When we last met Daniel Day-Lewis he was a fresh faced star still working in small budget British films for Jim Sheridan. But since then his star soared and he was in an demand figure primarily due to the fact that he didn't accept all that many projects. Later on we'll see an Oscar-nominated turn from him but first we look at the film that won him his second Academy Award.
It takes a special kind of actor to make a line about milkshake drinking sound intense, but thankfully Day-Lewis is that kind of Thespian. However, There Will Be Blood isn't a film set in a Wimpy, instead the milkshake line is an analogy used by the film's lead character Daniel Plainview to explain oil drainage. Paul Thomas Anderson's film centres on Plainview; a ruthless oilman who manipulates communities at the turn of the century in order to drill their land for oil. An atmospheric opening twenty minutes look at Plainview's rise to the top and also explain how he came to become the adopted father of a young lad simply known as H.W. The majority of the film takes place in Little Boston, California; where Paul Sunday has informed Daniel that his family's ranch has oil underneath it. After paying off Paul; Daniel travels to the ranch where he meets the family including Paul's twin brother; sanctimonious preacher Eli. Anderson attempts to make There Will be Blood epic in scale by including some rather memorable moments starting with an oil spill that ends with H.W. losing his hearing. Later H.W. burns down the house he and his father are staying in and this results in him being sent off to a school for the deaf. However Anderson's screenplay is more concerned with the feud between Eli and Daniel which sees both embarrass the other. Eventually they become family of sorts when H.W. marries Eli's youngest sister Mary. However, the aforementioned milkshake scene doesn't end well for Eli as he has a run in with a drunken Daniel and a bowling pin.
This final scene sees Day-Lewis maintain the intensity that he has displayed throughout almost the entire two and a half hour film. His brilliance is displayed early on when he is forced to communicate without the aid of a script. However, thanks to Anderson's storytelling ability, Day-Lewis gives us a strong idea of his character without saying a word. Day-Lewis similarly is able to turn on the charm when needs be and occasionally showcases Plainview's vulnerable side. Additionally he interacts well with Paul Dano, who we last saw in Little Miss Sunshine, who excels as both Paul and Eli Sunday. One of the film's most memorable scenes sees Eli getting Daniel to admit that he's abandoned H.W. by sending him off to school. This scene is later reversed when Daniel gets Eli to renounce himself as a false prophet in order to let him drill on the land that he's already drained. As well as Day-Lewis' win; There Will Be Blood also triumphed in the cinematography category thanks to Robert Elswit's sumptuous camera work. Elswitt makes us believe that we're in the early 20th century and is able to capture the spirit of a close-nit community drawn together by a God-fearing preacher. Also worthy of praise is Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood who provided an emotive score that added another dimension to the film. Greenwood's score was best utilised in the earlier scenes as it allowed the audience to understand just what was being said by the characters. Unfortunately, Greenwood was ineligible to be considered for the Best Original Score award due to the fact that some of the music was based on prior material. Whilst this is a mini travesty, it doesn't take away from what is ultimately a masterpiece in film-making and a worthy Best Picture nominee. In fact I would go as fas as to say that There Will be Blood deserved the Best Picture that year; a point I will assess in more detail once we get to the movie that was awarded the top prize at the 2008 ceremony.
Next time we focus on a director who was nominated for the Directing Oscar twice in the same year.
Saturday 28 February 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 386-387: The Lasse Hallström Collection
After spending time in the present day we move back to the past with two films from a man who started his career by directing ABBA videos. However, by the turn of the decade, Swedish helmer Lasse Hallström had begun making films in the English language. His first big success was with What's Eating Gilbert Grape? however he would later see two of his films nominated for Best Picture in successive years.
First up was a film version of John Irving's The Cider House Rules; with the author adapting his own work for the screen. Both films in this post were new to me going in, however I did know a little about The Cider House Rules thanks to one of its stars. That star was Michael Caine who won his second Supporting Actor Oscar for playing the patriarchal Dr. Wilbur Larch who cares for the young boys of a Maine orphanage. I personally thought that all of the action would take place at the orphanage but instead the film primarily deals with the story of Homer Wells; a young man born at the institution that Larch takes under his wing. Initially believing that Homer would take over Larch's place as the lead doctor at the orphanage, the film went of course about forty minutes in when our protagonist left his home with a couple who'd come for an abortion. From there on I thought the film meandered too much as Homer became an apple picker and also learnt to catch lobsters. The film mainly concerned itself with exploring Homer's affair with the married Candy as well as his relationship with his fellow apple pickers. Meanwhile, we got regular updates from Dr. Larch who tried to get the board to make Homer his replacement, going as far as to present phony qualifications in his apprentice's name. The film had a rather predictable conclusion as Homer became Larch's replacement and ended the movie by quoting his mentor's iconic line to the current intake of boys at the orphanage.
For a film that deals with the subjects of incest, abortion and infidelity; The Cider House Rules is an incredibly quaint tale. John Irving's ill-paced narrative meant that the film fluctuated in quality depending on what was happening to Homer at the time. I have to say that I didn't much care for Tobey Maguire's wide-eyed performance of Homer and felt he lacked the qualities of a leading man here. Similarly, Charlize Theron gave a lacklustre turn as the one-dimensional Candy; a woman who had supposedly cheated on her husband with the young doctor who was present at her abortion. I think the reason Michael Caine won his Oscar for The Cider House Rules is that he looked better thanks to the flimsy turns given by the rest of the cast. Having not seen The Cider House Rules before I was generally underwhelmed by Caine's overall showing here and it's fair to say that he's been a lot better in films that weren't as well-regarded by the Academy. Additionally, Caine was up against more worthy competition with at least two performers more deserving of the Award than he was. What I feel made The Cider House Rules an Academy favourite was the sumptuous cinematography provided by John Stapleton. Stapleton utilises the Maine scenery well and Hallström certainly realises that the script's main strengths are its exterior locations. I would go as far as to say that the Maine countryside made the biggest impression on me out of everything that happened in the film. Apart from the cinematography, everything else was a little lacklustre and I was ultimately disappointed with what I saw from Hallström here especially seeing as he was nominated for Best Director at that year's ceremony.
One year later Hallström had another film in contention for Best Picture although this time he didn't feature in the director category. The film was Chocolat; another movie based on a popular novel this time one by Joanne Harris. Although sharing The Cider House Rules' cinematographic flair, I thought that Chocolat had more substance than Hallström's previous effort. The film starred Juliette Binoche as Vianne, a lively woman who rocks up in a quiet French village alongside her young daughter Anouk. The village that she arrives in is extremely Catholic and is ruled over by the mayor; Comte De Raymond, an incredibly biased figure who has the majority of the townsfolk under his spell. The Comte and Vianne clash almost immediately when he discovers she is opening a chocolate shop during Lent. The film's main focus is then on the feud between the two as the Comte does everything he can to close down her shop. At the same time we see the effect that Vianne's presence has on the other villagers, including brow-beaten Josephine and eccentric landlady Armande. Though her confectionery awakens passions in others it's not till later in the film that Vianne's own passions are awakened. This happens when she lays eyes on Roux; a river traveller whose presence in the village is more unwelcome than Vianne's. There is an incredibly connection between the pair however Vianne later feels she's put her daughter in trouble as a result of her dalliance with the handsome Roux. The final scenes of the film effortlessly balance comedy and tragedy with some memorable moments being provided before the end credits roll.
I think the reason I enjoyed Chocolat a lot more than I did The Cider House Rules was due to the fact that the former film was a lot more focused than the latter. The film had a clear purpose and looked at a specific time frame; that being the season of Lent as the Comte threatened to put Vianne out of business before Easter. Hallström again focuses on the exterior shots as the French village comes to life in all of its glory thanks in part to cinematographer Roger Pratt. Chocolat's utterly charming nature is enhanced by Rachel Portman's memorable score whilst the quirky characters are made more recognisable by their distinctive costumes. But what makes Chocolat really come alive is its ensemble cast; four of whom gave tremendous performances. Juliette Binoche was an utter delight in the lead role and perfectly conveyed both Vianne's wicked side with her more vulnerable nature. Binoche was nominated for a prize at that year's Oscars, as was Judi Dench who chewed some considerable scenery as diabetic landlady Armande. The fabulous Alfred Molina gave a measured turn as the film's antagonist Comte de Raymond and I thought he particularly excelled during his character's breakdown in the window of Vianne's shop. Similarly impressive was Lena Olin who, as battered wife Josephine, went on the biggest journey from shrewish housewife to independent woman. If there's a weak link in the cast then it's Johnny Depp, however I feel that this is primarily due to the fact that his character is given much to do. However, Depp and Binoche share a fine chemistry which makes Roux and Vianne's relationship all the more believable. Obviously the other plus point to watching Chocolat is the fine selection of confectionery that is on display throughout the movie so my one piece of advice would be not to watch this on an empty stomach. Whilst Chocolat isn't a particularly original film, it's certainly an enjoyable bit of escapism and I felt that Hallström deserved his Best Director nod much more for this film than he did The Cider House Rules.
Next time we turn our attention to a film that explores blood, oil and milkshakes in equal measure.
First up was a film version of John Irving's The Cider House Rules; with the author adapting his own work for the screen. Both films in this post were new to me going in, however I did know a little about The Cider House Rules thanks to one of its stars. That star was Michael Caine who won his second Supporting Actor Oscar for playing the patriarchal Dr. Wilbur Larch who cares for the young boys of a Maine orphanage. I personally thought that all of the action would take place at the orphanage but instead the film primarily deals with the story of Homer Wells; a young man born at the institution that Larch takes under his wing. Initially believing that Homer would take over Larch's place as the lead doctor at the orphanage, the film went of course about forty minutes in when our protagonist left his home with a couple who'd come for an abortion. From there on I thought the film meandered too much as Homer became an apple picker and also learnt to catch lobsters. The film mainly concerned itself with exploring Homer's affair with the married Candy as well as his relationship with his fellow apple pickers. Meanwhile, we got regular updates from Dr. Larch who tried to get the board to make Homer his replacement, going as far as to present phony qualifications in his apprentice's name. The film had a rather predictable conclusion as Homer became Larch's replacement and ended the movie by quoting his mentor's iconic line to the current intake of boys at the orphanage.
For a film that deals with the subjects of incest, abortion and infidelity; The Cider House Rules is an incredibly quaint tale. John Irving's ill-paced narrative meant that the film fluctuated in quality depending on what was happening to Homer at the time. I have to say that I didn't much care for Tobey Maguire's wide-eyed performance of Homer and felt he lacked the qualities of a leading man here. Similarly, Charlize Theron gave a lacklustre turn as the one-dimensional Candy; a woman who had supposedly cheated on her husband with the young doctor who was present at her abortion. I think the reason Michael Caine won his Oscar for The Cider House Rules is that he looked better thanks to the flimsy turns given by the rest of the cast. Having not seen The Cider House Rules before I was generally underwhelmed by Caine's overall showing here and it's fair to say that he's been a lot better in films that weren't as well-regarded by the Academy. Additionally, Caine was up against more worthy competition with at least two performers more deserving of the Award than he was. What I feel made The Cider House Rules an Academy favourite was the sumptuous cinematography provided by John Stapleton. Stapleton utilises the Maine scenery well and Hallström certainly realises that the script's main strengths are its exterior locations. I would go as far as to say that the Maine countryside made the biggest impression on me out of everything that happened in the film. Apart from the cinematography, everything else was a little lacklustre and I was ultimately disappointed with what I saw from Hallström here especially seeing as he was nominated for Best Director at that year's ceremony.
One year later Hallström had another film in contention for Best Picture although this time he didn't feature in the director category. The film was Chocolat; another movie based on a popular novel this time one by Joanne Harris. Although sharing The Cider House Rules' cinematographic flair, I thought that Chocolat had more substance than Hallström's previous effort. The film starred Juliette Binoche as Vianne, a lively woman who rocks up in a quiet French village alongside her young daughter Anouk. The village that she arrives in is extremely Catholic and is ruled over by the mayor; Comte De Raymond, an incredibly biased figure who has the majority of the townsfolk under his spell. The Comte and Vianne clash almost immediately when he discovers she is opening a chocolate shop during Lent. The film's main focus is then on the feud between the two as the Comte does everything he can to close down her shop. At the same time we see the effect that Vianne's presence has on the other villagers, including brow-beaten Josephine and eccentric landlady Armande. Though her confectionery awakens passions in others it's not till later in the film that Vianne's own passions are awakened. This happens when she lays eyes on Roux; a river traveller whose presence in the village is more unwelcome than Vianne's. There is an incredibly connection between the pair however Vianne later feels she's put her daughter in trouble as a result of her dalliance with the handsome Roux. The final scenes of the film effortlessly balance comedy and tragedy with some memorable moments being provided before the end credits roll.
I think the reason I enjoyed Chocolat a lot more than I did The Cider House Rules was due to the fact that the former film was a lot more focused than the latter. The film had a clear purpose and looked at a specific time frame; that being the season of Lent as the Comte threatened to put Vianne out of business before Easter. Hallström again focuses on the exterior shots as the French village comes to life in all of its glory thanks in part to cinematographer Roger Pratt. Chocolat's utterly charming nature is enhanced by Rachel Portman's memorable score whilst the quirky characters are made more recognisable by their distinctive costumes. But what makes Chocolat really come alive is its ensemble cast; four of whom gave tremendous performances. Juliette Binoche was an utter delight in the lead role and perfectly conveyed both Vianne's wicked side with her more vulnerable nature. Binoche was nominated for a prize at that year's Oscars, as was Judi Dench who chewed some considerable scenery as diabetic landlady Armande. The fabulous Alfred Molina gave a measured turn as the film's antagonist Comte de Raymond and I thought he particularly excelled during his character's breakdown in the window of Vianne's shop. Similarly impressive was Lena Olin who, as battered wife Josephine, went on the biggest journey from shrewish housewife to independent woman. If there's a weak link in the cast then it's Johnny Depp, however I feel that this is primarily due to the fact that his character is given much to do. However, Depp and Binoche share a fine chemistry which makes Roux and Vianne's relationship all the more believable. Obviously the other plus point to watching Chocolat is the fine selection of confectionery that is on display throughout the movie so my one piece of advice would be not to watch this on an empty stomach. Whilst Chocolat isn't a particularly original film, it's certainly an enjoyable bit of escapism and I felt that Hallström deserved his Best Director nod much more for this film than he did The Cider House Rules.
Next time we turn our attention to a film that explores blood, oil and milkshakes in equal measure.
Tuesday 24 February 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 385: Two Days in L.A.
Often when critics compile their lists of worst Best Picture winners of all time there's one film that comes out on top, or if you like bottom. That film is Crash, which triumphed at the 2006 ceremony despite another film being the odds on favourite going in. Having seen the majority of the Best Picture nominees at the time, I felt that Crash was quite harshly judged and believed that most people hated it because of the academy's decision. But, watching it with my 2015 critic's eyes I have to say that those people who slated Crash's win at the time may have been more on the money than I initially thought.
Paul Haggis' film, which he co-wrote with Bobby Moresco, follows a cavalcade of characters as their paths cross over two days in L.A. The characters include racist Police Officer John Ryan, DA Rick Cabot and his wife Jean, TV Producer Cameron Thayer and petty criminals Anthony and Peter. It's pretty clear that Haggis' main theme is that of race as almost every line of the script relates to the characters' ethnicity or bigotry. Haggis changes the theme of race up a little by having many of the ethnic characters as racist as their white counterparts. This is best exemplified through black Police Lieutenant Dixon, who'd rather let racism go on in his force than risk his position by putting his neck on the line. Similarly, the final scene sees two angry drivers hurl racist insults at one another after getting into a car accident. The problem I have with this is that, as almost everyone is as bigoted as each other, it's really hard to like or identify with any of the characters. Maybe I was a little bit spoilt by the last three films I watched, but none of the characters in Crash feel like real people and that became more apparent when I realised that I didn't know any of their names when the film came to an end. The dialogue similarly doesn't feel believable and there's very little subtlety to Haggis' words with every scene focusing on racism in some form or another. I think that this took away from the believability of the film as a whole as Haggis appeared to be more interested in the his central theme rather than his characters.
Part of the problem is that there are just too many characters in the film so it's hard to really find someone to care about when they're only on screen for about ten minutes. There are two exceptions to the rule, the first being Matt Dillon's John Ryan; who's bigotry is explained through his relationship with his sick father. Dillon, who was the only member of the cast to be Oscar-nominated, presents his character as somebody who knows that he's a prick but at the same time tries to do right by his father. Similarly I was sympathetic to Michael Pena's locksmith Daniel who I felt to be the only truly good-natured character amongst a bad bunch. However a lot of the characters felt two-dimensional with a specific example being the Persian shopkeeper who spends most of the film angry with those around him. What I did like about Crash was its atmospheric style with cinematographer J. Michael Muro perfectly capturing the eeriness of Los Angeles at night. Muro's camera work is one of Crash's most positive elements and he at least tries to make the film look as interesting as possible. The most damning thing I can say about Crash is that it didn't really hold my attention primarily as I didn't care about many of the characters. While I admire what Haggis was trying to do, I think the film's message was more important to him than the characters; who simply acted as plot devices to further the themes of race. I have to say I really wanted to be one of those people who stuck up for Crash, but I'm coming round to think that maybe it didn't deserve it's Best Picture prize after all.
Next time we focus on a Swedish director who specialises in lush period pieces.
Monday 23 February 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 382-384: The Rise of The Indie Comedy
So far of all the Best Picture Winners and nominees from the 21st century, only one has been set in the present day with all the others occurring either in the past or in a different realm altogether. I hope to redress this balance with the next three films on the list, all of which take place in present day America and feature quirky characters and bizarre premises. All three are archetypal examples of what has become to be known as 'indie comedy' films that don't feature big stars and are on the whole quite funny. All three impressed Oscar enough to garner a Best Picture nomination with their respective screenplays all garnering Academy Awards in the writing categories.
The first film in this unofficial trilogy is Sideways; director Alexander Payne's adaptation of Rex Pickett's book of the same name. The film follows former college roommates Miles and Jack as they journey to the San Fernando Wine Valley to celebrate the upcoming wedding of the latter. One of the best things about Sideways is the way in which it makes you care about two characters who aren't necessarily the most likeable of guys. For example an early scene sees Miles rock up at his mum's house with the sole intent of eating her food and stealing money from her bedroom. Meanwhile Jack's main intention of getting away from Christine seems to be so he can get his end away one last time. He does this quite quickly when he meets vineyard employee and single mother Stephanie; with the two participating in a whirlwind romance during the week over which the film is set. Meanwhile Jack tries to set up Miles with Maya; a prior acquaintance who works as a waitress at the local restaurant. As the week progresses, Jack leaves Miles on his own whilst he continues a relationship with Stephanie with it eventually ending abruptly after the predictable revelation of the upcoming wedding. Like all three films in this list, it was hard to guess just in what direction Sideways was heading and that's possibly one of its greatest strengths. Although I felt that Miles and Maya may hook up, things get muddied after she finds out about Jack's wedding and the reason the pair were in the wine valley in the first place.
It's been a while since I watched Sideways, although it's a film that I remember liking immensely when I first saw it. That feeling remained upon this most recent viewing and I feel like the film really deserved all of the Oscar nominations it got. Payne's win for Best Adapted Screenplay, which he shared with co-writer Jim Taylor, was an especially worthy win seeing as the script is one of Sideways' greatest attributes. Although I couldn't remember the film entirely, Maya's speech about why she loves wine has stuck with me over the past decade whilst some of the more comedic segments are equally well crafted. As Maya, Virginia Masden was awarded with a nomination in the Best Supporting Actress category, which I felt was more than deserved due to her measured and tender performance throughout the film. Thomas Hayden Church's madcap turn as Jack also saw him pop up in the supporting actor category and I found his performance to be the perfect balance of seriousness and slapstick. One glaring omission was Paul Giamatti's lead actor nod because, as Miles, I thought he was terrific; giving an engaging performance as a miserable middle-aged man who realised that he'd never achieve greatness. The academy realised their mistake by giving Giamatti a nomination the next year for playing Russell Crowe's boxing trainer in Cinderella Man. However, Sideways remains his most accomplished performance to date and it's a shame that Oscar didn't spot this at the time. Rolfe Kent's jazz-infused score and Phedon Papamichael's excellent shooting of the Californian wine region were other brilliant elements of this excellent film. Sideways main achievement though was to put Alexander Payne on the map, with his next two films also garnering Best Picture nods. Overall, Sideways was a witty and wry look at middle-age with a fantastic script and a quartet of fantastic excellent central performances.
Despite not getting any success in the acting categories at the Oscars; the four central players in Sideways shared that year's prize for Best Ensemble Cast at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. Two years later the next film in this post, Little Miss Sunshine, won the same prize for its six primary cast members. I personally don't think I can be that objective in my review of Little Miss Sunshine; which I first fell in love with when I saw it at the Stoke-on-Trent Odeon on a Sunday morning back in 2006. At the time I went to see it I knew very little about it but afterwards I instantly wanted to see it again and multiple viewings occurred over the following year. Sitting down to rewatch it I feared that it may not be that good over eight years later but these fears were unwarranted and by the end I was laughing and crying just as I did the first time I saw it. Just like Sideways, Little Miss Sunshine doesn't have characters that are essentially likeable but by the end of the film you grow to love them. The essential plot sees the Hoover family travel from Albuquerque to California so that six-year-old daughter Olive can take part in the Little Miss Sunshine Beauty Pageant. The majority of Olive's family aren't the most identifiable of characters from her suicidal gay uncle Frank to her stroppy brother Dwight; who is currently in the throes of a silent protest. Her father Richard is possibly the most unlikeable of the bunch; a self-help guru who has poured all of the family's money into his scheme entitled 'the nine steps'. The family is completed by Richard's cantankerous drug addicted father Edwin and Hoover matriarch Cheryl who is most concerned with keeping the family unit in one piece. Over the course of the film everybody has their own realisation about their hopes, aspirations and futures but screenwriter Michael Arndt presents the script in such a way that it never becomes sentimental.
In fact Arndt's screenplay won one of Little Miss Sunshine's two Oscars with the film also taking home the Supporting Actor prize for Alan Arkin's turn as Grandpa Hoover. Almost forty years after his first nomination for The Russians are Coming; Arkin finally got to the podium for a broadly comic role that involved him shouting about sex and drug taking. However it was in Arkin's more tender moments that the performance really came alive and I'm so glad that he won the award over original favourite Eddie Murphy. As Olive, Abigail Breslin was also nominated for her performance and I felt she was another deserving nominee as she gave an innocent and mature turn for someone so young. More impressive performances were delivered by Steve Carell as the depressive Frank and Paul Dano; who role as Dwight meant that he had to be silent for the majority of the film. The quirky nature of the film is never overpowering and each character feels realistic which as a result makes you care for them even more. Another character of the film is the Hoover family's yellow VW Bus in which they make their cross-country journey. Over the course of the movie, the van breaks down causing the family to have push it along every time they need to get back on the road. These comic sequences are well executed however the majority of the laughs are reserved for Olive's final performance at the pageant itself. Uplifting, warm, witty and well put together, Little Miss Sunshine is a film that never overstays its welcome and is one that I'll never get tired of watching.
The third and final film on this list also contained a fine ensemble but oddly wasn't even nominated for that year's Screen Actors Guild Award. This is a shame as I think that the interactions between the quirky cast in Jason Reitman's Juno provided some of its finest moments. Written by former exotic dancer Diablo Cody, Juno focuses on the titular sixteen-year-old who discovers she's pregnant after a one night liaison with her best friend Paulie Bleeker. After backing out of having an abortion, Juno decides to give the baby away to a couple who really want a baby. This is certainly true of Vanessa who, along with husband Mark, are the couple Juno chooses as the adoptive parents. Cody's script then follows Juno's adventures over a year as she struggles with her pregnancy and her various relationships. One thing I like about Juno is the script is very focused with the two narrative strands focusing on our protagonist's feelings for Bleeker and her interactions with reluctant adoptive father Mark. At times you feel you know where the film is going, especially when Cody suggests that Mark and Juno are going to begin some sort of illicit affair, however she surprises you several times over. Of the three films in this post, Juno is the one that made me laugh out loud the most and it's a testament to both Cody and the comic timing of the ensemble cast. Cody's script was criticised at the time for not providing the teenage characters with realistic dialogue however I disagree with this assertion. Instead the offbeat nature of the dialogue adds another layer to the film's already unique style and makes the character of Juno stand out from other female leads.
The aforementioned unique style is evident from the offset as we follow an animated opening sequence that sees Juno head off to take her third pregnancy test, accompanied by an extra-large bottle of Sunny Delight. Reitman makes sure that each character has a specific look from Bleeker's extremely bright athletic kit to Mark and Vanessa's yuppie outfits and Juno's stepmother Bren's collection of homely knitwear. The music is similarly memorable with Mouldy Peaches front-woman Kimya Dawson's voice being present during several of the film's key moments. One of the film's cutest moments involves Juno and Bleeker performing a Mouldy Peaches number on the the latter's front porch. However, I feel that Juno wouldn't have been as well-received if it were not for the Oscar-nominated turn from lead actress Ellen Page. Despite having already been in an X-Men film at this point, Page was still a relatively unknown quantity and I felt she proved herself here by appearing in almost every scene. She made Cody's dialogue feel believable and balanced both Juno's sarcasm with her more vulnerable nature. Ellen Page also shared brilliant chemistry with Michael Cera as the nervous Bleeker; with the two making one of the cutest couples in recent cinema history. As Vanessa, Jennifer Garner was a revelation as, up to this point she had mainly featured in action films however Juno really let her demonstrate what she could do when playing a straight-laced character. Recent Oscar winner JK Simmons and Allison Janney were also on form as Juno's parents with the latter having a rather tender moment with Garner at the end of the film. Another film that is a firm favourite of mind; Juno blends a fantastic Oscar-winning screenplay with a fine central turn and a style which perfectly sums up the indie comedy genre to which all of these three films belong.
Next time we turn our attention to a film that is often considered one of the worst Best Picture winners of all time.
The first film in this unofficial trilogy is Sideways; director Alexander Payne's adaptation of Rex Pickett's book of the same name. The film follows former college roommates Miles and Jack as they journey to the San Fernando Wine Valley to celebrate the upcoming wedding of the latter. One of the best things about Sideways is the way in which it makes you care about two characters who aren't necessarily the most likeable of guys. For example an early scene sees Miles rock up at his mum's house with the sole intent of eating her food and stealing money from her bedroom. Meanwhile Jack's main intention of getting away from Christine seems to be so he can get his end away one last time. He does this quite quickly when he meets vineyard employee and single mother Stephanie; with the two participating in a whirlwind romance during the week over which the film is set. Meanwhile Jack tries to set up Miles with Maya; a prior acquaintance who works as a waitress at the local restaurant. As the week progresses, Jack leaves Miles on his own whilst he continues a relationship with Stephanie with it eventually ending abruptly after the predictable revelation of the upcoming wedding. Like all three films in this list, it was hard to guess just in what direction Sideways was heading and that's possibly one of its greatest strengths. Although I felt that Miles and Maya may hook up, things get muddied after she finds out about Jack's wedding and the reason the pair were in the wine valley in the first place.
It's been a while since I watched Sideways, although it's a film that I remember liking immensely when I first saw it. That feeling remained upon this most recent viewing and I feel like the film really deserved all of the Oscar nominations it got. Payne's win for Best Adapted Screenplay, which he shared with co-writer Jim Taylor, was an especially worthy win seeing as the script is one of Sideways' greatest attributes. Although I couldn't remember the film entirely, Maya's speech about why she loves wine has stuck with me over the past decade whilst some of the more comedic segments are equally well crafted. As Maya, Virginia Masden was awarded with a nomination in the Best Supporting Actress category, which I felt was more than deserved due to her measured and tender performance throughout the film. Thomas Hayden Church's madcap turn as Jack also saw him pop up in the supporting actor category and I found his performance to be the perfect balance of seriousness and slapstick. One glaring omission was Paul Giamatti's lead actor nod because, as Miles, I thought he was terrific; giving an engaging performance as a miserable middle-aged man who realised that he'd never achieve greatness. The academy realised their mistake by giving Giamatti a nomination the next year for playing Russell Crowe's boxing trainer in Cinderella Man. However, Sideways remains his most accomplished performance to date and it's a shame that Oscar didn't spot this at the time. Rolfe Kent's jazz-infused score and Phedon Papamichael's excellent shooting of the Californian wine region were other brilliant elements of this excellent film. Sideways main achievement though was to put Alexander Payne on the map, with his next two films also garnering Best Picture nods. Overall, Sideways was a witty and wry look at middle-age with a fantastic script and a quartet of fantastic excellent central performances.
Despite not getting any success in the acting categories at the Oscars; the four central players in Sideways shared that year's prize for Best Ensemble Cast at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. Two years later the next film in this post, Little Miss Sunshine, won the same prize for its six primary cast members. I personally don't think I can be that objective in my review of Little Miss Sunshine; which I first fell in love with when I saw it at the Stoke-on-Trent Odeon on a Sunday morning back in 2006. At the time I went to see it I knew very little about it but afterwards I instantly wanted to see it again and multiple viewings occurred over the following year. Sitting down to rewatch it I feared that it may not be that good over eight years later but these fears were unwarranted and by the end I was laughing and crying just as I did the first time I saw it. Just like Sideways, Little Miss Sunshine doesn't have characters that are essentially likeable but by the end of the film you grow to love them. The essential plot sees the Hoover family travel from Albuquerque to California so that six-year-old daughter Olive can take part in the Little Miss Sunshine Beauty Pageant. The majority of Olive's family aren't the most identifiable of characters from her suicidal gay uncle Frank to her stroppy brother Dwight; who is currently in the throes of a silent protest. Her father Richard is possibly the most unlikeable of the bunch; a self-help guru who has poured all of the family's money into his scheme entitled 'the nine steps'. The family is completed by Richard's cantankerous drug addicted father Edwin and Hoover matriarch Cheryl who is most concerned with keeping the family unit in one piece. Over the course of the film everybody has their own realisation about their hopes, aspirations and futures but screenwriter Michael Arndt presents the script in such a way that it never becomes sentimental.
In fact Arndt's screenplay won one of Little Miss Sunshine's two Oscars with the film also taking home the Supporting Actor prize for Alan Arkin's turn as Grandpa Hoover. Almost forty years after his first nomination for The Russians are Coming; Arkin finally got to the podium for a broadly comic role that involved him shouting about sex and drug taking. However it was in Arkin's more tender moments that the performance really came alive and I'm so glad that he won the award over original favourite Eddie Murphy. As Olive, Abigail Breslin was also nominated for her performance and I felt she was another deserving nominee as she gave an innocent and mature turn for someone so young. More impressive performances were delivered by Steve Carell as the depressive Frank and Paul Dano; who role as Dwight meant that he had to be silent for the majority of the film. The quirky nature of the film is never overpowering and each character feels realistic which as a result makes you care for them even more. Another character of the film is the Hoover family's yellow VW Bus in which they make their cross-country journey. Over the course of the movie, the van breaks down causing the family to have push it along every time they need to get back on the road. These comic sequences are well executed however the majority of the laughs are reserved for Olive's final performance at the pageant itself. Uplifting, warm, witty and well put together, Little Miss Sunshine is a film that never overstays its welcome and is one that I'll never get tired of watching.
The third and final film on this list also contained a fine ensemble but oddly wasn't even nominated for that year's Screen Actors Guild Award. This is a shame as I think that the interactions between the quirky cast in Jason Reitman's Juno provided some of its finest moments. Written by former exotic dancer Diablo Cody, Juno focuses on the titular sixteen-year-old who discovers she's pregnant after a one night liaison with her best friend Paulie Bleeker. After backing out of having an abortion, Juno decides to give the baby away to a couple who really want a baby. This is certainly true of Vanessa who, along with husband Mark, are the couple Juno chooses as the adoptive parents. Cody's script then follows Juno's adventures over a year as she struggles with her pregnancy and her various relationships. One thing I like about Juno is the script is very focused with the two narrative strands focusing on our protagonist's feelings for Bleeker and her interactions with reluctant adoptive father Mark. At times you feel you know where the film is going, especially when Cody suggests that Mark and Juno are going to begin some sort of illicit affair, however she surprises you several times over. Of the three films in this post, Juno is the one that made me laugh out loud the most and it's a testament to both Cody and the comic timing of the ensemble cast. Cody's script was criticised at the time for not providing the teenage characters with realistic dialogue however I disagree with this assertion. Instead the offbeat nature of the dialogue adds another layer to the film's already unique style and makes the character of Juno stand out from other female leads.
The aforementioned unique style is evident from the offset as we follow an animated opening sequence that sees Juno head off to take her third pregnancy test, accompanied by an extra-large bottle of Sunny Delight. Reitman makes sure that each character has a specific look from Bleeker's extremely bright athletic kit to Mark and Vanessa's yuppie outfits and Juno's stepmother Bren's collection of homely knitwear. The music is similarly memorable with Mouldy Peaches front-woman Kimya Dawson's voice being present during several of the film's key moments. One of the film's cutest moments involves Juno and Bleeker performing a Mouldy Peaches number on the the latter's front porch. However, I feel that Juno wouldn't have been as well-received if it were not for the Oscar-nominated turn from lead actress Ellen Page. Despite having already been in an X-Men film at this point, Page was still a relatively unknown quantity and I felt she proved herself here by appearing in almost every scene. She made Cody's dialogue feel believable and balanced both Juno's sarcasm with her more vulnerable nature. Ellen Page also shared brilliant chemistry with Michael Cera as the nervous Bleeker; with the two making one of the cutest couples in recent cinema history. As Vanessa, Jennifer Garner was a revelation as, up to this point she had mainly featured in action films however Juno really let her demonstrate what she could do when playing a straight-laced character. Recent Oscar winner JK Simmons and Allison Janney were also on form as Juno's parents with the latter having a rather tender moment with Garner at the end of the film. Another film that is a firm favourite of mind; Juno blends a fantastic Oscar-winning screenplay with a fine central turn and a style which perfectly sums up the indie comedy genre to which all of these three films belong.
Next time we turn our attention to a film that is often considered one of the worst Best Picture winners of all time.
Sunday 22 February 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 379-381: Greetings from Middle Earth
As we've seen throughout the course of this blog, very few of the Best Picture nominees come from the sci-fi and fantasy genre. For the most part every film takes part on Planet Earth and usually visits an incident from recent history. However, in the early part of the 21st century, things changed as one of the most popular literary trilogies in history was adapted by New Zealand film-maker Peter Jackson. All three parts of The Lord of the Rings trilogy went on to be nominated for Best Picture, with the concluding chapter winning the top prize. This post will see me revisit all three films and present a fresh perspective on movies I first viewed on their opening days of release.
Although I bought the extended edition DVDs I've never actually gotten round to watching them and instead primarily purchased them because they'd look good in my collection. Unfortunately, for the purposes of this challenge, having extra scenes scattered throughout the films made the pace lag somewhat. As The Lord of The Rings is one of the most successful film franchises of all time; I don't think a recap of the plot is particularly necessary. Instead I will make my comments about each film starting with the opening chapter; The Fellowship of The Ring. For the opening part of a franchise, I felt The Fellowship did a good job of establishing the characters and getting all the major players into one place. However, perhaps due to me watching the extended cut, I found that Peter Jackson spent a little bit too much time at Bilbo Baggins' birthday bash and could've got the Hobbits on the road a tad quicker. Even a Middle Earth novice such as myself I understood the motivations for each character and the horrors that stood in their way as Frodo and Sam were tasked with dispatching 'the one ring' into Mount Doom. One of the biggest characters throughout the franchise, which was established about halfway through The Fellowship, was that of New Zealand itself. Director Peter Jackson's native country was chosen as the backdrop for the film and it served its purpose well, convincing this viewer that I was watching events take place in a mystical land. Andrew Lesnie's Oscar-winning cinematography perfectly captures this backdrop and draws the viewer in throughout the three hour running time.
Cinematography was one of the four categories that The Fellowship of The Ring triumphed in, matching the total of that year's Best Picture winner A Beautiful Mind. The film won further awards for Best Visual Effects, Best Make-Up and Best Score for Howard Shore's iconic film music. Interestingly, of all of the three films, The Fellowship of The Ring garnered the most nominations of the trio and was also the only one to have an acting nod. That went to Ian Mckellen who lost the Supporting Actor award to fellow Brit Jim Broadbent; however his nomination was more than deserved. As Gandalf, McKellen is definitely the heart of the piece and his 'you shall not pass!' speech is as stirring today as it was over thirteen years ago. The problem with The Fellowship, and the trilogy as a whole, is that it's an ensemble piece so it's particularly hard to pick out one or two performances. If I were to highlight other turns in this first film then they would be Viggo Mortensen's swashbuckling performance as Aragon and Christopher Lee's scenery chewing efforts as Saruman. One thing I would say about the film is that it has the perfect balance of light and shade, building up the tension so when the big moments strike they feel important. The fellowship's final battle with the orcs was especially moving and perfectly bridged the gap between the trilogy's first two films.
Of the three films, I definitely found The Two Towers the hardest to watch as it takes its sweet time getting to the majestic Battle for Helm's Deep. There are several problems, most of them to do with the introduction of new characters; most of whom aren't that interesting and seemingly are there to slow down the flow of the narrative. For example David Wenham's Faramir briefly slows down Sam and Frodo's journey to Mount Doom before letting them continue their journey. Merry and Pippin's whole plot in the second film is possibly the dullest as they're stuck travelling with the tiresome Treebeard. Meanwhile Aragon has trouble diverting the case of the pretty and assertive Eowyn; who is infinitely more interesting than his true love Arwen. However, thankfully there is one character that makes a difference and is to some the most memorable part of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I'm talking of course about Gollum; the slimy creature played with such relish by the fantastic Andy Serkis. Serkis' debut as Gollum singled him out as the master of the motion capture suit; a legacy he has since cemented as Caesar in the Planet of The Apes films. The fact that Serkis has yet to be nominated for an Oscar for playing either character is a travesty and one that I hope will be rectified soon. Gollum's inclusion in the Sam and Frodo plot also put some tension between the lifelong friends and gave this second film a bit of edge that the first one sorely lacked.
Aside from Serkis the only other new cast member who I'd single out is Bernard Hill as King Theoden who is initially possessed by Saruman. Hill was convincing as a worn out leader who'd let magic take over him and was equally at home when he was tasked with commanding armies in the film's latter scenes. As I insinuated, The Two Towers was the toughest watch and was therefore the one film in the trilogy that I was surprised to see in the Best Picture category. Maybe the academy just wanted some sort of symmetry or they were just taken aback by the motion capture technology employed by Serkis. However, it's clear that generally The Two Towers wasn't as well-regarded as The Fellowship as it only received six nominations. Of those nods, most of which were in the technical categories, it only received two awards for sound effects editing and visual effects. While I understand that not every second instalment can be The Empire Strikes Back, I found The Two Towers dragged at times and I did honestly feel as if I'd never get through the Lord of The Rings. Thank God then for Serkis whose performance as Gollum saved the film for me and made genuinely excited to see the third and final film.
That film, The Return of the King, went on to become one of the most successful films in Oscar history tying both Titanic and Ben-Hur at eleven wins a piece. It also won every award it was nominated for including triumphs in the Best Picture and Best Director categories. Some would argue that The Return of the King's clean sweep was the Academy's way of honouring the trilogy as a whole and in some cases that's plain to see. For example wins the costumes and art direction are unchanged throughout the three films yet for some reason they were only Oscar-worthy during The Return of the King. However, I would argue that it's the best film of the three and it was definitely the one I found easiest to watch. From the undead army to Shelob the giant spider; The Return of the King continues the visual splendour that the first two films deal with so well. At the same time I found the story utterly gripping, especially the scenes in which Gollum manipulates Frodo into believing Sam is trying to steal the ring. Whilst Serkis is at the top of his game once again, I found Sean Astin's turn as Sam to be utterly mesmerising as he perfectly conveyed his character's innocence. Elijah Wood deserves similar praise for his affecting turn as Frodo who in this film in particular has to deal with a lot of perilous situations. Everything was brought together brilliantly and I was totally on the edge of my seat as Frodo was perched in Mount Doom deciding whether or not to keep the ring. Even though I already knew the outcome I found myself compelled to keep watching and I'm glad I did.
One thing that The Return of The King is constantly criticised for is the fact that it just won't end. Following Frodo and Sam's successful time at Mount Doom, we are shown Aragon's coronation and Sam's wedding before the final scenes air. At the time I was of the opinion that The Return of the King did indeed have one too many endings but I feel that that was to do with already having sat through a three hour film at the cinema. In the comfort of my own living room, these feelings changed and I had no problem with seeing the characters I'd followed for the best part of nine hours settle down before seeing each other for the last time. When evaluating The Return of The King worthiness as a Best Picture winner I have to think about whether it works if you didn't watch the first two films. Obviously if you did that then it would be a little silly, however I do feel that you'd lose some of the context about the characters and wouldn't be rooting for the Hobbits as much if you hadn't followed them from the first moment they left The Shire. That being said, The Return of The King is definitely the strongest part of the trilogy and brings together the best elements of the other two films. It's stunning to watch, capitalises on new technology and brings out the best in its ensemble cast. Ultimately I would say that The Return of The King is deserving of its place in the Best Picture pantheon even if I do think the Academy were giving the Oscar to the entire trilogy.
Next time we have a bit of a breather from the epics with some quirky characters and award-winning scripts.
Although I bought the extended edition DVDs I've never actually gotten round to watching them and instead primarily purchased them because they'd look good in my collection. Unfortunately, for the purposes of this challenge, having extra scenes scattered throughout the films made the pace lag somewhat. As The Lord of The Rings is one of the most successful film franchises of all time; I don't think a recap of the plot is particularly necessary. Instead I will make my comments about each film starting with the opening chapter; The Fellowship of The Ring. For the opening part of a franchise, I felt The Fellowship did a good job of establishing the characters and getting all the major players into one place. However, perhaps due to me watching the extended cut, I found that Peter Jackson spent a little bit too much time at Bilbo Baggins' birthday bash and could've got the Hobbits on the road a tad quicker. Even a Middle Earth novice such as myself I understood the motivations for each character and the horrors that stood in their way as Frodo and Sam were tasked with dispatching 'the one ring' into Mount Doom. One of the biggest characters throughout the franchise, which was established about halfway through The Fellowship, was that of New Zealand itself. Director Peter Jackson's native country was chosen as the backdrop for the film and it served its purpose well, convincing this viewer that I was watching events take place in a mystical land. Andrew Lesnie's Oscar-winning cinematography perfectly captures this backdrop and draws the viewer in throughout the three hour running time.
Cinematography was one of the four categories that The Fellowship of The Ring triumphed in, matching the total of that year's Best Picture winner A Beautiful Mind. The film won further awards for Best Visual Effects, Best Make-Up and Best Score for Howard Shore's iconic film music. Interestingly, of all of the three films, The Fellowship of The Ring garnered the most nominations of the trio and was also the only one to have an acting nod. That went to Ian Mckellen who lost the Supporting Actor award to fellow Brit Jim Broadbent; however his nomination was more than deserved. As Gandalf, McKellen is definitely the heart of the piece and his 'you shall not pass!' speech is as stirring today as it was over thirteen years ago. The problem with The Fellowship, and the trilogy as a whole, is that it's an ensemble piece so it's particularly hard to pick out one or two performances. If I were to highlight other turns in this first film then they would be Viggo Mortensen's swashbuckling performance as Aragon and Christopher Lee's scenery chewing efforts as Saruman. One thing I would say about the film is that it has the perfect balance of light and shade, building up the tension so when the big moments strike they feel important. The fellowship's final battle with the orcs was especially moving and perfectly bridged the gap between the trilogy's first two films.
Of the three films, I definitely found The Two Towers the hardest to watch as it takes its sweet time getting to the majestic Battle for Helm's Deep. There are several problems, most of them to do with the introduction of new characters; most of whom aren't that interesting and seemingly are there to slow down the flow of the narrative. For example David Wenham's Faramir briefly slows down Sam and Frodo's journey to Mount Doom before letting them continue their journey. Merry and Pippin's whole plot in the second film is possibly the dullest as they're stuck travelling with the tiresome Treebeard. Meanwhile Aragon has trouble diverting the case of the pretty and assertive Eowyn; who is infinitely more interesting than his true love Arwen. However, thankfully there is one character that makes a difference and is to some the most memorable part of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I'm talking of course about Gollum; the slimy creature played with such relish by the fantastic Andy Serkis. Serkis' debut as Gollum singled him out as the master of the motion capture suit; a legacy he has since cemented as Caesar in the Planet of The Apes films. The fact that Serkis has yet to be nominated for an Oscar for playing either character is a travesty and one that I hope will be rectified soon. Gollum's inclusion in the Sam and Frodo plot also put some tension between the lifelong friends and gave this second film a bit of edge that the first one sorely lacked.
Aside from Serkis the only other new cast member who I'd single out is Bernard Hill as King Theoden who is initially possessed by Saruman. Hill was convincing as a worn out leader who'd let magic take over him and was equally at home when he was tasked with commanding armies in the film's latter scenes. As I insinuated, The Two Towers was the toughest watch and was therefore the one film in the trilogy that I was surprised to see in the Best Picture category. Maybe the academy just wanted some sort of symmetry or they were just taken aback by the motion capture technology employed by Serkis. However, it's clear that generally The Two Towers wasn't as well-regarded as The Fellowship as it only received six nominations. Of those nods, most of which were in the technical categories, it only received two awards for sound effects editing and visual effects. While I understand that not every second instalment can be The Empire Strikes Back, I found The Two Towers dragged at times and I did honestly feel as if I'd never get through the Lord of The Rings. Thank God then for Serkis whose performance as Gollum saved the film for me and made genuinely excited to see the third and final film.
That film, The Return of the King, went on to become one of the most successful films in Oscar history tying both Titanic and Ben-Hur at eleven wins a piece. It also won every award it was nominated for including triumphs in the Best Picture and Best Director categories. Some would argue that The Return of the King's clean sweep was the Academy's way of honouring the trilogy as a whole and in some cases that's plain to see. For example wins the costumes and art direction are unchanged throughout the three films yet for some reason they were only Oscar-worthy during The Return of the King. However, I would argue that it's the best film of the three and it was definitely the one I found easiest to watch. From the undead army to Shelob the giant spider; The Return of the King continues the visual splendour that the first two films deal with so well. At the same time I found the story utterly gripping, especially the scenes in which Gollum manipulates Frodo into believing Sam is trying to steal the ring. Whilst Serkis is at the top of his game once again, I found Sean Astin's turn as Sam to be utterly mesmerising as he perfectly conveyed his character's innocence. Elijah Wood deserves similar praise for his affecting turn as Frodo who in this film in particular has to deal with a lot of perilous situations. Everything was brought together brilliantly and I was totally on the edge of my seat as Frodo was perched in Mount Doom deciding whether or not to keep the ring. Even though I already knew the outcome I found myself compelled to keep watching and I'm glad I did.
One thing that The Return of The King is constantly criticised for is the fact that it just won't end. Following Frodo and Sam's successful time at Mount Doom, we are shown Aragon's coronation and Sam's wedding before the final scenes air. At the time I was of the opinion that The Return of the King did indeed have one too many endings but I feel that that was to do with already having sat through a three hour film at the cinema. In the comfort of my own living room, these feelings changed and I had no problem with seeing the characters I'd followed for the best part of nine hours settle down before seeing each other for the last time. When evaluating The Return of The King worthiness as a Best Picture winner I have to think about whether it works if you didn't watch the first two films. Obviously if you did that then it would be a little silly, however I do feel that you'd lose some of the context about the characters and wouldn't be rooting for the Hobbits as much if you hadn't followed them from the first moment they left The Shire. That being said, The Return of The King is definitely the strongest part of the trilogy and brings together the best elements of the other two films. It's stunning to watch, capitalises on new technology and brings out the best in its ensemble cast. Ultimately I would say that The Return of The King is deserving of its place in the Best Picture pantheon even if I do think the Academy were giving the Oscar to the entire trilogy.
Next time we have a bit of a breather from the epics with some quirky characters and award-winning scripts.
Saturday 7 February 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 377-378: More Real Life Tales
As we saw in the last post, and indeed throughout this whole blog, Oscar loves a biopic. Whilst films such as Ray document the whole life of their subject most of these best picture nominees focus on a specific time in that person's life. That's certainly true of the next two films on the list both of which won their leading man the Best Actor Oscar at their respective ceremonies.
It's with a tinge of sadness that I settled down to watch the first part of this double bill, Capote; one of the few 21st century Best Picture nominees I'd not seen before. Obviously this is due to the fact that last year we lost the man who played the lead role of Truman Capote, the excellent Philip Seymour Hoffman. The film concentrates on Capote's life after he became a household name thanks to Breakfast at Tiffany's and follows him during the creation of his famous non-fiction work In Cold Blood. From the start of the film, director Bennett Miller and screenwriter Dan Futterman present the difference between Truman's life of alcohol-fuelled parties and the stark brutal world of the murder of four members of the Clutter family. Fascinated by the murders, Truman and friend Harper Lee journey to Kansas as he attempts to craft an article about the incident for The New Yorker. However, Futterman's real focus is on Truman's fascination with Perry Smith who, along with Dick Hickock, is found guilty of the crime. Whilst occasionally Truman's obsession with Perry is presented as somewhat of a romantic leaning, it appeared to me as if the film was suggesting that the author's fascination was with the criminal's conflicting character. Although charged with four murders, Perry appeared ever so sensitive, was a brilliant artist and appeared to be incredibly eloquent when compared to Dick. As the film progresses, so does Truman's book however more problems arise when the convicted duo are given a stay of execution. Truman's desperation for an ending of sorts conflicts with his feelings for Perry and in the end he surmises that there can be only one conclusion.
Having never seen Capote before I didn't really know what to expect and I was pleasantly surprised by what I found. Obviously part of my enjoyment stemmed from Philip Seymour Hoffman's Oscar-winning turn as the eponymous writer. Hoffman's skill is in not simply doing an impression of Capote but instead playing him as a fully-fledged character. It's fair to say that Hoffman became Capote to the extent that I forgot at times that I was watching the actor playing the part. Hoffman brilliantly conveyed Capote's feelings for Perry and how his writing of 'In Cold Blood' started to affect him emotionally. For her role as Nelle Harper Lee, Catherine Keener was nominated for a Best Supporting Actress prize, however I didn't feel that she made that big an impact. If I were to give another acting award for the film then it would go to Clifton Collins Jr. as the charismatic killer Perry Smith. Collins Jr. gave an enigmatic turn as the sensitive murderer whose reluctance to tell his full story was the driving point of the film. Futterman's screenplay was well-paced and presented the facts in an entertaining manner, ensuring that the audience was never bored. Meanwhile Miller proved himself to be a fine director; transposing Truman's booze-soaked party life with the cold, harsh reality of the Kansas murders. At just under two hours, Capote was a very easy film to watch and I found myself being wrapped up in the story. At the same time there was nothing particularly remarkable about it outside of Hoffman's fine central turn. So, while I can understand why the film appeared in the Best Picture category, I never particularly felt that it should've won the big prize.
The same can be said for the other film in this double bill; Gus Van Sant's Milk - a biopic of the first openly gay man to hold office in the U.S.; Harvey Milk. Just like Capote, Milk looks at a specific point in Harvey's life as he moves to San Francisco and later decides to run for office. The film is presented as a tape recording our hero makes as he believes he'll soon be assassinated and it starts on the eve of Harvey's fortieth birthday when he meets arguably the love of his life Scott Smith. Together Scott and Harvey open a camera shop in the heart of a burgeoning gay community in San Francisco known as 'The Castro'. Milk's frustration with the way the gay community is being persecuted leads him to run for city supervisor, however his first two campaigns are unsuccessful. Meanwhile the campaigning puts a strain on his relationship with Scott, who eventually leaves him, reappearing every now and again in the film to praise his former lover's success. After finally getting into office in 1976, Harvey constantly clashes with the boorish Dan White; another supervisor who takes offence at his colleague's way of life. Dan's jealousy appears to stem from the fact that he isn't nearly as charismatic as Harvey and therefore finds it hard getting his voice heard. The other story is Harvey's need to get the controversial Proposition 6, which states that all gay teachers be sacked, overturned in the state of California. This story provided it's fair share of uplifting moments as Milk went head-to-head in debates with the bigoted John Briggs, who felt that all homosexuals were perverted. Even if you didn't know the story going in, it was quite obvious that Harvey wasn't going to make it till the end of the film and is eventual assassination at the hands of Dan White was well-handled. The candlelight vigil at the end of the film provided a heart-warming ending to what was another enjoyable and thought-provoking watch.
Of the four Best Actor-winning performances I've watched recently, Sean Penn's is possibly the least-deserving of the prize. I personally feel he's the one who is visibly acting while the other three performers deliver effortless turns. Although Penn's performance isn't as clichéd as it could've been I didn't really feel that he was as at ease with Dustin Lance Black's dialogue as he should have been. Maybe I'm a little biased, as I wanted Mickey Rourke to win Best Actor for The Wrestler, but I believe that Penn didn't convey the full extent of Milk's charisma. Reading around on the film it appears that, when the idea of a film about Milk was first conceived, Robin Williams was attached to play the role and I ultimately think that he would've suited the role much better. Penn was lucky that he was surrounded by such a fine ensemble of actors who beautifully portrayed the friendship between the men and women who became a family on The Castro. I really thought James Franco gave a grounded performance as the put-upon Scott who'd finally had enough of play second fiddle to the great Harvey Milk. Meanwhile Emile Hirsch and Allison Pill were similarly great as Milk's supporters Cleve Jones and Anne Kronenberg. However, the performance of the film came from Josh Brolin as the rather old-fashioned Dan White, a man who couldn't understand just why Harvey was as popular as he was. Brolin received a Best Supporting Actor nod for his role in the film but I believe he should have won the awards but unfortunately that year saw him come up against Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight. Harris Savides' cinematography is another of Milk's positive elements as he gets in amongst the film's many protests and makes the audience understand just how intense the gay protests were during the 1970s. Gus Van Sant appears to have devoted a lot of time into getting the area of The Castro as authentic as possible and transformed the area into looking like it would in the 1970s. I personally feel that Milk works as a study of the gay movement of the 1970s and the strength in numbers that the community experienced during the time. However, I'm in the minority of people who weren't won over by Penn's performance and don't think he was as deserving of the prize as his predecessors.
Next time we leave real life behind as we explore one of the most successful film franchises of all time.
It's with a tinge of sadness that I settled down to watch the first part of this double bill, Capote; one of the few 21st century Best Picture nominees I'd not seen before. Obviously this is due to the fact that last year we lost the man who played the lead role of Truman Capote, the excellent Philip Seymour Hoffman. The film concentrates on Capote's life after he became a household name thanks to Breakfast at Tiffany's and follows him during the creation of his famous non-fiction work In Cold Blood. From the start of the film, director Bennett Miller and screenwriter Dan Futterman present the difference between Truman's life of alcohol-fuelled parties and the stark brutal world of the murder of four members of the Clutter family. Fascinated by the murders, Truman and friend Harper Lee journey to Kansas as he attempts to craft an article about the incident for The New Yorker. However, Futterman's real focus is on Truman's fascination with Perry Smith who, along with Dick Hickock, is found guilty of the crime. Whilst occasionally Truman's obsession with Perry is presented as somewhat of a romantic leaning, it appeared to me as if the film was suggesting that the author's fascination was with the criminal's conflicting character. Although charged with four murders, Perry appeared ever so sensitive, was a brilliant artist and appeared to be incredibly eloquent when compared to Dick. As the film progresses, so does Truman's book however more problems arise when the convicted duo are given a stay of execution. Truman's desperation for an ending of sorts conflicts with his feelings for Perry and in the end he surmises that there can be only one conclusion.
Having never seen Capote before I didn't really know what to expect and I was pleasantly surprised by what I found. Obviously part of my enjoyment stemmed from Philip Seymour Hoffman's Oscar-winning turn as the eponymous writer. Hoffman's skill is in not simply doing an impression of Capote but instead playing him as a fully-fledged character. It's fair to say that Hoffman became Capote to the extent that I forgot at times that I was watching the actor playing the part. Hoffman brilliantly conveyed Capote's feelings for Perry and how his writing of 'In Cold Blood' started to affect him emotionally. For her role as Nelle Harper Lee, Catherine Keener was nominated for a Best Supporting Actress prize, however I didn't feel that she made that big an impact. If I were to give another acting award for the film then it would go to Clifton Collins Jr. as the charismatic killer Perry Smith. Collins Jr. gave an enigmatic turn as the sensitive murderer whose reluctance to tell his full story was the driving point of the film. Futterman's screenplay was well-paced and presented the facts in an entertaining manner, ensuring that the audience was never bored. Meanwhile Miller proved himself to be a fine director; transposing Truman's booze-soaked party life with the cold, harsh reality of the Kansas murders. At just under two hours, Capote was a very easy film to watch and I found myself being wrapped up in the story. At the same time there was nothing particularly remarkable about it outside of Hoffman's fine central turn. So, while I can understand why the film appeared in the Best Picture category, I never particularly felt that it should've won the big prize.
The same can be said for the other film in this double bill; Gus Van Sant's Milk - a biopic of the first openly gay man to hold office in the U.S.; Harvey Milk. Just like Capote, Milk looks at a specific point in Harvey's life as he moves to San Francisco and later decides to run for office. The film is presented as a tape recording our hero makes as he believes he'll soon be assassinated and it starts on the eve of Harvey's fortieth birthday when he meets arguably the love of his life Scott Smith. Together Scott and Harvey open a camera shop in the heart of a burgeoning gay community in San Francisco known as 'The Castro'. Milk's frustration with the way the gay community is being persecuted leads him to run for city supervisor, however his first two campaigns are unsuccessful. Meanwhile the campaigning puts a strain on his relationship with Scott, who eventually leaves him, reappearing every now and again in the film to praise his former lover's success. After finally getting into office in 1976, Harvey constantly clashes with the boorish Dan White; another supervisor who takes offence at his colleague's way of life. Dan's jealousy appears to stem from the fact that he isn't nearly as charismatic as Harvey and therefore finds it hard getting his voice heard. The other story is Harvey's need to get the controversial Proposition 6, which states that all gay teachers be sacked, overturned in the state of California. This story provided it's fair share of uplifting moments as Milk went head-to-head in debates with the bigoted John Briggs, who felt that all homosexuals were perverted. Even if you didn't know the story going in, it was quite obvious that Harvey wasn't going to make it till the end of the film and is eventual assassination at the hands of Dan White was well-handled. The candlelight vigil at the end of the film provided a heart-warming ending to what was another enjoyable and thought-provoking watch.
Of the four Best Actor-winning performances I've watched recently, Sean Penn's is possibly the least-deserving of the prize. I personally feel he's the one who is visibly acting while the other three performers deliver effortless turns. Although Penn's performance isn't as clichéd as it could've been I didn't really feel that he was as at ease with Dustin Lance Black's dialogue as he should have been. Maybe I'm a little biased, as I wanted Mickey Rourke to win Best Actor for The Wrestler, but I believe that Penn didn't convey the full extent of Milk's charisma. Reading around on the film it appears that, when the idea of a film about Milk was first conceived, Robin Williams was attached to play the role and I ultimately think that he would've suited the role much better. Penn was lucky that he was surrounded by such a fine ensemble of actors who beautifully portrayed the friendship between the men and women who became a family on The Castro. I really thought James Franco gave a grounded performance as the put-upon Scott who'd finally had enough of play second fiddle to the great Harvey Milk. Meanwhile Emile Hirsch and Allison Pill were similarly great as Milk's supporters Cleve Jones and Anne Kronenberg. However, the performance of the film came from Josh Brolin as the rather old-fashioned Dan White, a man who couldn't understand just why Harvey was as popular as he was. Brolin received a Best Supporting Actor nod for his role in the film but I believe he should have won the awards but unfortunately that year saw him come up against Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight. Harris Savides' cinematography is another of Milk's positive elements as he gets in amongst the film's many protests and makes the audience understand just how intense the gay protests were during the 1970s. Gus Van Sant appears to have devoted a lot of time into getting the area of The Castro as authentic as possible and transformed the area into looking like it would in the 1970s. I personally feel that Milk works as a study of the gay movement of the 1970s and the strength in numbers that the community experienced during the time. However, I'm in the minority of people who weren't won over by Penn's performance and don't think he was as deserving of the prize as his predecessors.
Next time we leave real life behind as we explore one of the most successful film franchises of all time.
Thursday 5 February 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 375-376: Duelling Pianos
Welcome back to the 21st Century guys and, at least for the time being, this is where I'll be staying as I get closer to completing my quest. However, as the next four films from the decade are all biopics of sorts, I'll be shooting around various time periods. We start with two films that focus on real life pianists albeit two men who have very little else in common.
First up we have The Pianist; a film based on the memoirs of Polish composer and pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman. The film is a blow-by-blow account of what happened to the Jewish Szpilman during the Second World War as he attempted to survive as Warsaw crumbled around him. The interesting thing about Szpilman is he is never presented as any type of hero but instead as somebody who is simply trying to survive the extraordinary circumstances he's found himself in. Although early on he does his best to try and save his family, once he's separated from them he's essentially concerned about himself. The other interesting thing about the character is that his survival often comes from the help of non-Jews including a friendly couple and a man who married the woman who Szpilman once loved. In the film's latter scenes, Szpilman's survival is aided by a German officer whose sole reason for helping him is to hear his music. Indeed, music is one of The Pianist's main attributes and we can see Szpilman's pain as he's forced to keep quite while in a room with a piano. Although it's a film set during wartime, I don't think The Pianist can really be described as a war film and instead it sees the devastation of Poland from Szpilman's eyes. Screenwriter Ronald Harwood cleverly punctuates scenes of actions with quieter moments that simply focus on Szpilman's deterioration. We follow him as he tries to get over his jaundice and his struggles to find food and water in the film's final scenes. The Pianist's main triumph is in presenting a sympathetic character who is necessarily a heroic man but is someone who's pain the audience can identify with.
It's no surprise that Adrien Brody won the Best Actor prize for his performance as Szpilman as he completely commands the screen throughout. Brody has the mannerisms of a silent film star which helps in the latter half of the film where there is very little dialogue. Brody helps the audience understand Szpilman's feelings as he slumps about the deserted streets of Warsaw clutching a jar of pickles in his hands. I felt Brody was absolutely captivating at playing both the charming musician in the film's early moments and the shell of a man in the film's latter scenes. Brody was aided by director Roman Polanski who made the town of Warsaw as big a character as Szpilman. I found some of The Pianist's images truly shocking as Szpilman was horrified by the dead bodies strewn across the streets and later surveyed the hollowed out buildings which were once occupied by happy families. In my opinion Pawel Edelman deserved an Oscar for his superb cinematography which at times made The Pianist feel like a documentary. Thankfully Polanski was awarded with a Best Director honour for helming a truly memorable piece of cinema which has as much to say about the holocaust as Schindler's List. If there's one criticism I have of The Pianist it's that I didn't feel as strong an emotional connection with Szpilman as I possibly could have done. Whilst I admired the film, I was never completely drawn in to what was happening on the screen and instead I felt more like a bystander. Maybe this is the reason that The Pianist didn't win the Best Picture award however I do feel it deserved it over the film that eventually scooped the award.
While The Pianist dealt with just one period of Szpilman's life, the other film in this post was a wide-reaching biopic of a famous pianist and vocalist. Ray, looked at the life and times of the legendary Ray Charles; from a small boy growing up in Florida to one of the most successful jazz artists of all time. Director Taylor Hackford and screenwriter James L White take a fairly linear approach to telling Ray's life; starting with his first performances in a country band. From there we see his first appearances on stage, touring with a band and meeting his future wife. Throughout the course of the story, the film flashes back to Ray's childhood to witness two very traumatic events in his life. The first is the death of his brother, who drowned in a laundry tub, and the second was the gradual loss of his eyesight. I believe that the film explained how Ray managed to get about with a stick or a dog and showed how exactly he seduced the ladies on a nightly basis. What I liked about the film was that it didn't shy away from the more negative side of Ray's personality, particularly his drug use. As the film progressed, and Ray's success grew, so did his reliance on heroin which as a result put him at odds with his friends and family. Additionally Ray's dalliances with various women are portrayed as he conducted various extra-marital affairs throughout his career. One in particular, with backing singer Margie, has disastrous consequences after she dies from an overdose only a couple of years after giving birth to his child. One problem I did have with the film was that it was pretty uneven as it spent too long on some moments and not enough on others. I found that Hackford and White took too long documenting the build-up of Ray's career and not enough time on other key moments in his life. I'd have like to have seen more about his protests against segregation and his attempts to kick his drug habit. As a result I found that the screenplay was largely inconsistent and that slightly affected my enjoyment of the film.
Thankfully Ray benefited from a tremendous Oscar-winning performance from Jamie Foxx, one that arguably made him a big name star. Foxx could've easily portrayed Charles as somewhat of a caricature but instead made him a fully-rounded character. He was particularly strong at portraying Ray's gradual dependence on drugs and the subtle changes in his character. Additionally, he was able to convey Ray's charisma and you could believe just why so many people fell under his spell. Foxx was ably supported throughout the film by a cast of character actors most notably Richard Shiff and Curtis Armstrong as a pair of Atlantic record chiefs and Regina King as the tragic Margie. I think that your enjoyment of Ray does depend on how much you can tolerate jazz music but I personally felt the music in the film was one of its most positive elements. Hackford and White use the majority of Ray's songs to tell a certain story about a period in his life and as a result give the film the feel of a musical. Paul Hirsch deftly edits together these set pieces to allow the audience to associate Charles' songs to either his success or certain moments in his personal life. It was no surprise to me that, alongside Foxx's honour, the film also won the sound mixing Oscar as I believed that the way the music was used was crucial to Ray's success. As his wife notes towards the end of the film, Ray loved music more than drugs, women and even his own family, a message that the film conveys perfectly. Whilst it doesn't really hold up against some of the more prestigious Oscar films, Ray is a fun biopic with lots of enjoyable musical sequence and is anchored by a fantastic central performance.
We continue our cavalcade of biopics with two more films that earned their stars Best Actor Oscars.
First up we have The Pianist; a film based on the memoirs of Polish composer and pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman. The film is a blow-by-blow account of what happened to the Jewish Szpilman during the Second World War as he attempted to survive as Warsaw crumbled around him. The interesting thing about Szpilman is he is never presented as any type of hero but instead as somebody who is simply trying to survive the extraordinary circumstances he's found himself in. Although early on he does his best to try and save his family, once he's separated from them he's essentially concerned about himself. The other interesting thing about the character is that his survival often comes from the help of non-Jews including a friendly couple and a man who married the woman who Szpilman once loved. In the film's latter scenes, Szpilman's survival is aided by a German officer whose sole reason for helping him is to hear his music. Indeed, music is one of The Pianist's main attributes and we can see Szpilman's pain as he's forced to keep quite while in a room with a piano. Although it's a film set during wartime, I don't think The Pianist can really be described as a war film and instead it sees the devastation of Poland from Szpilman's eyes. Screenwriter Ronald Harwood cleverly punctuates scenes of actions with quieter moments that simply focus on Szpilman's deterioration. We follow him as he tries to get over his jaundice and his struggles to find food and water in the film's final scenes. The Pianist's main triumph is in presenting a sympathetic character who is necessarily a heroic man but is someone who's pain the audience can identify with.
It's no surprise that Adrien Brody won the Best Actor prize for his performance as Szpilman as he completely commands the screen throughout. Brody has the mannerisms of a silent film star which helps in the latter half of the film where there is very little dialogue. Brody helps the audience understand Szpilman's feelings as he slumps about the deserted streets of Warsaw clutching a jar of pickles in his hands. I felt Brody was absolutely captivating at playing both the charming musician in the film's early moments and the shell of a man in the film's latter scenes. Brody was aided by director Roman Polanski who made the town of Warsaw as big a character as Szpilman. I found some of The Pianist's images truly shocking as Szpilman was horrified by the dead bodies strewn across the streets and later surveyed the hollowed out buildings which were once occupied by happy families. In my opinion Pawel Edelman deserved an Oscar for his superb cinematography which at times made The Pianist feel like a documentary. Thankfully Polanski was awarded with a Best Director honour for helming a truly memorable piece of cinema which has as much to say about the holocaust as Schindler's List. If there's one criticism I have of The Pianist it's that I didn't feel as strong an emotional connection with Szpilman as I possibly could have done. Whilst I admired the film, I was never completely drawn in to what was happening on the screen and instead I felt more like a bystander. Maybe this is the reason that The Pianist didn't win the Best Picture award however I do feel it deserved it over the film that eventually scooped the award.
While The Pianist dealt with just one period of Szpilman's life, the other film in this post was a wide-reaching biopic of a famous pianist and vocalist. Ray, looked at the life and times of the legendary Ray Charles; from a small boy growing up in Florida to one of the most successful jazz artists of all time. Director Taylor Hackford and screenwriter James L White take a fairly linear approach to telling Ray's life; starting with his first performances in a country band. From there we see his first appearances on stage, touring with a band and meeting his future wife. Throughout the course of the story, the film flashes back to Ray's childhood to witness two very traumatic events in his life. The first is the death of his brother, who drowned in a laundry tub, and the second was the gradual loss of his eyesight. I believe that the film explained how Ray managed to get about with a stick or a dog and showed how exactly he seduced the ladies on a nightly basis. What I liked about the film was that it didn't shy away from the more negative side of Ray's personality, particularly his drug use. As the film progressed, and Ray's success grew, so did his reliance on heroin which as a result put him at odds with his friends and family. Additionally Ray's dalliances with various women are portrayed as he conducted various extra-marital affairs throughout his career. One in particular, with backing singer Margie, has disastrous consequences after she dies from an overdose only a couple of years after giving birth to his child. One problem I did have with the film was that it was pretty uneven as it spent too long on some moments and not enough on others. I found that Hackford and White took too long documenting the build-up of Ray's career and not enough time on other key moments in his life. I'd have like to have seen more about his protests against segregation and his attempts to kick his drug habit. As a result I found that the screenplay was largely inconsistent and that slightly affected my enjoyment of the film.
Thankfully Ray benefited from a tremendous Oscar-winning performance from Jamie Foxx, one that arguably made him a big name star. Foxx could've easily portrayed Charles as somewhat of a caricature but instead made him a fully-rounded character. He was particularly strong at portraying Ray's gradual dependence on drugs and the subtle changes in his character. Additionally, he was able to convey Ray's charisma and you could believe just why so many people fell under his spell. Foxx was ably supported throughout the film by a cast of character actors most notably Richard Shiff and Curtis Armstrong as a pair of Atlantic record chiefs and Regina King as the tragic Margie. I think that your enjoyment of Ray does depend on how much you can tolerate jazz music but I personally felt the music in the film was one of its most positive elements. Hackford and White use the majority of Ray's songs to tell a certain story about a period in his life and as a result give the film the feel of a musical. Paul Hirsch deftly edits together these set pieces to allow the audience to associate Charles' songs to either his success or certain moments in his personal life. It was no surprise to me that, alongside Foxx's honour, the film also won the sound mixing Oscar as I believed that the way the music was used was crucial to Ray's success. As his wife notes towards the end of the film, Ray loved music more than drugs, women and even his own family, a message that the film conveys perfectly. Whilst it doesn't really hold up against some of the more prestigious Oscar films, Ray is a fun biopic with lots of enjoyable musical sequence and is anchored by a fantastic central performance.
We continue our cavalcade of biopics with two more films that earned their stars Best Actor Oscars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)