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.
No comments:
Post a Comment