz Kamiński's excellent cinematography was rewarded with an Oscar and it's fair to say he earned it for the opening and closing scenes alone. The film's editing, sound editing and sound effects editing were similarly honoured and it's fair to say that Saving Private Ryan was a technical triumph. Meanwhile Steven Spielberg won his second Best Director Oscar for what I consider to be one of  his best ever films. If I was to give one criticism then it would be that it was a little too focused on the American efforts in the war and almost left out the other allied forces entirely. This criticism puts me in mind of the first ever Best Picture winner Wings, which similarly focused on how the Americans were the heroes in the First World War. As I previously mentioned, all of the members of Miller's troop were given distinctive personalities and they were brought to life by a brilliant group of character actors. Tom Sizemore and Edward Burns were captivating as Horvath and Reiben respectively whilst Adam Goldberg was perfect as the wise-cracking 'Fish'. I really enjoyed Jeremy Davies' performance as the rookie Upham, who was often astounded by the brutality of war. Matt Damon made the audience really care about Ryan's wellbeing in the final battle and his appearance really bolstered the latter part of the film. But ultimately this was all about Tom Hanks and I feel it's an outrage that he didn't win his third Oscar for the film. From the first time he arrives on screen, Hanks is utterly believable as a man who is forced into a leadership role and who is currently trying to cope with an uncertain future. Along with Hanks' snub, the film itself missed out on a rightful Best Picture win as Private Ryan is ultimately a modern-day masterpiece which should have won every award going.

Next time we stay in the past with a murder mystery set in 1950s California.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 350: The Minnesota Murders

A few posts ago I reviewed Pulp Fiction and mentioned how Quentin Tarantino's success propelled so-called independent film-makers into the mainstream. Another couple of film-makers who achieved the same level of success during the 1990s were Joel and Ethan Coen. Throughout the 1980s the Coens made a number of cult movies such as Blood Simple and Miller's Crossing, which were met with critical acclaim but were never commercially successful. The first hint of success for the Coens was with 1991's Barton Fink which was nominated for three Oscars however it was a film released five years later that really put them on the map. 

Nominated for seven Oscars, Fargo was a darkly comic piece which combined the brothers' brilliant ear for dialogue with a story that wouldn't be out of place in a 1940s Film Noir. Although the opening title credits claim that Fargo was based on a true story it was more that the film's central plot was constructed from a number of grizzly murder cases. Set in the 1980s, the film follows useless second hand car salesman Jerry Lundegaard as he attempts to get himself out of bankruptcy by having his own wife kidnapped. Jerry's belief is that his wealthy father-in-law will pay the ransom set by the kidnappers and he will then in turn be able to clear the debt that he's found himself in. But the plan is beset with a number of problems namely that the recommended criminal Carl as brought along the stoic, almost mute Gaear along with him. It's made clear that Gaear has a short fuse and soon after the kidnapping he kills three people all of whom witness the woman's body in the back of their car. As the murders happened outside Brainerd, Minnesota the town's local police chief Marge Gunderson is called in to investigate the crime. Marge isn't your usual pioneering cooper as she's heavily pregnant and also seems more like a housewife than she does detective. Marge's kindly approach does get results though as she is able to chase the criminals' car back to Jerry's lot. But her willingness to believe everything she's told means that Jerry gets away Scott free and her opinion only changes after a run-in with an old school friend. Fargo's final fifteen minutes are especially violence with one character being shot in the cheek and then finished over in a very unusual way. Let's just say I'll never look at a woodchipper in the same way again. 

Fargo is unlike anything I've ever seen before on this blog and that's one of the things that made it stand out to Academy voters. The film was nominated for seven awards include Best Director and Best Picture and actually triumphed in two categories. The first of these was Best Actress, with Joel Coen's wife Frances McDormand picking up the prize for her brilliant portrayal of Marge. Though I'd seen Fargo several times before I didn't realise that it was thirty minutes into the film before Marge arrives on screen. Having watched a fair few Oscar winning turns over the course of the challenge, I was surprised to see how subtle McDormand's performance in this film was when compared against previous victors. McDormand never appears to be acting and this naturalistic turn as the kindly police chief meant that the actress' honour was more than deserved. The Coens won a further award for their witty and well-constructed screenplay which was perfectly paced and featured a gripping murder mystery. The frozen landscape of the film is perfectly captured by legendary cinematographer, and long-time Coen collaborator, Roger Deakins. Despite eleven Oscar nominations, Deakins has never won which I feel is one of the biggest errors the Academy has ever made. Another nominee, William H Macy, gave an incredibly frantic turn as the sad-sack car salesman Jerry who is in over his head from the very beginning. Steve Buscemi and Peter Stomare also make for an excellent pairing as Carl and Gaear with the former doing all the talking and the latter just looking menacing. There's no denying that Fargo is an excellent film which rightfully propelled the Coen Brothers into the mainstream where they belonged. Their next picture, The Big Lebowski, was another cult hit but it would be another eleven years before the brothers had another film nominated for the big prize at The Oscars. 

Next time a look at another actor who became a force to be reckoned with during the 1990s. 

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 348-349: Daniel and Jim go for gold

Over the course of this blog we've seen many actors and actresses who've won multiple awards for their performances. Currently Katherine Hepburn holds the most acting Oscars with four awards in her possession but the male actor who has the most wins in the Lead Actor category is a more surprising choice. The actor in question is Daniel Day-Lewis, an English actor who we first saw in the 1980s giving a comedic turn in A Room With a View. At the beginning of the 1990s we saw Day-Lewis break out as a big name and establish his reputation as a method actor. Two of Day-Lewis' three Lead Actor nominations throughout the decade came through collaborations with Irish director Jim Sheridan the first of which was My Left Foot.

The film tells the story of Christy Brown, a young man who was born paralysed and could only use his left foot to communicate. The opening scenes of the film take place at a charity gala where Christy is placed in a holding room with a nurse who begins reading his autobiography. It's this autobiography that the film is adapted from and the flashbacks represent various pieces from the book. The first part of Christy's story deals with his attempts to get noticed by his family most of whom see him as nothing more than a worthless cripple. The only person who really seems to care about him is his mother and therefore she's delighted when he spells out her name with chalk, using only his left foot to do so. From there Christy develops a love of painting and becomes a well-regarded artist in the community, even opening his own exhibition. But Christy's main ambition in life appears to be finding somebody who loves him in more than just a platonic manner. The first example of this is when a local girl rejects a painting he created for her as a symbol of his love. Christy's next meaningful relationship is with Dr. Eileen Cole, who helps improve his speech but who later breaks his heart when she reveals she's in love with somebody else. Buoyed on by this rejection Christy uses his left foot to type out his autobiography which then sends the film full circle as nurse Mary Carr has the book in her hands. The final sequence is rather sweet as Christy, who has been in a holding room with Mary for the film's duration, asks her out which she finally agrees to. After a number of depressing moments, Sheridan ends the film on a high by revealing that Christy and Mary were later married.

Depicting characters with physical deficiencies is a sure fire way to get nominated for or even win an Oscar. What Day-Lewis brought to the role of Christy was an element of believability and also the feel that this man wasn't perfect just because he was crippled. Day-Lewis' method acting extended to the fact that during filming he'd demand to be carried around in his wheelchair constantly. This allowed the actor to experience the embarrassments the character faced on a daily basis as crew members had to aid him across any number of electrical wires. Ironically the actor had to use his right foot for all of Christy's paintings so a lot of the film was shot with special mirrors an effect that I didn't notice at all. But Day-Lewis' performance was one of many positive features that made My Left Foot so compelling. Brenda Fricker was absolutely astounding as Christy's mother and for her tender portrayal of a loving matriarch she was awarded that year's Best Supporting Actress award. Shane Connaughton and Sheridan's screenplay brilliantly dilutes Christy's autobiography into a well-paced story which covers all the major plot points successfully. Sheridan's direction really focuses on the Brown household who are all crammed into a small abode but are happy nonetheless. For a biographical film, I found My Left Foot to be visually arresting especially when Sheridan was focusing on Christy's artwork. Whilst My Left Foot isn't a particularly grand film what it does do is tell the story of an underdog in a way that is compelling but never patronising. I'm glad that the film picked up two acting awards and feel that it probably should have won Best Picture as well.

In the four years till they'd work together again, Day-Lewis was nominated for another Oscar for his part in Last of the Mohicans whilst Jim Sheridan directed The Field. Actor and director would then reconvene for In the Name of the Father, in which Day-Lewis would play the wrongly convicted Gerry Conlon who was thought to be a member of the IRA. Conlon, along with three others, went on to be known as 'The Guildford Four' as they were thought to be responsible for the Guildford Pub Bombings of 1974. Just like My Left Foot, In the Name of the Father is based on an autobiographical story by the lead character who never claims to be perfect. Conlon is a petty thief who, in the midst of the hostilities in Northern Ireland, journeys to London to be part of a free love commune. But he, along with three friends, are wrongly implicated in a bombing that happened nearby and are essentially tortured by the police until they confess. Along with the Guildford Four, seven members of Gerry's family are arrested as a supposed terror network and all are eventually convicted. Part courtroom drama and part prison film I found In the Name of the Father to primarily be a story about the love between a father and son. Although Gerry occasionally berates his dad Giuseppe, their relationship improves as they share time in prison together. As Giuseppe's health deteriorates, he calls in a campaign lawyer in an attempt to get an appeal. The lawyer Gareth Peirce is a feisty woman who finds herself bombarded by protocol and red tape until she finally discovers the truth to due to a mistake at the police station. Although it had a somewhat happy ending, In the Name of the Father was a frustrating watch at times as we knew from the start that Gerry and his friends were innocent.

Sheridan is unflinching in his depiction of the brutality inflicted on Gerry by the police and these scenes probably stuck with me the most. The editing and cinematography during these scenes is fantastic and really adds to the character's sense of disorientation. In the Name of the Father wasn't a film that I ever felt comfortable watching and instead it made me incredibly angry. Although I knew snippets of the story, watching it in this much detail was really tough. Day-Lewis demonstrates his range throughout the film as Gerry goes from happy-go-lucky thief to riotous prisoner and finally to vindicated victim. The actor constantly lets us know what his character is feeling and as the film progresses you feel even more sympathy for him. Even though Day-Lewis is excellent as always, I felt the best performance in the film came from Pete Postlethwaite as Giuseppe. Postlethwaite portrays Giuseppe as a traditional man who is found guilty purely because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The actor gives a subtle portrayal of a loving father and his descent into illness is just heartbreaking to watch. The always reliable Emma Thompson is great when she's given a chance to shine as the campaigning Mrs Peirce. In fact I would've like to have seen more from Thompson as her majority of screen time is her in a car listening to Gerry's story on her stereo. The tape recording that Gerry makes for Gareth is a great narrative device and stops the dreaded expositional voiceover from grating too much. Once again Sheridan and Day-Lewis prove they make a fine team as In the Name of the Father was nominated for a mighty seven Oscars even if it didn't win a single one.

Sheridan and Day-Lewis would go on to work together one more time however The Boxer didn't prove as fruitful as their first two outings together. Sheridan would go on to have a prolific career directing the semi-autobiographical In America as well as the 50 Cent movie Get Rich or Die Tryin'. Meanwhile Day-Lewis continued to perfect his method acting and as previously mentioned would go on to break an Oscar record, but more on that in the next decade.

Next time we witness multiple murders committed against a snowy backdrop. 

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 345-347: Cruise Control

In the last couple of posts I've concentrated on actors who were some of the biggest box office stars of the decade. That trend continues with our focus on three films from Tom Cruise, who had already proved to be a hit at the box office during the late 1980s. Cruise started off in action films such as Top Gun but later expanded his repertoire to feature in more serious roles. We first saw Cruise in the final Best Picture winner of the 1980s; Rain Man and he went on to wow the academy by starring in three Oscar-nominated movies throughout the decade.

A year after Rain Man won the Best Picture, Cruise found himself nominated for his first of three acting nominations for his role in Oliver Stone's Born on the Fourth of July. Cruise's matinee idol good looks were well-utilised as Ron Kovic an All-American boy who lives in a small New York town. Stone presents Ron as a good-looking, popular student who excels at sports and who is a member of a highly religious family. Ron is soon won over by a rousing speech given by the Marines and soon signs up himself eventually being deployed to Vietnam. Unlike Stone's previous work, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July doesn't spend long in Vietnam itself and instead looks at the after-effects on Ron's time during the war. During his second tour, Ron is deeply affected by his accidental killing of a fellow platoon member and later finds himself paralysed from the chest down after being critically wounded. Most of the rest of the film deals with Ron's struggle to deal with his condition and struggles to deal with the fact that his efforts in Vietnam aren't being appreciated. Where once being a military veteran was a mark of respect, the war is now being seen in a new light with a lot of protests springing up all over the place. The film takes some interesting detours, including a trip to Mexico, before Ron finally realises that being a Marine has done him no good. His work as a war protester ultimately saw him become a notable figure especially after writing a compelling book. It is that book that Stone adapted for the film itself but, as I've noticed with other Stone films, the message he gives throughout is pretty heavy-handed.

Just like with JFK and Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July really demonstrates Stone's liberal viewpoints and his message that war is bad is hammered home throughout the film's two and a half hour runtime. The picture postcard world of Ron's adolescence is soon replaced by plenty of heartbreak as we see his problems adjusting back into a community who no longer accepts him. The scenes I enjoyed the most were those in the veterans hospital in which Ron tried his best to prove he could walk again. Stone presents the hospital as a dirty and dilapidated place in which the patients have been forgotten by those in the outside world.  The Mexican scenes are also interestingly portrayed as a place in which the paraplegic former soldiers can escape to a world in which they're treated well. Born on the Fourth of July evokes memories of many war films I've watched throughout the course of this journey including All Quiet on the Western Front, Coming Home and Stone's own Platoon. But the film it has the most in common with is Best Picture winner The Best Years of Our Lives which also deals with the struggles of former soldiers in a small town community. Whilst it occasionally feels as if Stone is spoon-feeding the audience, there's no denying that he constructs a brilliant final chapter to the film which presents Ron as the hero he wants to be. Part of the reason that Ron is seen as such a compelling character is down to Cruise who brilliantly portrays the character's transformation throughout the course of the film. There's a depth to Cruise's performance in the latter scenes which proves that the actor isn't just a one trick pony and can thrive in drama as well as action. One of the other problems I had with the film is that there weren't any supporting characters to identify with primarily as none of the B-players seemed to stick around for very long. This is a shame as both Kyra Sedgwick and Willem Dafoe gave memorable turns but really weren't around long enough to make a lasting impression. Technically Born on the Fourth of July was a triumph as Robert Richardson's cinematography keeps the audience thoroughly gripped during all of the film's various scenes. Stone won his second Best Director award for the film and I can see why although I would argue that Born on the Fourth of July isn't as much of a masterpiece as Platoon. In fact the best element of the film was Cruise's lead performance as I found him utterly captivating and more than deserving of his Best Actor nomination.

Three years later Cruise would once again find himself being the top star at the Box Office and featuring in another Best Picture nominee. This time the film was A Few Good Men, directed by Rob Reiner and adapted by Aaron Sorkin from his own stage play. As a big fan of Sorkin's work I could tell almost immediately that he had written the screenplay as it was both fast-paced and witty. The film is based around the court case of two marines; Privates Dawson and Downey, who are accused of poisoning and murdering their colleague Private William Santiago. Cruise plays Lt. Daniel Kaffee, a military lawyer who is notorious for making plea bargains before cases go to court. Cruise excels as the smooth-talking lawyer and easily deals with Sorkin's unique brand of dialogue. Although Kaffee feels like it will be an open-and-shut case he didn't figure on the involvement of Commander Joanne Galloway, who thinks that the two privates deserve a proper trial. After getting herself involved in the case, Galloway convinces Kaffee to take the case to court after seeing that he believes that the men are innocent. Reiner and Sorkin let the audience in on the fact that the real men to blame are Dawson and Downey's commanding officers Col. Jessop and Lt. Kendrick who both gave them orders to scare Santiago after he criticised their leadership. Both men though are eager to cover up their orders and Dawson and Downey are seen as the sacrificial lambs who will go down due to Kaffee's inexperience in the courtroom. Although I've never seen A Few Good Men before I was aware of the film's big line delivered by Jessop in which he tells Kaffee 'You Can't Handle the Truth'. This line is brilliantly delivered by Jack Nicholson who was the only cast member to be nominated for his role in the film despite only appearing in a small amount of scenes.

The fact that Nicholson's performance in the film is so memorable is a testament to Sorkin as much as it is to the actor's brilliant screen presence. One of Sorkin's biggest strengths is to flesh out his supporting characters so the audience is able to understand their motivations and care about them. This is true here as the violent Kendrick, charming government prosecutor Cpt. Ross and Kaffee's assistant Sam are all given their chances to shine. Cruise is great at portraying Kaffee's growing care of the case as we saw him become more passionate as the film progresses. Kafee's understanding of what it truly means to be a military man is a plot point that is never over-emphasised but also provides one of the film's memorable final scenes. Cruise also has great chemistry with Demi Moore and they bounce off each other perfectly as they deliver Sorkin's screwball comedy-esque dialogue. Since we last saw her in Ghost, Moore has definitely improved as an actress and she's great playing a straight-laced Lt Commander who remains buttoned up throughout. One of the things I liked so much about A Few Good Men was the fact that Galloway and Kaffee never were romantically involved and instead remained colleagues. I'm sure other writers would've had these characters embark on a romance during the film and it's a testament to Sorkin that this didn't happen. Reiner's direction is equally impressive and he is able to make the courtroom scenes as tense as possible. The way the camera pounces back between Kaffee and Jessop during the film's most infamous scene makes it almost feel like a tennis match albeit one based on power. Although not a truly great film, A Few Good Men is a great piece of entertainment and I found it easy to digest in one sitting. Reiner, Sorkin and a fine ensemble cast are able to provide two hours of compelling well-written drama which doesn't hammer home its central message. Meanwhile, Cruise proved that he could handle snappy dialogue and shine in a lighter role to the ones he played in both Born on the Fourth of July and Rain Man.

Four years later, Cruise appeared in his final Best Picture nominee where he once again starred in a dialogue-heavy feature. This time he played the titular sports agent in Jerry Maguire a film that was both written and directed by Cameron Crowe. Initially portrayed as a cynical sports agent, Maguire develops a conscience and writes a mission statement condemning a lot of the immoral means that agents go through to secure clients. His words eventually get him fired from his agency and he later breaks up with his fiancée leaving him with few people to count on. The film focuses on Jerry's two major relationships after his firing the first being with his only client, Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Rod Tidwell. I personally think that Jerry's friendship with Rod is the more compelling of the two relationships as it is their mutual respect that ultimately changes the protagonist's view of his job. Jerry's fear over Rod's potential injury at a game was the film's most emotional moment and it was followed by a moving embrace between the two men. I was therefore less interested in Jerry's relationship with single mother Dorothy Boyd, the only person from his old firm who agrees to join his new agency. I found Crowe's presentation of Jerry and Dorothy's romance to be quite clichéd and I felt that the former's marriage proposal came out of the blue. Additionally I wasn't a fan of Dorothy's cutesy son Ray, who felt out of place in what was otherwise an adult romantic comedy. What I did like was the fact that Jerry and Dorothy briefly separated due to the fact that he couldn't retain a romantic relationship with her. But, in one of the film's most famous moments, Jerry wins his wife over with the now classic line 'you complete me' which was followed up with Dorothy's own ' you had me at hello.' But in my opinion a couple of lines doesn't make up for quite a sickly sweet romance which I didn't feel particularly invested with at any time during the film.

I'm personally a big fan of Crowe's and even though he's been involved with a  few misfires over the years, namely Elizabethtown, he has a likeable style and is a great writer and director. Although Jerry Maguire earned him his only Best Director nomination to date, I don't feel that it stacks up with his best films. Instead I feel that it's a pleasant enough romantic comedy which contains a few memorable moments that have gone down in film history. The film is at its best when concentrating on Jerry's job as a sports agent as it lets Crowe's ear for brilliant dialogue shine through. It also allows Cruise to demonstrate how great he not only is as a fast-talking businessman but also as somebody who learns the true meaning of friendship. Cruise has great chemistry with Cuba Gooding Jr who, as Rod, won that year's Best Supporting Actor Oscar. I initially wasn't won over by Cuba's performance and it was only in the second half of the film that he really shone. Although the film marked her big break, I thought that Renée Zellweger gave a rather weak performance as the single mother looking to embark on a new romance. Zellweger later proved that she was a great romantic comedy lead but here I found that there was no spark between her and Cruise. The casting of Jonathan Lipnicki as Ray was another misstep for the film as I found him annoying rather than endearing. Crowe has proved that he is able to write memorable supporting characters, but the quirky turns in Jerry Maguire leave a lot to be desired. The film was definitely a relaxing watch but I don't think it's a film that would ever be described as a classic in the romantic genre nor is it particularly memorable. In fact, although I've watched the film before, I remembered very little of it aside from its much-quoted lines of dialogue. Jerry Maguire also demonstrated how former music journalist Crowe could use a pop soundtrack to enhance the mood of a film. It was his love of music that would later produce his best work, and one of my favourite films; Almost Famous which saw him pick up an Oscar for his screenplay.

Meanwhile Cruise would go on to win his final acting nomination for his supporting turn in Magnolia which I still consider to be one of his best roles. But in the 2000s he concentrated more on action films most notably the Mission Impossible franchise whose four instalments all dominated the Box Office. Unfortunately Cruise became another actor who became better known for his personal life than his acting and that's a shame as this post has proved that he can really excel in the right role.

Next time we focus on an actor/director combination which triumphed at two 1990s Oscar ceremonies.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 344: As Seen on TV

It has been really interesting chronicling the history of cinema over the course of this blog as we've seen film-making change during the past seventy years. Whereas cinema was once the only source of entertainment that people could find soon films saw themselves competing with a box which could be found in the living room of most homes. Television provided an alternative to the cinema where people could be informed and entertained in equal measure. As we entered the 1990s a trend began to adapt old TV shows into movies with spooky sitcom The Addams Family being the first major example of this. Oscar honoured this trend by nominating The Fugitive for Best Picture with the film being based on the 1960s series of the same name. Although you'd think it would be hard to condense four seasons of a show into a two hour film, I felt that director Andrew Davis and the two screenwriters did an admirable job. Both the TV show and the film focus on Dr. Richard Kimble, a respected surgeon who is convicted of killing his wife and sentenced to death. As the title would suggest, Kimble soon goes on the run and is eager to find the one-armed man who he claims was the real killer. As I wasn't overly familiar with the plot of the TV show, I was wondering how they could possibly have made this premise last so long as it seems like an ideal movie plot. I'm guessing why this was adapted into a film and the cat-and-mouse sequences between Kimble and Deputy Marshall Gerard were expertly choreographed. However, the film doesn't feel too much like a Best Picture winner and instead is nothing more than an above average action thriller. Whilst there's nothing particularly wrong about that genre of the film, I don't think it stacks up against a lot of the other films I've watched over the course of the decade.

It's incredibly surprising then that The Fugitive would be nominated for an amazing seven Oscars including Best Picture and a win for Tommy Lee Jones in the Supporting Actor category. I was sceptical of Jones' win before watching The Fugitive primarily because he'd convinced the academy his performance here was better than Ralph Fiennes' turn in Schindler's List. After watching the film I'm even more convinced that Fiennes should have triumphed as Jones' wise-cracking deputy wasn't exactly a crucial presence in the film. Part of me thinks that his award here was the academy's way of apologising for not giving him the win for his superior performance in JFK which was definitely more of an award-winning turn. I personally feel The Fugitive's main strengths were its cinematography and editing both of which added more tension to the brilliant chase sequences. However, The Fugitive didn't win in any of these categories which I would have a problem with if it weren't for the fact that the majority of the awards went to Schindler's List. After following his career over two decades I feel it's rather a shame that Harrison Ford has reverted back to his action persona especially as we saw him shine in films as diverse as Witness and Working Girl. At the same time Ford is a brilliant action hero and he gives a compelling turn as a wrongly-accused man searching for the truth. Interestingly I feel that Ford looks more like a fugitive before he goes on the run as his beard gives him the look of a homeless gentleman while his clean-shaven look is more in line with that of a debonair doctor. Like a lot of action films, The Fugitive calls for some large suspensions of disbelief in order for the plot to progress but I didn't particularly have a problem with any of these. In fact I found The Fugitive to be a refreshing change to all of the historical epics I've watched recently and it acted as more of a pallet cleanser between the stereotypical 'worthy films'. But ultimately The Fugitive doesn't show me anything that suggests it should be a Best Picture candidate and I definitely feel that Jones' Best Supporting Actor win was a mistake.

Next time we look at a man who became one of the biggest stars of the 1990s.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 342-343: Calling the Shots

An actor directing themselves on screen has become an increasingly common occurrence in recent years. This blog has seen this trend develop over time and in the past few posts alone we've had Kevin Costner starring and directing in Dances With Wolves as well as Quentin Tarantino featuring in his own Pulp Fiction. This post looks at two more such examples of movie stars directing themselves in Best Picture nominated films.

Barbara Streisand is a star we haven't seen in this project since Hello Dolly! but that doesn't mean she's been hiding in the shadows. Throughout the 1970s, Streisand became one of the biggest Box Office stars and in 1983 directed herself in Yentl. Her second film as director was released in the early 1990s and Streisand herself starred as a Jewish psychologist who finds love in the most unlikely of places. The Prince of Tides saw Streisand star alongside Nick Nolte who played emotionally damaged football coach Tom Wingo. The pair collide when Tom journeys from South Carolina to New York to be by the side of his sister who has just committed suicide. Streisand's Dr. Lowenstein is her psychiatrist who takes Tom on as almost a surrogate patient so he can reveal some of his family's deep dark secrets. Lowenstein takes a shine to Tom and enlists him as a football coach to her son who secretly enjoys the sport. Inevitably Lowenstein and Tom take a shine to each other and their union is made easier when its revealed that both of their spouses have been involved with other people. Pat Conroy adapted his own book for the screenplay but several of the elements were changed drastically, primarily so Streisand had more to do. Apparently the book focuses much more on the Wingo family history and its effects on Tom and his sister Savannah whilst the Lowenstein/Tom romance is more of a subplot. But the film's flashback scenes are few and far between meaning that The Prince of Tide feels more like a melodramatic romance than anything else. But at the end of the day I suppose that Streisand was the big name attached to the film and audiences wouldn't have flocked to see it if she were in a supporting role.

The Prince of Tides was nominated for seven Oscars but Streisand was neither nominated for her role as Lead Actress nor that of Director. Streisand's directorial style was hardly striking or particularly memorable with the only scenes that felt different being the Wingo family flashbacks. The way these flashbacks were shot and framed distinguished them from the rest of the film's narrative and meant that they had a suitably eerie tone. Meanwhile Streisand's performance wasn't exactly spellbinding and didn't match the turns we've seen her give previously in two other nominated films. The Prince of Tides is definitely more Nick Nolte's film than it is Streisand's as this is definitely Tom's story. Nolte gave a solid turn as a man trying to come to terms with his past and simultaneously learning what the future held. He was comfortable with both Tom's humorous side and was also compelling in the film's more dramatic moments. For his performance he got a Best Actor nomination with his fellow cast member Kate Nelligan being give a Supporting Actress nod for playing Tom's highly strung mother Lila. Nolte shared great chemistry with both Streisand and Blythe Danner as his philandering wife who was nonetheless a lot better suited for him than Lowenstein was. My personal favourite turn among the supporting cast was comedian George Carlin who put in a memorable showing as Savannah's gay neighbour Eddie. I knew very little about The Prince of Tides before I started watching and therefore everything that happened on screen was new to me. That being said nothing particularly surprising happened over the two hours and I believe the film's story trailed off once Tom and Lowenstein gave into their attraction for one another. That's not to say The Prince of Tides was a particularly bad film as it flowed quite nicely and was easy-to-follow but I just wasn't bowled over by it. Meanwhile Streisand would go on to direct one more film, The Mirror Has Two Faces, which itself was nominated for several Oscars.

Whilst Streisand did take on one of the leading roles in The Prince of Tides I don't think she ever dominated the screen but the same can't be said for our next actor/director. By the mid-1990s Mel Gibson was already a big name having starred in both the Mad Max series and the Lethal Weapon franchise. Known primarily as a star of big budget action films, Gibson changed tack with his second film as director; Braveheart. Set during the Scottish War of Independence of the late 1200s, Gibson played William Wallace a warrior who featured prominently in an epic poem by Blind Harry. Gibson's initial portrayal of Wallace is that of a free-love spouting Scot and its only when he loses that he's ready to fight against the dreaded English. With a non-Brit behind the camera, the English are inevitably presented as either despicable, sex-mad, weak or devious. The film's main villain is Edward Longshanks, who spends most of the film badmouthing Scotland or loudly coughing which indicates that he's not long for the world. Wallace's intelligence makes him a match for the bloodthirsty English army and he's able to win some early battles. But his lack of political awareness means that he's soon double-crossed by several nobles who are planning to put Robert the Bruce on the throne. Although Gibson was inspired by historical epics of the 1950s and 1960s, the final third of the film is much more like a revenge film in the style of Death Wish. Most of the aforementioned epics would conclude with a large battle scene but in Braveheart's case the last ten minutes are devoted to Wallace's execution. I found this quite troubling as it presented Gibson's character as a God-like figure, something I'm sure the actor/director was more than happy to go along with.

A few years ago, Braveheart topped an Empire list of the worst Best Picture winners but I don't for one minute agree with that assertion. I've definitely watched plenty of Best Picture winners that have been worse than Braveheart, which I found to be an interestingly shot historical epic. Aside from the gratuitous closing scenes, Gibson provided plenty of action but also some character development along the way. He certainly excelled more as a director than an actor here which suggests that he may have been overstretched somewhat. The two key battle scenes were particularly well-shot with each major incident being well-captured by John Toll's excellent cinematography. There's no denying that Braveheart is too long but I still thought that Randall Wallace did a satisfactory job with the screenplay. Many have complained that Braveheart is one of the most factually inaccurate films of modern times, but that didn't bother me too much. Wallace appears to have sacrificed facts in order to create an entertaining film and I feel that he succeeded to a large extent. By the end of the film I felt like I knew all of the characters and their individual motives, which is more than I can say for a lot of the previous Best Picture winners. The exterior locations, which were filmed in both Scotland and Ireland, are exquisite and really add a historical perspective to the film. Meanwhile James Horner's haunting score conjures up images of a vast highland which is exactly what the film needed. Where I think the film falls down is in the hammy performances that are given by the majority of the cast. The only things I really knew about Braveheart going in were Mel Gibson's iconic line about freedom and his blue and white facepaint. Gibson's performance of Wallace is a little over-the-top for my liking and at times I think he went too far in his portrayal. Patrick McGoohan made Longshanks feel like a pantomime villain whilst Sophie Marceau's French princess could've been a character from 'Allo 'Allo. The performance of the film came from Angus Macfayden as the morally conflicted Robert the Bruce. Macfayden's turn was so good I found Bruce's story to be a lot more compelling than Wallace's.

Ultimately I think a lot of people have given Bravheart a bad rap and I reckon that's got something to do with Gibson's personal problems in recent years. Whilst it's not a masterpiece, and may not have deserved to win Best Picture, it's certainly not as bad as I was led to believe. Though hammy performances and a tortuous final ten minutes let it down, Braveheart is a historical epic that has a few contemporary action sequences thrown in. After winning both Best Picture and Best Director at the Oscars, Gibson would jump in front and behind the camera with increasing frequency. Directing such diverse films as The Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto, Gibson found more success behind the scenes as he did as a star. But I think the Braveheart will be the film that he's best remembered for but I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or not.

Next time we look at a film that has its origins on the small screen.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 341: Non-Linear Tales from L.A.

So far the 1990s have primarily given us Best Picture nominees that are set in the past and have fairly rigid story structures. But the decade also produced some fresh voices in the world of film-making who were trying to change the face of the industry. Quentin Tarantino was one such voice whose style of direction combined stylised sequences, comic dialogue and superior soundtracks. Additionally Tarantino became known for his screenplays which were witty and often didn't obey the rules regarding linear storytelling. After a successful debut in Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino hit the big time with the Best Picture nominated Pulp Fiction. The film depicts a number of events which all relate in some way to Ving Rhames' L.A. mob boss Marsellus Wallace and a mysterious briefcase that belongs to him. The retrieval of the briefcase is a job undertaken by hitmen Jules and Vincent who both go on a voyage of discovery throughout the film. Vincent is later tasked with taken Marsellus' pretty wife Mia out on a date where they participate in the now iconic twist-dancing contest. Finally we learn the story of boxer Butch, his dad's gold watch and how he gets on Marsellus' bad side after refusing to throw a fight. Throw in The Wolf, a hold-up at a diner and an overdose and you've got the basic structure of Pulp Fiction. However, Tarantino tipped the structure of the film on its head by having the middle part of the film open and close it whilst the final scenes happened about forty-five minutes before the final credits rolled. This non-linear style really made the film stand-out as did the post-modern references which would become a regular occurrence in Tarantino's later movies. 

I remember being lent a VHS of Pulp Fiction when I was about fifteen and was blown away by the audacity of the movie. I watched it several times during my teens but this was the first time I'd revisited it in a while and I don't think its lost any of its impact. Whilst I'm not a Tarantino fanboy I still feel that his first three films were all great works that gave the film world something new. From the opening conversation between Pumpkin and Honey Bunny to the conclusion of the robbery Pulp Fiction was a compelling watch with one glaring exception. My major problem with Pulp Fiction is the story involving Butch isn't as exciting as the rest of the movie and significantly slows down the pace of the picture. I feel this is partly because Butch is a somewhat withdrawn character and partly due to the explicit nature of the scenes involving Marsellus, Zed and The Gimp. Part of the reason that Butch was given so much screentime was due to the fact that Bruce Willis was the film's biggest name and so had to be given the spotlight in what was a best a mediocre plot strand. Pulp Fiction definitely revived the career of Willis and it did the same for Travolta who needed a resurgence following his appearance in the Look Who's Talking franchise. Travolta's cool, calm and collected persona was perfectly executed as the charming yet violent hitman Vincent. Travolta proved to be an expert screen presence and was given a Best Actor nomination as a reward. Meanwhile Samuel L Jackson stole the show as the Bible-quoting Jules and made quite an impact at the Oscars when he seemed visibly annoyed that he'd lost the Best Supporting Actor prize. Uma Thurman was also nominated for her role as the flirty yet troubled Mia and she was yet another cast member who benefited from appearing in the movie. Capable support was provided by Harvey Keitel whose appearance as The Wolf stands out as one of my favourite parts of the entire film. 

Pulp Fiction is an incredibly stylish film with all of the sets and props being incredibly distinctive. All of the key characters have memorable costumes that helps mark them out and in the long term has meant that we never forget them. Another key aspect of Pulp Fiction is the fact that the film didn't have a score but rather a collection of classic songs which helped propel the action. Nobody can hear Dick Dale's Misirlou without thinking of Pulp Fiction whilst Urge Overkill's cover of 'Girl You'll be a Woman Soon' made into the charts as a result of featuring in the film. As far as Oscar success goes the film saw Tarantino win his first Best Screenplay award which in my opinion was well-deserved. It's not surprising that the film got another six nominations when you consider that it was the first movie to be entirely produced by Harvey Weinstein's Miramax company. As we've seen, Weinstein became incredibly influential throughout the decade when it came to the Oscars but in the case of Pulp Fiction is acclaim was more than deserved. But looking back I think the success of his first three films went to Tarantino's head and he lost the discipline he'd employed in his earlier works. Even his last two movies, which have been critically acclaimed, suffered from some sloppy storytelling and a number of over-indulgent scenes. Thankfully Pulp Fiction reminds of a time before Tarantino's ego got the better of him and I would say that it still stands up today as a masterpiece thanks to its funny and violent nature as well as its extremely accomplished ensemble cast. 

Next time we look at two big movie stars who decided to direct and star in two films that later went on to become Best Picture nominees. 

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 338-340: The Costner Collection

In my previous post I commented on how Patrick Swayze was one of the top box office draws in 1990 which made Ghost one of the highest-grossing movies of the year. But the man who remained a large draw over four consecutive years in the 1990s was Kevin Costner. Costner had gained most people's attention after appearing as Elliot Ness in The Untouchables before following it up with a starring role in Bull Durham. But it was another baseball film, and Best Picture nominee, that would cement his place as one of cinema's most recognisable stars.

That film was Field of Dreams in which Costner played Ray Kinsella, a farmer with a quirky family who begins to hear voices emanating from his cornfield. The film wasn't one I'd seen before but had heard various things about it namely that it was a feelgood film that appealed to male sports fans in particular. As somebody who's never particularly been a sports fan I was sceptical to the feelings this film provoked and it seems I was right to do this. The other famous attribute of the film is the line 'if you build it he will come' which convinces Ray to erect a baseball pitch next to his cornfield. Thanks to the fact that neither he nor his wife are particularly rational people they build the pitch to see what will happen. The film called for plenty of disbelief suspension as the ghost of disgraced baseball player 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson and various others started to play on the field. However director Phil Alden Robertson insinuated that the ghosts were only visible to open-minded folks due to the fact that Ray's brother-in-law couldn't see them when they were in plain sight. Despite risking financial ruin, Ray listneed to the voice once again as this time he was told to 'Heal his Pain'. The pain he had to heal was that of author Terrence Mann, a voice of the 1960s who had since disappeared from popular culture. Mann was possibly the most interesting character in Field of Dreams as he had become an antisocial recluse refusing to see anybody who'd been inspired by his works. Mann and Ray's road trip soon went into an entirely different direction as we learnt the story of player turned doctor 'Moonlight' Graham. I found the whole Graham subplot to be a bizarre diversion in the film's narrative which then picked up when Ray returned home. Despite not enjoying a lot of what had gone before, I have to admit that I rather enjoyed the final scenes of the film in which Ray was reunited with his father for a game of catch. However I didn't find this to be a particularly heartwarming scene and it didn't bring a tear to my eye in the way that scenes similar to this have done.

Throughout Field of Dreams I tried to work out why Costner would become such a big Box Office draw over the next four years. The answer I came up with was that he had the clean cut looks of a classic movie star and chose projects that would suit his style. The role of Ray Kinsella sees Costner play to his strengths as a likeable man who is following his heart rather than his head. Costner admirably anchored the film but at the same time I didn't think his performance was ever that enigmatic. Personally I thought the film's best performance came courtesy of James Earl Jones who breathed life into the character of Terrence Mann. Jones portrayed Mann as a belligerent character who was once full of ideals but has since fallen into obscurity while also ably conveying the author's change over the course of the film. The inclusion of Burt Lancaster as Doc Graham was an odd one as I don't think a star of his calibre should have appeared in such a small role. As much as I love Lancaster I think he was misused here and I think he should've stuck with his instincts which initially led him to turn down the role. Although I wasn't completely taken in by Field of Dreams' narrative I did think it had a particularly distinctive style. The use of a real farm in Iowa added some realism to the piece and John Lindley's stunning cinematography perfectly captured the exterior scenes. Furthermore Lindley tried his best to shoot the ghostly baseball players in a convincing way and was aided by James Horner's enchanting score. In fact it was Horner's score that stuck with me the most once I'd watched the film and that really says something about both the script and the performances. Whilst Field of Dreams wasn't a bad little film I just wasn't blown away by anything that happened in it and so don't understand the impact that it has had on a lot of people.

Following Field of Dreams, Costner's next project was his first film as a director and one that he'd been personally involved in for over five years. Costner first read Michael Blake's script for Dances with Wolves in the early 1980s and convinced him to turn into a novel. When the novel was finally released, Costner won the film rights and went over budget as well as over schedule to complete the western. There were plenty of sceptics who felt that Dances with Wolves would be a failure based on the fact that Costner broken the unwritten rule of first time directors; never film outdoors. Costner broke this rule in the biggest way possible, setting the majority of the film in the South Dakota countryside. Part of the reason for the delay was due to the area's unpredictable weather which held up filming for days at a time. But Costner wanted to use the area to add realism to the story about a Union Officer who integrates with a Sioux Indian tribe during the American Civil War. Costner's John Dunbar is the officer in question who ventures into the tribal camp when he finds one of their number, Stands with a Fist, wounded and on her own. Dunbar starts to impress the Sioux with his abilities but his failure to speak their language means that he has trouble communicating with them. Thankfully Stands with a Fist, who was adopted by the community after being born into an English-speaking family, remembers how to converse in her native tongue and eventually falls in love with Dunbar. Due to his relationship with a certain mammal, Dunbar later changes his name to 'Dances with Wolves' and helps his new family defeat the vicious Pawnee Tribe. However, Dunbar is later captured by his own people who believe he is a traitor to their cause and place him under arrest. The film's final scenes bring up the themes of family and finding somewhere to belong but deliver this message in an incredibly brutal way.

With the delays on the film, Dances with Wolves was expecting to be a flop especially considering it was a three hour western from a debut director. However critics and audiences flocked to see the film and it was later named Best Picture with Costner winning a further award for Best Director. Watching the film more than twenty years later I can't really see what both the critics and the academy members saw to make them hold the film in such high acclaim. A lot of the positives can be attributed to Dean Semler's cinematography which perfectly captured the imagery of the American west. Semler led me into Costner's world of the Sioux tribe and on a visual level I felt like I was part of the action. The story was another matter altogether as Blake's script was overlong and seemed to tread over the same points many times. In my opinion it took far too long for Dunbar to encounter the Sioux tribe as his integration into their society was the main story of the film. I was equally disinterested in Dunbar's relationship with Stands with a Fist partly because of Mary McDonnell's subdued performance. Whilst the character of Stands with a Fist was an interesting one I don't think McDonnell was really captivating and I don't feel that she shared a lot of chemistry with Costner. Of the three films in this post, I feel Dances with Wolves features Costner's weakest performance as he plays an unconvincing military hero. In my opinion Costner is at his best when he's on screen with other actors but as Dunbar faces plenty of solitary days during the film he's forced to lead the film single-handedly. I do feel that Costner should have stayed behind the scenes and given somebody else the role of Dunbar as it seems to me as if he was a little over-stretched. Although visually stunning, Dances with Wolves was a struggle for me to get through and I found the two central performances to be incredibly mediocre. But, as we've learnt by now, the academy loves a historical epic and Costner definitely delivered that with Dances with Wolves.

Costner won his two Oscars in 1991 before going on to play Robin Hood and as a result was subsequently named the biggest Box Office draw of the year. 1991 also saw Costner star in his third and final Best Picture nominated film as he starred as district attorney Jim Garrison in Oliver Stone's JFK. Costner resurrects the everyman persona he had in Field of Dreams to play the New Orleans DA who is desperate to point out the inaccuracies carried out in the Warren Report into President Kennedy's assassination. The film itself almost acts as a drama documentary with a long prologue, narrated by Martin Sheen, talking about the good Kennedy did for the country and what happened following the assassination. Garrison's main claim is that other people were involved in the assassination and that the original suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald, may not have been part of the plan. Stone's script, co-written with Zachary Sklar, sees Garrison conduct a number of interviews with witnesses and his staff. These dialogue-heavy scenes are interspersed with flashbacks of the events themselves which are all presented in black and white. I found this to be an interesting narrative device that stopped the film dragging and gives the audience a visual aid to enhance the characters' dialogue. Garrison finally finds enough evidence to charge New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw with conspiracy to murder but discovers that several forces are acting against him bringing the case to trial. Stone uses his film to criticise the media's ability to tarnish the reputation of an individual to the extent that people start to distrust every word Garrison says. Although it was a little clichéd, the affect that Garrison's investigation had on his family was a well-executed subplot and one that felt realistic. The final court case in which Garrison struggled against the full force of the government was perfectly executed and was up there with some of cinema's finest courtroom scenes. However I personally felt that Garrison's final speech was a little bit overblown and it almost felt like Stone was writing at testimony against everything that was wrong with the US government.

Unsurprisingly the film was met with mass controversy on its release as many critics accused Stone of rewriting history. As somebody who has very little knowledge of this time in American history I felt that JFK was an interesting exploration of a potential cover-up. But even I felt Stone's approach was a little heavy-handed and some of his suggestions seemed completely over-the-top. Though not as over-stretched as Dances with Wolves, JFK was still a bit overlong for my liking with a few scenes being surplus to requirements. But those are just minor niggles in a film that is stylish, well-written and that includes a fantastic ensemble cast all of whom play their parts brilliantly. As Shaw, Tommy Lee Jones is convincing as both a Louisiana slimeball and a closeted homosexual who is ashamed of certain parts of his life. Jones' performance earned JFK its only acting nomination but this doesn't do justice to some of the fine turns put in by Joe Pesci, Kevin Bacon and Laurie Metcalf. But to me the best performance came from Gary Oldman as Harvey Oswald as he's able to bring some sympathy to one of history's most famous killers. Oswald's story is told almost entirely in flashbacks but Oldman's charisma is enough to make all aspect of his character appear realistic. Robert Richardson's cinematography brilliantly captures the hectic nature of the day of Kennedy's assassination and the various elements that help back-up Garrison's case. Stone was committed to recreating the assassination almost frame-for-frame and used the real Dealey Plaza to do so. The film's editing was one of its biggest strengths as Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia seamlessly cut between the characters' speaking and the black and white flashbacks. As you would expect, John Williams' musical sequences enhance the film even more and feel incredibly presidential. Overall I enjoyed the majority of JFK with only Stone's heavy-handedness letting the film down slightly.

Meanwhile Costner continued to be a star following his roles in JFK and the romantic drama The Bodyguard. But Costner fell from favour following such flops as The Postman and Waterworld and as a result he lost his headliner status. Having watched these three films it was clear that audiences were drawn to Costner's likeable presence and he often played reliable heroes who did little wrong. But at the same time I can see why he hasn't had the long-lasting appeal of some other headliners and instead is now playing supporting roles in films such as the recent Jack Ryan instalment.

Next time we see the rise of a director who burst onto the scene in the 1990s with a whole new approach to film-making.