Tom Hooper is a director who went on an interesting journey on his way to the Oscar podium. Initially directing episodes of the likes of Byker Grove and Eastenders, Hooper found his niche in helming one-off TV movies about real people. These films included Longford and Elizabeth I as well as the cinematic release; The Damned United in which our old friend Michael Sheen played notorious football manager Brian Clough. It was a film based on a real story that earned Hooper national acclaim and saw him scoop the Best Director award at the 2011 ceremony.
That film in question was The King's Speech which had an interesting journey from initial conception to arriving on the screen. Screenwriter David Seidler learnt of the relationship between King George VI and Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue and wanted to tell the story partly because he himself had a stammer. After securing the diaries of Logue, his plans were halted when the Queen Mother asked Seidler not to write anything while she was still alive. After she passed away, Seidler continued writing and the finished article was his play The King's Speech. The film went on to become one of the most-watched films of that year and it attracted a generation to the cinema who hadn't been in years. Part of the reason for this is that The King's Speech is quite a universal tale about finding one's voice and standing up for yourself. At times The King's Speech resembles a sports film as it features many montages of Logue and King George training up for the latter's next important public function. But more than that it's about how a friendship can inspire somebody to be more than they ever thought they could be. I think the fact that the character in question is a British monarch is entirely by-the-by and instead the odd couple relationship works in the favour of The King's Speech. The film builds up to a sterling finale where Logue helps George prepare for the speech he is forced to deliver to announce Britain's entry into the Second World War. This scene is made all the more poignant by the inclusion of Beethoven's 7th symphony playing over the top of it which some people thought was actually part of Alexandre Desplat's original score.
Of course, like most of the films on this list, if you poke at The King's Speech too much holes will eventually start to appear. At times it did feel as if we were being rushed through the history of Britain between the wars, with the section on Edward and Mrs. Simpson being particularly poorly paced. However Seidler's main concern wasn't particularly with the history of the piece but rather with the characters themselves. This to me lifted The King's Speech over other similar period pieces that have been nominated for, and in this film's case, won the Best Picture award. The film is further enhanced by a trio of fine performers led by the spectacular Colin Firth in the role of King George. What's wonderful about Firth's performance is that he never overdoes George's speech impediment and he makes you really feel for the character every time he is stuck with nothing to say. I think that Firth makes the role more than just the disability as he ably portrays George's loving relationship with his wife and two daughters. As his wife, Helena Bonham Carter is just magnificent as she plays Elizabeth with the right mix of dignity and rebelliousness. Carter and Firth's chemistry is just perfect and they make for a believable royal couple throughout the film. Also worthy of a mention is Geoffrey Rush who is a joy to watch as the jobbing Australian actor who finds himself in a rather odd situation. Rush's larger-than-life turn is the perfect contrast to Firth's introverted performance and therefore the two make a rather great pair. The King's Speech went on to be the big winner at that year's Oscars with Hooper, Seidler and Firth all picking up awards along the way. Whilst by no means perfect, The King's Speech is a great character-driven piece that is more than just a costume drama. While it's never utterly remarkable, The King's Speech is an easy watch and one that has just enough positive features to justify its Best Picture win.
Two years later, Hooper returned with an adaptation of a much-loved musical that had been incredibly successful during its stage run. It's also one of only a few films to have its story adapted for two Best Picture winners as we previously saw a straight version of Les Miserables back in the 1930s. This time there is barely any dialogue as almost every word of Victor Hugo's original novel has been transformed into song by Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil. According to my research, the total number of songs in Les Miserables is a staggering fifty-one even if some our reprises and others don't last very long. One thing Hooper did differently from any of the other musical films we've seen so far is to get his actors to sing live. This worked well for most of the performers, many of whom had previous musical experience either on stage or on screen. However, this isn't true of Russell Crowe whose musical performance as the film's main antagonist Javert had been criticised by most. While I agree with them, I think Javert is the one role where the singing doesn't have to be that strong and I thought that Crowe was an impressive enough presence for his musical weakness not to be that much of hindrance. I thought that Crowe also worked well against Hugh Jackman who portrayed the film's hero Jean Valjean brilliantly. Despite Jackman being known for portraying action heroes on screen, he has a background in musical theatre will is well-utilised during the first half of the film. This half of the film covers a lot of ground and sees Valjean go from convict to mayor and factory owner in a number of years. Valjean's redemption comes after he takes in Cosette, the daughter of one of his late factory workers Satine. Anne Hathaway won the Best Supporting Actress Award for her role as Satine mainly as she nailed one of the musical's most memorable numbers 'I Dreamed a Dream'.
However, I personally feel as if the second half of the film is stronger than the first thanks to the themes of the French Revolution. I feel Hooper is at his strongest when portraying the conflict between the poor residents of Paris and the nobility. His direction of the film's key number 'Can You Hear the People Sing' is brilliantly done and reflects how well the musical has translated onto the screen. I would say that ascetically, Les Miserables is beautifully realised with every set, costume and character designed within an inch of their lives. Meanwhile the unrequited love between the lovely Eponine and revolutionary leader Marius is wonderful to watch thanks in part to the performance from Samantha Barks. In my opinion Barks, who at the time was a relative unknown, deserved as much recognition for her role as Hathaway did for hers but unfortunately this wasn't the case. I personally thought that the one weak point of this second half was the budding romance between Marius and the adult Cosette which I felt was a sickly sweet affair. In my opinion Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne didn't have great chemistry and therefore I didn't care if their characters got together or not. Les Miserables also saw Hooper work with Helena Bonham Carter once again as she portrayed landlady Madame Thernardier and made a great double act with Sacha Baron Cohen as her husband. In fact the scenes with the unscrupulous Thernadiers were some of my favourites and provided such much needed comedy in between all the dramatic revolutionary uprising. While enjoyable in parts, Les Miserables was too long for my liking and not all of the songs worked their magic on me as they did other people. While the performances, most notably those from Jackman and Barks, were good there was nothing about Les Miserables that was particularly remarkable. Although I do appreciate that Hooper wanted to do something different after The King's Speech I didn't think that he left much a mark on Les Miserables with his only input seeming to be the decision to have the actors sing live. But realistically there was very little difference between the film and stage versions of Les Miserables and I think the film would've received the same feedback regardless of who was directing it.
Next time we turn our attention to an actress who changed people's perceptions of her during the first half of the 2010s.
Thursday 30 April 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 435-436: Some More Scorsese
It's very rare that a director will have films nominated across five decades but in this last section of the blog we have two men who have done just that. We'll deal with one of them later on, but in this post we'll look at a man named Martin Scorsese. From his first nomination back in the 1970s for Taxi Driver, the Academy has had a growing love for Scorsese culminating in his Best Director win for The Departed. This relationship carried into the 2010s with two of Scorsese's films featuring in the Best Picture category and I have to say that these two movies couldn't be any more different.
We start with a film that I would say isn't typical Scorsese partly because it's rated PG. Hugo is Scorsese's tribute to early cinema and was his first film to be screened in 3D. The Hugo of the title is a young boy who lives in a Parisian train station in 1932 and is in charge of making sure the clock runs on time. From the start of the film Hugo is portrayed as a lonely young man who is looking for a connection to his late father. He believes rebuilding the automaton that his father gave him before he died will reveal a message from him. Unfortunately finding the parts means that he has to steal from the stall of Monsieur George, a cantankerous man who runs the station's toy store. George catching Hugo in the act sets off a chain of events which eventually changes the life of both for the better. Whilst the first half of the film plays like a family adventure movie the second half is more of a celebration of silent movies when it's revealed that the toy store holder is in fact legendary director George Méliès. I personally feel as if the film slows down when Scorsese explains the importance of Méliès' films and whilst I enjoyed it I'm not sure how much the younger members of the audience would've appreciated it. Thankfully the film speeds up again in its final third when Hugo finally catches the attention of the station's inspector who is obsessed with sending abandoned children to the local audience. The scene in which Hugo is almost hit with a train is visually splendid and feels like it both belongs in the plot and works with the 3D format; a statement that I couldn't use when describing anything that happened in the lacklustre Avatar.
Talking of Avatar, its director James Cameron admitted that Scorsese's film was the one that had made the best use of 3D up to that point. I'd more than concur with Cameron as, even though I didn't watch Hugo in 3D, I could appreciate how he'd properly decided how to utilise the medium. I felt totally immersed in the world of Hugo from the second that Robert Richardson's camera guides you into the world of the train station. This bustling world is lovingly created by a brilliant production design team who rightfully won an Oscar for their work on the film. Hugo is indeed a visual work with each costume suiting its respective character from the Station Inspector's vivid blue uniform to Hugo's slightly ruffled look. Howard Shore's Oscar-nominated score also gave Hugo the feel of a silent movie as he gave each character their own distinctive tune. Throughout the film I was trying to imagine what it would've been like if there had been no spoken words and I believe that it would've worked quite well. That's not a knock against John Logan who brilliantly adapted Brain Selznick's children's novel for the screen. Of the cast, I thought young Asa Butterfield did an admirable job as Hugo as he was likeable without being too annoying which I find is a rarity for a child actor. Similarly impressive was Ben Kingsley who, as Méliès, kept the audience in the dark to his true identity till the big reveal. Scorsese rounded off the cast with a host of great British performers who included Sacha Baron Cohen as the Station Inspector and the wonderful Helen McRory as Méliès' cautious wife. Hugo went on to win the most Oscars of the night at that year's ceremony picking up honours for cinematography, art direction, visual effects, sound editing and sound mixing. I feel all of these wins were deserved as Hugo was a lovely film that never patronised its young audience and more than anything found a worthwhile use for 3D.
Two years later Scorsese was reverting to type; teaming up with Leonardo DiCaprio for a fifth time and making another film based on people operating outside the law. But rather than making another movie about gangsters, Scorsese turns his attention to the world of stockbrokers in The Wolf of Wall Street. The film is based on the memoir of Jordan Belfort, a man who made plenty of money via a number of nefarious means. The Wolf of Wall Street starts by covering Jordan's early career as a fledgling stockbroker who is forced to work at a lowly company after his prestigious firm collapses on Black Monday. It's not long before Jordan's fast-talking charm gets him his own business and a partner in the form of dorky Donnie who initially lives in the same apartment block as him. Upon setting up their firm, Stratton Oakmoant, Jordan and Donnie set about creating an atmosphere of excess and debauchery. The film also looks at how Donnie leaves his first wife and trades her in for a better model in the form of the gorgeous Naomi. However, Jordan's cheating ways soon mean that his relationship with his wife and children become strained. The last part of the film deals with Jordan's legal problems as he tries to dodge various threats from the FBI. Although all of this content appears to be quite serious, The Wolf of Wall Street primarily plays as a black comedy and I found this to be one of its biggest problems. Plenty of Scorsese's films have blackly comic moments but they are surrounded by plenty of dramatic scenes that balance them out nicely. Here everything was played in a tongue-in-cheek manner and therefore it was hard to take any of the characters particularly seriously. Jordan is a particularly unlikeable character and the fact that he's having his cake and eating too doesn't exactly endear him to the audience. Jordan doesn't even really get the comeuppance he deserves as, even at the end of the film, he's still making a living out of his sales techniques.
Another issue with The Wolf of Wall Street is the amount of scenes that depict the excessive nature of the characters' lives. Almost every other scene featured nudity, drug taking or extreme behaviour of some description and by the end of the film I was fed up. In fact it go to the point where I got bored of seeing topless women, something I never thought would happen. Whereas in his previous films, specifically Goodfellas, Scorsese has always pointed out that this sort of excess comes at a cost but this point really isn't hammered home at any point during The Wolf of Wall Street. Therefore it seems that Scorsese and screenwriter Terrence Winter are almost celebrating Jordan's life rather than using it as a cautionary tale. Sure he does eventually lose his company and his family but there aren't enough of these scenes of heartbreak to counteract the endless partying that has come before. On the positive side, Leonardo DiCaprio gives another outstanding performance as the scheming Belfort. It's Leo's energy and charm that keep the film going at some points and I for one thought he dealt well with some of the more comic set pieces. I am upset to some regard that Scorsese doesn't give Leo the chance to prove himself as the character is possibly the most one-dimensional he's portrayed to date. Jonah Hill's comic sensibilities are employed to great effect here as he brings plenty of humour to the role of Donnie. Hill and DiCaprio have a fine chemistry that makes their character's friendship feel convincing even if some of their scenes are a little bit over-the-top. Australian actress Margot Robbie gives a good accounting of herself as Jordan's wife Naomi and her performance is possibly the film's most serious. Although I did enjoy The Wolf of Wall Street's first hour, by the end I was tired of seeing all of Jordan and Donnie's illegal exploits and wanted more of a light and shade balance from Scorsese. Ultimately I found The Wolf of Wall Street to be a rare misstep for the usually reliable Dicaprio/Scorsese combo and it seems like the director should stick to making beautifully-designed family films in the future.
We hop from an experienced director in this post to a newer director in the next post who found himself in the position of winning an Oscar for what was only his second feature film.
We start with a film that I would say isn't typical Scorsese partly because it's rated PG. Hugo is Scorsese's tribute to early cinema and was his first film to be screened in 3D. The Hugo of the title is a young boy who lives in a Parisian train station in 1932 and is in charge of making sure the clock runs on time. From the start of the film Hugo is portrayed as a lonely young man who is looking for a connection to his late father. He believes rebuilding the automaton that his father gave him before he died will reveal a message from him. Unfortunately finding the parts means that he has to steal from the stall of Monsieur George, a cantankerous man who runs the station's toy store. George catching Hugo in the act sets off a chain of events which eventually changes the life of both for the better. Whilst the first half of the film plays like a family adventure movie the second half is more of a celebration of silent movies when it's revealed that the toy store holder is in fact legendary director George Méliès. I personally feel as if the film slows down when Scorsese explains the importance of Méliès' films and whilst I enjoyed it I'm not sure how much the younger members of the audience would've appreciated it. Thankfully the film speeds up again in its final third when Hugo finally catches the attention of the station's inspector who is obsessed with sending abandoned children to the local audience. The scene in which Hugo is almost hit with a train is visually splendid and feels like it both belongs in the plot and works with the 3D format; a statement that I couldn't use when describing anything that happened in the lacklustre Avatar.
Talking of Avatar, its director James Cameron admitted that Scorsese's film was the one that had made the best use of 3D up to that point. I'd more than concur with Cameron as, even though I didn't watch Hugo in 3D, I could appreciate how he'd properly decided how to utilise the medium. I felt totally immersed in the world of Hugo from the second that Robert Richardson's camera guides you into the world of the train station. This bustling world is lovingly created by a brilliant production design team who rightfully won an Oscar for their work on the film. Hugo is indeed a visual work with each costume suiting its respective character from the Station Inspector's vivid blue uniform to Hugo's slightly ruffled look. Howard Shore's Oscar-nominated score also gave Hugo the feel of a silent movie as he gave each character their own distinctive tune. Throughout the film I was trying to imagine what it would've been like if there had been no spoken words and I believe that it would've worked quite well. That's not a knock against John Logan who brilliantly adapted Brain Selznick's children's novel for the screen. Of the cast, I thought young Asa Butterfield did an admirable job as Hugo as he was likeable without being too annoying which I find is a rarity for a child actor. Similarly impressive was Ben Kingsley who, as Méliès, kept the audience in the dark to his true identity till the big reveal. Scorsese rounded off the cast with a host of great British performers who included Sacha Baron Cohen as the Station Inspector and the wonderful Helen McRory as Méliès' cautious wife. Hugo went on to win the most Oscars of the night at that year's ceremony picking up honours for cinematography, art direction, visual effects, sound editing and sound mixing. I feel all of these wins were deserved as Hugo was a lovely film that never patronised its young audience and more than anything found a worthwhile use for 3D.
Two years later Scorsese was reverting to type; teaming up with Leonardo DiCaprio for a fifth time and making another film based on people operating outside the law. But rather than making another movie about gangsters, Scorsese turns his attention to the world of stockbrokers in The Wolf of Wall Street. The film is based on the memoir of Jordan Belfort, a man who made plenty of money via a number of nefarious means. The Wolf of Wall Street starts by covering Jordan's early career as a fledgling stockbroker who is forced to work at a lowly company after his prestigious firm collapses on Black Monday. It's not long before Jordan's fast-talking charm gets him his own business and a partner in the form of dorky Donnie who initially lives in the same apartment block as him. Upon setting up their firm, Stratton Oakmoant, Jordan and Donnie set about creating an atmosphere of excess and debauchery. The film also looks at how Donnie leaves his first wife and trades her in for a better model in the form of the gorgeous Naomi. However, Jordan's cheating ways soon mean that his relationship with his wife and children become strained. The last part of the film deals with Jordan's legal problems as he tries to dodge various threats from the FBI. Although all of this content appears to be quite serious, The Wolf of Wall Street primarily plays as a black comedy and I found this to be one of its biggest problems. Plenty of Scorsese's films have blackly comic moments but they are surrounded by plenty of dramatic scenes that balance them out nicely. Here everything was played in a tongue-in-cheek manner and therefore it was hard to take any of the characters particularly seriously. Jordan is a particularly unlikeable character and the fact that he's having his cake and eating too doesn't exactly endear him to the audience. Jordan doesn't even really get the comeuppance he deserves as, even at the end of the film, he's still making a living out of his sales techniques.
Another issue with The Wolf of Wall Street is the amount of scenes that depict the excessive nature of the characters' lives. Almost every other scene featured nudity, drug taking or extreme behaviour of some description and by the end of the film I was fed up. In fact it go to the point where I got bored of seeing topless women, something I never thought would happen. Whereas in his previous films, specifically Goodfellas, Scorsese has always pointed out that this sort of excess comes at a cost but this point really isn't hammered home at any point during The Wolf of Wall Street. Therefore it seems that Scorsese and screenwriter Terrence Winter are almost celebrating Jordan's life rather than using it as a cautionary tale. Sure he does eventually lose his company and his family but there aren't enough of these scenes of heartbreak to counteract the endless partying that has come before. On the positive side, Leonardo DiCaprio gives another outstanding performance as the scheming Belfort. It's Leo's energy and charm that keep the film going at some points and I for one thought he dealt well with some of the more comic set pieces. I am upset to some regard that Scorsese doesn't give Leo the chance to prove himself as the character is possibly the most one-dimensional he's portrayed to date. Jonah Hill's comic sensibilities are employed to great effect here as he brings plenty of humour to the role of Donnie. Hill and DiCaprio have a fine chemistry that makes their character's friendship feel convincing even if some of their scenes are a little bit over-the-top. Australian actress Margot Robbie gives a good accounting of herself as Jordan's wife Naomi and her performance is possibly the film's most serious. Although I did enjoy The Wolf of Wall Street's first hour, by the end I was tired of seeing all of Jordan and Donnie's illegal exploits and wanted more of a light and shade balance from Scorsese. Ultimately I found The Wolf of Wall Street to be a rare misstep for the usually reliable Dicaprio/Scorsese combo and it seems like the director should stick to making beautifully-designed family films in the future.
We hop from an experienced director in this post to a newer director in the next post who found himself in the position of winning an Oscar for what was only his second feature film.
Saturday 25 April 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 433-434: The Return of the Blockbuster
One of the reasons that the Best Picture nominees increased from five to ten in 2010 was so that the films that most people went to see would be included in the list. There had been outcry in the latter half of the noughties when some of the most well-regarded blockbusters had been disregarded for fare such as The Reader and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Indeed, the big-budget blockbuster had rarely featured in the Best Picture category since the likes of Jaws, Star Wars and E.T. In fact the only blockbusters that featured in the last twenty years either were period epics such as Titanic or literary adaptations like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. That all changed though when a sci-fi blockbuster not only broke through into the Best Picture category but also brought back a new craze for 3-D films.
Although the reintroduction of 3-D started in 2009 it was only when James Cameron brought Avatar to the screen that it became a requisite format for all massive blockbusters to be screened in. We last met James Cameron back in the 1990s when he directed the massive Best Picture winner Titanic and also picked up Best Director along the way. Avatar was set on a similarly epic scale albeit one that had no basis in history primarily as it was set in the future. Writing the plot down for Avatar feels a little silly as it involves a planet called Pandora and the mining of a precious energy source known as unobtanium. The only problem is that Pandora is ruled by huge Smurf-like creatures called the Na'vi who don't want the humans encroaching on their lands due to their magic trees or some such nonsense. Our hero of sorts is paraplegic marine Jake Sully who is portrayed as an idiot from the get-go and has been recruited based on the fact that he has the same genetic make-up as his deceased scientist brother. Jake, along with several other scientists, are transported into the bodies of Avatars which look exactly like the Na'vi. Throughout the course of the film the Na'vi take Jake to their bossum although I'm not quite sure why as he seems like a complete dullard. Eventually falling for one of the Na'vi women, Jake changes sides and ends up fighting alongside the blue folk against his former allies. The final battle scenes, which seem to go on forever see Jake go up against the pantomime villain of the piece Colonel Quartich with the result seeing him become a Na'vi for good. Whilst I'm sure Cameron knew what the film was about to me it was Dances with Wolves in space with big blue creatures taking the place of the Native Americans.
I went to see Avatar twice at the cinema, once to satisfy my own curiosity and again when my friend wanted to see the 3-D version. Suffice to say there was very little difference for me and I don't think the 3-D really enhanced my viewing experience, a comment I can replicate for every 3D film I've seen. On the plus side there's no denying that Cameron has an epic vision, creating his own world in the form on Pandora and populating it with his own unique creations. The film's wins in the Art Direction, Cinematography and Visual Effects categories were all more than justified as these were definitely the film's greatest qualities. On the downside, I feel that Cameron's storytelling ability is possibly at its worse here with Avatar feeling even more bloated than Titanic. Even though he should be applauded for his unique vision I don't think it quite translates into the storytelling and at times I was fairly bored. Indeed there were whole sequences where Jake and the other Na'vi were chasing creatures round Pandora which looked like they were just there to justify the 3-D enhancements. As the plot itself is quite convoluted, Cameron has had to insert a bunch of exposition with Jake having to explain the story through way of his video logs. The performances weren't too much better with the wooden Sam Worthington being the wrong choice to lead an epic film such as Avatar. Worthington showed me nothing of worth and as a result never made his character feel particularly endearing. Similarly Stephen Lang as the ludicrous Quartich, yelled all of his lines and Giovanni Ribisi was phoning it in as the evil businessman. Only Sigourney Weaver, as experienced scientist Grace, gave a memorable turn and she at least made you sympathise when her character passed away from her gunshot wounds. Ultimately, Avatar is a feast for the eyes but a let down for all the other senses and I'm so glad that The Hurt Locker triumphed over this Box Office behemoth which I feel is one of the most overrated films of the last decade.
One of the blockbuster films that had been cruelly overlooked at the 2009 ceremony was Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight. Infinitely better than the majority of that year's Best Picture contenders, The Dark Knight was a brilliant take on the Batman story that topped plenty of critics' lists that year. Two years later, and with an extended field, Nolan finally found himself the director of a Best Picture nominee even though he himself didn't receive a nomination. Nolan's Oscar nominated picture was Inception; a brilliantly thoughtful blockbuster which was a lot more intellectual than your average summer action flick. Although Inception did include all the running and shooting that you would expect from a blockbuster it did also have an amazing storyline to do with dreams and dreams within dreams. The inception of the title is a method by which someone could plant an idea in the head of another subject by infiltrating their dreams. At its heart, Inception is essentially a heist film but in place of a bank vault we have a person's inner thoughts. The leader of the gang is Don Cobb; a brilliant man who is on the run after the authorities believed that he'd murdered his wife. The reality was something much darker and the relationship between Don and his wife Mal is where the film gains its emotional edge. When Cobb learns he could be reunited with his children by performing a-near impossible inception mission he gets to it and assembles a crack team in the process. While I'm sure most people have probably seen Inception by now, I'm not going to spoil it needlessly for those who haven't. But suffice to say that, even though it's about my fifth time watching the film, I was still on tenterhooks as Cobb and his team attempted to navigate the various dream layers. Meanwhile, the ambiguous ending makes the film all that more memorable with the spinning top being possibly the most iconic visual from Inception.
As Inception is a film about imagination, it's clear to see that Nolan has utilised his to full effect. In the early stages of the film, we see Cobb instruct his newest team member Ariadne on how best to build a dream. The set piece in which Ariadne makes buildings fold in on themselves is still a marvel to watch and this visual splendour continues throughout the rest of the film. Nolan's production design team, who were awarded with a BAFTA for their work on the film, deserve praise for creating a different atmosphere in each dream level. From the suave hotel interior to the snowbound fortress every single frame of Inception has been designed to fit in with the unique nature of the story. All in all Inception took home four awards for cinematography, visual effects, sound editing and sound effects editing. A dubious omission among that list is Hans Zimmer, whose score for Inception is instantly recognisable and today is played on plenty of adverts. I'm also still a little bit puzzled as to why Nolan himself wasn't nominated for directing a truly personal film that I felt was truly original. The cast also lifted the material of the film, making their characters feel three-dimensional, a rarity for a summer blockbuster. I felt Leonardo DiCaprio was a perfect lead as he perfectly portrayed Cobb as somebody who wasn't quite sure of himself any more but realised he had to complete the mission in order to return home. Tom Hardy was brilliant as Eames, the joker and forger of the pack who transformed himself several times during the dream. But the best performance of all came from Marion Cotillard, who made Mal both the film's key antagonist and a sympathetic character who had been ruined by exploring other people's dreams. If I have one criticism about Inception it is its exposition-filled script which I suppose is a necessary evil when you've got so many rules to explain. However this is a minor quibble in a film that's truly exceptional, incredibly rewatchable and a movie that redefined what a summer blockbuster could be.
Next time we look at the two most recent nominated films from a director who's featured on this blog a fair few times already.
Although the reintroduction of 3-D started in 2009 it was only when James Cameron brought Avatar to the screen that it became a requisite format for all massive blockbusters to be screened in. We last met James Cameron back in the 1990s when he directed the massive Best Picture winner Titanic and also picked up Best Director along the way. Avatar was set on a similarly epic scale albeit one that had no basis in history primarily as it was set in the future. Writing the plot down for Avatar feels a little silly as it involves a planet called Pandora and the mining of a precious energy source known as unobtanium. The only problem is that Pandora is ruled by huge Smurf-like creatures called the Na'vi who don't want the humans encroaching on their lands due to their magic trees or some such nonsense. Our hero of sorts is paraplegic marine Jake Sully who is portrayed as an idiot from the get-go and has been recruited based on the fact that he has the same genetic make-up as his deceased scientist brother. Jake, along with several other scientists, are transported into the bodies of Avatars which look exactly like the Na'vi. Throughout the course of the film the Na'vi take Jake to their bossum although I'm not quite sure why as he seems like a complete dullard. Eventually falling for one of the Na'vi women, Jake changes sides and ends up fighting alongside the blue folk against his former allies. The final battle scenes, which seem to go on forever see Jake go up against the pantomime villain of the piece Colonel Quartich with the result seeing him become a Na'vi for good. Whilst I'm sure Cameron knew what the film was about to me it was Dances with Wolves in space with big blue creatures taking the place of the Native Americans.
I went to see Avatar twice at the cinema, once to satisfy my own curiosity and again when my friend wanted to see the 3-D version. Suffice to say there was very little difference for me and I don't think the 3-D really enhanced my viewing experience, a comment I can replicate for every 3D film I've seen. On the plus side there's no denying that Cameron has an epic vision, creating his own world in the form on Pandora and populating it with his own unique creations. The film's wins in the Art Direction, Cinematography and Visual Effects categories were all more than justified as these were definitely the film's greatest qualities. On the downside, I feel that Cameron's storytelling ability is possibly at its worse here with Avatar feeling even more bloated than Titanic. Even though he should be applauded for his unique vision I don't think it quite translates into the storytelling and at times I was fairly bored. Indeed there were whole sequences where Jake and the other Na'vi were chasing creatures round Pandora which looked like they were just there to justify the 3-D enhancements. As the plot itself is quite convoluted, Cameron has had to insert a bunch of exposition with Jake having to explain the story through way of his video logs. The performances weren't too much better with the wooden Sam Worthington being the wrong choice to lead an epic film such as Avatar. Worthington showed me nothing of worth and as a result never made his character feel particularly endearing. Similarly Stephen Lang as the ludicrous Quartich, yelled all of his lines and Giovanni Ribisi was phoning it in as the evil businessman. Only Sigourney Weaver, as experienced scientist Grace, gave a memorable turn and she at least made you sympathise when her character passed away from her gunshot wounds. Ultimately, Avatar is a feast for the eyes but a let down for all the other senses and I'm so glad that The Hurt Locker triumphed over this Box Office behemoth which I feel is one of the most overrated films of the last decade.
One of the blockbuster films that had been cruelly overlooked at the 2009 ceremony was Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight. Infinitely better than the majority of that year's Best Picture contenders, The Dark Knight was a brilliant take on the Batman story that topped plenty of critics' lists that year. Two years later, and with an extended field, Nolan finally found himself the director of a Best Picture nominee even though he himself didn't receive a nomination. Nolan's Oscar nominated picture was Inception; a brilliantly thoughtful blockbuster which was a lot more intellectual than your average summer action flick. Although Inception did include all the running and shooting that you would expect from a blockbuster it did also have an amazing storyline to do with dreams and dreams within dreams. The inception of the title is a method by which someone could plant an idea in the head of another subject by infiltrating their dreams. At its heart, Inception is essentially a heist film but in place of a bank vault we have a person's inner thoughts. The leader of the gang is Don Cobb; a brilliant man who is on the run after the authorities believed that he'd murdered his wife. The reality was something much darker and the relationship between Don and his wife Mal is where the film gains its emotional edge. When Cobb learns he could be reunited with his children by performing a-near impossible inception mission he gets to it and assembles a crack team in the process. While I'm sure most people have probably seen Inception by now, I'm not going to spoil it needlessly for those who haven't. But suffice to say that, even though it's about my fifth time watching the film, I was still on tenterhooks as Cobb and his team attempted to navigate the various dream layers. Meanwhile, the ambiguous ending makes the film all that more memorable with the spinning top being possibly the most iconic visual from Inception.
As Inception is a film about imagination, it's clear to see that Nolan has utilised his to full effect. In the early stages of the film, we see Cobb instruct his newest team member Ariadne on how best to build a dream. The set piece in which Ariadne makes buildings fold in on themselves is still a marvel to watch and this visual splendour continues throughout the rest of the film. Nolan's production design team, who were awarded with a BAFTA for their work on the film, deserve praise for creating a different atmosphere in each dream level. From the suave hotel interior to the snowbound fortress every single frame of Inception has been designed to fit in with the unique nature of the story. All in all Inception took home four awards for cinematography, visual effects, sound editing and sound effects editing. A dubious omission among that list is Hans Zimmer, whose score for Inception is instantly recognisable and today is played on plenty of adverts. I'm also still a little bit puzzled as to why Nolan himself wasn't nominated for directing a truly personal film that I felt was truly original. The cast also lifted the material of the film, making their characters feel three-dimensional, a rarity for a summer blockbuster. I felt Leonardo DiCaprio was a perfect lead as he perfectly portrayed Cobb as somebody who wasn't quite sure of himself any more but realised he had to complete the mission in order to return home. Tom Hardy was brilliant as Eames, the joker and forger of the pack who transformed himself several times during the dream. But the best performance of all came from Marion Cotillard, who made Mal both the film's key antagonist and a sympathetic character who had been ruined by exploring other people's dreams. If I have one criticism about Inception it is its exposition-filled script which I suppose is a necessary evil when you've got so many rules to explain. However this is a minor quibble in a film that's truly exceptional, incredibly rewatchable and a movie that redefined what a summer blockbuster could be.
Next time we look at the two most recent nominated films from a director who's featured on this blog a fair few times already.
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 432: An American Neurotic in France
It's been a while since we've met up with Woody Allen as his last Best Picture nominee was 1986's Hannah and Her Sisters. In the twenty-five years since Woody's Oscar presence had been confined to the performances from his films with three wins in the Best Supporting Actress categories. However, he returned to the Best Picture contender's race at the 2012 ceremony for a film which also saw him pick up a screenwriting honour.
The film in question was Midnight in Paris, Woody's homage to the 1920s and also served as a commentary on nostalgia. Woody didn't feature in the film and instead his cipher in the movie was Owen Wilson's maudlin writer Gill. Just like the roles we've seen Allen play in the past, Gill is somebody who is unhappy with his lot in life. He sees himself as a Hollywood hack and is attempting to write a novel if only to satisfy his own literary aspirations. It's quite clear that Gill isn't suited to his fiancée Inez who has joined him in Paris along with her ghastly parents. Whilst Gill is somebody who loves the romantic idea of walking through the streets of Paris in the rain, Inez could never see herself getting wet. Inez is instead drawn to her friend's partner Paul, a pedantic man who thinks he is more intellectual than anyone around him. The film properly gets going when Gill finds himself transported into Paris of the 1920s and soon comes into contact with prominent literary figures such as Hemmingway, Fitzgerald and Gertrude Stein. Gill also finds himself falling for Adriana, the initial love of Picasso who cools off him when she discovers he's engaged. Although I'm not sure Woody Allen is the sort of director who should be engaging in fantastical elements such as the ones in the film I think they sort of work. It's also an interesting look at the theory of nostalgia as Gill finds he suits the 1920s better while Adriana longs to be part of the 1890s crowd. The end of the film was a little bit weak but it made sense in terms of the character of Gill who is presented as somewhat of a dreamer.
I think Gill's likeability is heightened due to the fact that he's portrayed here by Owen Wilson who is primarily a fine screen presence. He is able to pull off Gill's need to be taken seriously as well as the more fantastical parts of the character. It helps that Gill is surrounded by awful characters in the present such as Rachel McAdams' pompous Inez and Michael Sheen's bore Paul. Allen seems to have had a hoot recreating the famous literary characters such as a drunken Hemmingway and a brusque Getrude Stein. Alison Pill was a particular joy to watch as Zelda Fitzgerald whilst Adrien Brody put in a memorable cameo as Dali. Additionally I think that Wilson shared a great spark with Marion Cotillard who played the adorable Adriana. I'll personally watch Cotillard in most things and I felt she played Adriana beautifully. Allen's direction also makes the character of Paris a character in and of itself with a three minute opening shot presenting all the different aspects of the city. The problem I had with Midnight in Paris was that it was almost too lightweight and the story itself was very slight. That being said there are so few comedies being nominated for Oscars that one has to applaud the Academy for taking a risk on such an enjoyable film. Ultimately I found Midnight in Paris a breeze to get through and I think it was the right film to reintroduce Woody into the Best Picture category. Although he personally hasn't featured since, his films are still regularly winning Oscars with Cate Blanchett's performance in Blue Jasmine being the most recent example.
Next time we change pace with two big budget epics that heralded the blockbuster's return to the Best Picture field.
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 429-431: The David O Russell Players
David O Russell is a director who certainly has had an interesting career. Although his early films met with critical approval they never really bothered the Box Office or the Oscars. That all changed in 2010 when he started to be a big feature of the Oscar calendar, earning three Best Director nominations over four years. The films themselves all had different subject matter but were tied together by a number of fine performances from a set of actors that Russell was seemingly able to get the best from.
One actor who I feel Russell nurtured to an extent was Mark Wahlberg who appeared in his 1999 film Three Kings and later in the bizarre I Heart Huckabees. Russell and Wahlberg's third collaboration saw the director's first success at The Oscars with Wahlberg giving a tremendous performance as Micky Ward in The Fighter. Following in the footsteps of Raging Bull, The Fighter is a film about a boxer with a troubled family life. But unlike other films it's not the boxer himself whose troubled but rather his brother in this case drug addicted former star Dicky Ecklund. Alongside his mother Alice, Dicky feels he knows what's best for Micky however his trust in his family looks to be his downfall. Micky is to extent saved by his new love Charlene who helps him to believe in himself and helps him assemble a new management team. I personally liked this take on the sports movie where in the boxer himself lacks confidence partly due to it being emotionally knocked out of him by certain family members. As the film progresses, The Fighter does lapse into familiar territory as we are treated to a montage of Micky's various winning fights. The film also ends rather predictably with Micky competing in a championship match with all of his family members by his side. However I don't think The Fighter ever slips into Rocky territory with Russell maintaining a sense of realism due to the participation of several real life characters playing themselves in the film. I personally liked the final credits sequence in which the real Micky and Dicky voiced their pleasure about seeing their life story captured on film but were seemingly glad the experience was over.
In my opinion, Wahlberg was the star here as he gave a measured performance as the fighter who wanted a quiet life. Whilst everybody else was shouting around him, Wahlberg kept his cool and perfectly portrayed Micky's gentle nature. The fact that Wahlberg wasn't even nominated for a Best Actor award is a travesty in my eyes especially as he was the only member of the central cast not to feature among that year's nominees. Christian Bale's portrayal of Dicky won him the Best Supporting Actor award and in my eyes this was more than deserved. Bale's manic energy gave the audience the impression of a once successful man who's life had been ruined by drugs. Bale was similarly great at portraying Dicky's rehabilitation and his final realisation that his brother needed everybody by his side. For her performance as matriarchal Alice, Melissa Leo also won an Oscar although I'm not quite sure that her win was as deserved as Bale's. Leo really didn't show me much during the course of the film and I found her to be a little annoying at points. In fact if there was to be a Supporting Actress winner from The Fighter I feel it should have been Amy Adams, who cast off her good girl image to portray the feisty Charlene. Although I'm a sucker for a feel-good sports film, I think The Fighter was a step above the average boxing movie. That's because it contained real emotion thanks to the relationship between Micky and his family. Whilst I don't think The Fighter could ever have won the Best Picture prize, I believe it definitely deserved its place as one of that year's ten nominees.
After directing a sports movie, Russell's next project was thematically different from The Fighter although it did share his previous film's themes of triumphing against adversity. Russel both directed and adapted Silver Linings Playbook which began life as a novel by Matthew Quick. When I first watched Silver Linings Playbook I was quite dismissive of it, primarily as I'd felt it had lost a lot of the subtlety of Quick's novel. However, watching it the second time around I believe I enjoyed it a lot more and found it to be a quirky and charming romantic comedy. I can also appreciate how hard a story it is to adapt seeing as its lead character, bipolar former teacher Pat, isn't particularly likeable. I thought that Russell did well to turn Pat into a sympathetic character albeit one who is prone to random outbursts and has tendency to talk over other people. It's clear though that the character Russell cares most about is Tiffany, the young wife of a late police officer who Pat knows through mutual friends. Tiffany convinces Pat to be her dance partner at an upcoming competition in return for getting a letter to his estranged wife who currently has a restraining order out against him. As soon as Pat and Tiffany start dancing together you know exactly what the end result will be but I think the Russell paces out the film well enough that getting there is a fun ride. Although I don't think Russell perfectly captures the essence of Pat in this screen version I still think he did an admirable job. To that end I do believe that if I hadn't have read Quick's book then I think I would've enjoyed Russell's film a lot more.
As I previously noted, Russell is somebody who is able to get the best performances out of his actors and Silver Linings Playbook was no exception. In fact the film became the first to be nominated in all four acting categories since Warren Beatty's Reds in the early 1980s. Of these nominees only Jennifer Lawrence, who played Tiffany, ultimately triumphed becoming one of the youngest Best Actress winners in the process. When she was first cast, Russell believed that Lawrence was too young for the role of the widowed Tiffany and I'd be inclined to agree. Although she portrays her character's experiences well, I didn't ever fully by into Lawerence as Tiffany. Part of the problem is the seventeen year age gap between Lawrence and co-star Bradley Cooper as they just look odd when they're on screen together. Additionally I think that Lawrence should have scooped the Oscar the year before for a more measured turn than the one she gave in Silver Linings Playbook. I think Lawrence has been better elsewhere but I can see why the Academy honoured in the year she played somebody with mental health problems. Cooper himself anchored his manic energy well and by the end of the film made me actually care about Pat. Silver Linings Playbook also revived Robert DeNiro's career as he received a Supporting Actor nomination for playing Pat Sr., his first nod since the 1992 ceremony. De Niro toned down his normal screen persona to play a father who found it hard to get emotional with his troubled son. I'm not quite sure why Jacki Weaver was nominated for her role as Pat's mum as, while she was good, there was nothing about her performance that screamed Oscar nomination. It's fair to say that I definitely enjoyed Silver Linings Playbook a lot more the second time around and found it to be a charming and well-paced romantic comedy. At the same time Silver Linings Playbook never really feels like an Oscar film and I still contend that Lawrence has been a lot better than she was in the film that ultimately won her her Oscar.
One year on Russell gathered stars from his two most recent films for the movie which would garner a massive ten Oscar nominations including four acting nods. The film in question was American Hustle which saw Christian Bale and Amy Adams from The Fighter return to play con-artist duo Irving Rosenfeld and Sydney Prosser. Married conman and dry-cleaner Irving had been using Sydney to dupe people by getting his marks to believe she was an English aristocrat named Lady Edith. Irving had also fallen in love with Sydney but he fears that if he leaves his unstable wife then she'll shop him into the cops. His wife Rosalyn is played by Jennifer Lawrence who is briefly reunited with her Silver Linings Playbook co-star Bradley Cooper who stars here as FBI Agent Richie DiMaso. DiMaso cottons on to Irving and Sydney's scams and threatens to arrest her unless the pair play along with his plans. What follows is a fictionalised version of the FBI ABSCAM operation as the trio get a fellow agent to play a sheik in order to con a number of politicians and mobsters. One politician they particularly focus their attention on is Carmine Polito, the Mayor of Camden, New Jersey. Like any good caper film the plan soon becomes complicated when feelings begin to get in the way of the scheme. Firstly Richie falls for Sydney, who he only knows as Edith, and this in turn creates a power struggle between the FBI Agent and experienced con man Irving. Secondly Irving and Carmine develop a friendship based on their working class backgrounds and so the former finds it hard to dupe the latter. The unstable Rosalyn then gets herself involved in the plot when Carmine's wife takes a shine to her and she has to attend an important function. Ultimately it's revealed that one side has been playing the other all along and I have to say I didn't see the twist coming at all.
I'd heard several negative things about American Hustle before I watched it and to be fair it took me a while to get into it. But once I'd become accustomed to the tone and rhythm of the dialogue I was swept away by the film's entertaining narrative. Eric Warren Singer and Russell's script is well-paced and introduces all the primary players in a way that you understand all of their motivations. However, one of my problems with the film was that it contained my pet peeve; the multiple expositional voiceover which in this case is delivered by Irving, Sydney and Richie. American Hustle certainly looks the part and has been particularly singled out for its characters' hairstyles. Each of the five central characters has an incredibly noticeable hairpiece which matches their personality perfectly and so its odd that the film didn't get a nomination in the Best Hair and Make-Up category. Once again all of Russell's key players were nominated for acting Oscars meaning that, for the second time in a row, one of his films had a nomination in each acting category. Bradley Cooper once again combined his manic energy with a more sensitive side to play Richie, a man who'd been overlooked for so long and was now coming into his own. Christian Bale piled on the pounds and donned a combover to play the mild-mannered yet devious Irving and he looks to be having a great time doing it. Meanwhile Amy Adams is perfectly cast as the adorable yet scheming Sydney even if she does let Edith's English accent slip from time to time. In supporting roles, Jeremy Renner shone as Carmine as he gave an enigmatic turn as the Mayor of a city that everybody loved whilst both Louis CK and Robert De Niro also put in memorable performances. But once again it was Jennifer Lawrence who stole the show playing the unpredictable Rosalyn so well that you miss her every time she's not on screen. Lawrence missed out on an Oscar this time round but I feel that her performance is as good as it was in Silver Linings Playbook.
American Hustle is definitely a film that is stylised to within an inch of its life but there's no denying that it looks good. Every song choice makes sense and I will never be able to hear 'Live and Let Die' again without thinking of Jennifer Lawrence manically cleaning and wearing marigolds. There's no denying that American Hustle is an entertaining piece of film-making but at the same time I feel that, of the three of Russell's nominated films, its the least spectacular. In fact I don't think it would stand-up to repeat viewings in the same way as The Fighter would and therefore I'm struggling to understand why its been as well-received as it has. Although I was entertained by it, its not a particularly remarkable piece of work but by now it seems that anything that Russell directs will instantly be an Oscar favourite come awards season.
Next time we catch up with a director who hasn't featured on the blog since the 1980s.
One actor who I feel Russell nurtured to an extent was Mark Wahlberg who appeared in his 1999 film Three Kings and later in the bizarre I Heart Huckabees. Russell and Wahlberg's third collaboration saw the director's first success at The Oscars with Wahlberg giving a tremendous performance as Micky Ward in The Fighter. Following in the footsteps of Raging Bull, The Fighter is a film about a boxer with a troubled family life. But unlike other films it's not the boxer himself whose troubled but rather his brother in this case drug addicted former star Dicky Ecklund. Alongside his mother Alice, Dicky feels he knows what's best for Micky however his trust in his family looks to be his downfall. Micky is to extent saved by his new love Charlene who helps him to believe in himself and helps him assemble a new management team. I personally liked this take on the sports movie where in the boxer himself lacks confidence partly due to it being emotionally knocked out of him by certain family members. As the film progresses, The Fighter does lapse into familiar territory as we are treated to a montage of Micky's various winning fights. The film also ends rather predictably with Micky competing in a championship match with all of his family members by his side. However I don't think The Fighter ever slips into Rocky territory with Russell maintaining a sense of realism due to the participation of several real life characters playing themselves in the film. I personally liked the final credits sequence in which the real Micky and Dicky voiced their pleasure about seeing their life story captured on film but were seemingly glad the experience was over.
In my opinion, Wahlberg was the star here as he gave a measured performance as the fighter who wanted a quiet life. Whilst everybody else was shouting around him, Wahlberg kept his cool and perfectly portrayed Micky's gentle nature. The fact that Wahlberg wasn't even nominated for a Best Actor award is a travesty in my eyes especially as he was the only member of the central cast not to feature among that year's nominees. Christian Bale's portrayal of Dicky won him the Best Supporting Actor award and in my eyes this was more than deserved. Bale's manic energy gave the audience the impression of a once successful man who's life had been ruined by drugs. Bale was similarly great at portraying Dicky's rehabilitation and his final realisation that his brother needed everybody by his side. For her performance as matriarchal Alice, Melissa Leo also won an Oscar although I'm not quite sure that her win was as deserved as Bale's. Leo really didn't show me much during the course of the film and I found her to be a little annoying at points. In fact if there was to be a Supporting Actress winner from The Fighter I feel it should have been Amy Adams, who cast off her good girl image to portray the feisty Charlene. Although I'm a sucker for a feel-good sports film, I think The Fighter was a step above the average boxing movie. That's because it contained real emotion thanks to the relationship between Micky and his family. Whilst I don't think The Fighter could ever have won the Best Picture prize, I believe it definitely deserved its place as one of that year's ten nominees.
After directing a sports movie, Russell's next project was thematically different from The Fighter although it did share his previous film's themes of triumphing against adversity. Russel both directed and adapted Silver Linings Playbook which began life as a novel by Matthew Quick. When I first watched Silver Linings Playbook I was quite dismissive of it, primarily as I'd felt it had lost a lot of the subtlety of Quick's novel. However, watching it the second time around I believe I enjoyed it a lot more and found it to be a quirky and charming romantic comedy. I can also appreciate how hard a story it is to adapt seeing as its lead character, bipolar former teacher Pat, isn't particularly likeable. I thought that Russell did well to turn Pat into a sympathetic character albeit one who is prone to random outbursts and has tendency to talk over other people. It's clear though that the character Russell cares most about is Tiffany, the young wife of a late police officer who Pat knows through mutual friends. Tiffany convinces Pat to be her dance partner at an upcoming competition in return for getting a letter to his estranged wife who currently has a restraining order out against him. As soon as Pat and Tiffany start dancing together you know exactly what the end result will be but I think the Russell paces out the film well enough that getting there is a fun ride. Although I don't think Russell perfectly captures the essence of Pat in this screen version I still think he did an admirable job. To that end I do believe that if I hadn't have read Quick's book then I think I would've enjoyed Russell's film a lot more.
As I previously noted, Russell is somebody who is able to get the best performances out of his actors and Silver Linings Playbook was no exception. In fact the film became the first to be nominated in all four acting categories since Warren Beatty's Reds in the early 1980s. Of these nominees only Jennifer Lawrence, who played Tiffany, ultimately triumphed becoming one of the youngest Best Actress winners in the process. When she was first cast, Russell believed that Lawrence was too young for the role of the widowed Tiffany and I'd be inclined to agree. Although she portrays her character's experiences well, I didn't ever fully by into Lawerence as Tiffany. Part of the problem is the seventeen year age gap between Lawrence and co-star Bradley Cooper as they just look odd when they're on screen together. Additionally I think that Lawrence should have scooped the Oscar the year before for a more measured turn than the one she gave in Silver Linings Playbook. I think Lawrence has been better elsewhere but I can see why the Academy honoured in the year she played somebody with mental health problems. Cooper himself anchored his manic energy well and by the end of the film made me actually care about Pat. Silver Linings Playbook also revived Robert DeNiro's career as he received a Supporting Actor nomination for playing Pat Sr., his first nod since the 1992 ceremony. De Niro toned down his normal screen persona to play a father who found it hard to get emotional with his troubled son. I'm not quite sure why Jacki Weaver was nominated for her role as Pat's mum as, while she was good, there was nothing about her performance that screamed Oscar nomination. It's fair to say that I definitely enjoyed Silver Linings Playbook a lot more the second time around and found it to be a charming and well-paced romantic comedy. At the same time Silver Linings Playbook never really feels like an Oscar film and I still contend that Lawrence has been a lot better than she was in the film that ultimately won her her Oscar.
One year on Russell gathered stars from his two most recent films for the movie which would garner a massive ten Oscar nominations including four acting nods. The film in question was American Hustle which saw Christian Bale and Amy Adams from The Fighter return to play con-artist duo Irving Rosenfeld and Sydney Prosser. Married conman and dry-cleaner Irving had been using Sydney to dupe people by getting his marks to believe she was an English aristocrat named Lady Edith. Irving had also fallen in love with Sydney but he fears that if he leaves his unstable wife then she'll shop him into the cops. His wife Rosalyn is played by Jennifer Lawrence who is briefly reunited with her Silver Linings Playbook co-star Bradley Cooper who stars here as FBI Agent Richie DiMaso. DiMaso cottons on to Irving and Sydney's scams and threatens to arrest her unless the pair play along with his plans. What follows is a fictionalised version of the FBI ABSCAM operation as the trio get a fellow agent to play a sheik in order to con a number of politicians and mobsters. One politician they particularly focus their attention on is Carmine Polito, the Mayor of Camden, New Jersey. Like any good caper film the plan soon becomes complicated when feelings begin to get in the way of the scheme. Firstly Richie falls for Sydney, who he only knows as Edith, and this in turn creates a power struggle between the FBI Agent and experienced con man Irving. Secondly Irving and Carmine develop a friendship based on their working class backgrounds and so the former finds it hard to dupe the latter. The unstable Rosalyn then gets herself involved in the plot when Carmine's wife takes a shine to her and she has to attend an important function. Ultimately it's revealed that one side has been playing the other all along and I have to say I didn't see the twist coming at all.
I'd heard several negative things about American Hustle before I watched it and to be fair it took me a while to get into it. But once I'd become accustomed to the tone and rhythm of the dialogue I was swept away by the film's entertaining narrative. Eric Warren Singer and Russell's script is well-paced and introduces all the primary players in a way that you understand all of their motivations. However, one of my problems with the film was that it contained my pet peeve; the multiple expositional voiceover which in this case is delivered by Irving, Sydney and Richie. American Hustle certainly looks the part and has been particularly singled out for its characters' hairstyles. Each of the five central characters has an incredibly noticeable hairpiece which matches their personality perfectly and so its odd that the film didn't get a nomination in the Best Hair and Make-Up category. Once again all of Russell's key players were nominated for acting Oscars meaning that, for the second time in a row, one of his films had a nomination in each acting category. Bradley Cooper once again combined his manic energy with a more sensitive side to play Richie, a man who'd been overlooked for so long and was now coming into his own. Christian Bale piled on the pounds and donned a combover to play the mild-mannered yet devious Irving and he looks to be having a great time doing it. Meanwhile Amy Adams is perfectly cast as the adorable yet scheming Sydney even if she does let Edith's English accent slip from time to time. In supporting roles, Jeremy Renner shone as Carmine as he gave an enigmatic turn as the Mayor of a city that everybody loved whilst both Louis CK and Robert De Niro also put in memorable performances. But once again it was Jennifer Lawrence who stole the show playing the unpredictable Rosalyn so well that you miss her every time she's not on screen. Lawrence missed out on an Oscar this time round but I feel that her performance is as good as it was in Silver Linings Playbook.
American Hustle is definitely a film that is stylised to within an inch of its life but there's no denying that it looks good. Every song choice makes sense and I will never be able to hear 'Live and Let Die' again without thinking of Jennifer Lawrence manically cleaning and wearing marigolds. There's no denying that American Hustle is an entertaining piece of film-making but at the same time I feel that, of the three of Russell's nominated films, its the least spectacular. In fact I don't think it would stand-up to repeat viewings in the same way as The Fighter would and therefore I'm struggling to understand why its been as well-received as it has. Although I was entertained by it, its not a particularly remarkable piece of work but by now it seems that anything that Russell directs will instantly be an Oscar favourite come awards season.
Next time we catch up with a director who hasn't featured on the blog since the 1980s.
Friday 24 April 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 427-428: Kathryn's War
It's been over five years since I started my quest to track down and watch every film nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. My challenge started just after the 2010 ceremony and since then we've had another five ceremonies. Although I contemplated finishing off where I started, I eventually decided to explore what the modern day Oscar field looks like. This is especially relevant as, from the 2010 ceremony onwards; Oscar changed the number of nominees from five to ten. Two years later the rules were changed again allowing the Academy to choose between five and ten films meaning that they weren't forced to select movies that maybe didn't feel like they deserved to be amongst the best of the year. So without further ado we start with two films from the director of the first Best Picture winner of this decade and somebody whose win for directing the film was a history-making moment.
The person in question was Kathryn Bigelow who became the first woman ever to win the Best Director Oscar. Oddly, in the seventy plus years of the Oscars only four women including Bigelow were nominated which tells you something about the sexism that surrounds the film industry in general. It's also interested that the film Bigelow won the Oscar for is a fairly macho affair and features very few female characters throughout. The Hurt Locker is based on journalist Mark Boal's experiences living and interviewing members of the army in 2004. Boal, who won an Oscar for the film's screenplay, interviewed over 1,000 officers before beginning his work on the film. The film's protagonist is Sergeant First Class William James, a talented but reckless bomb disposal expert who joins a three man bomb disposal team who are nearing the completion of their time in Iraq. The film follows the team throughout their last days in the country with James' colleague Sergeant Sanborn getting more frustrated with his superior's lack of compliance to regulations. The third member of the team, Specialist Owen Eldridge, is portrayed as somebody who is desperate to get home and is regularly visited by the Camp's doctor. After several incidents, which include Eldridge getting his leg shot off, the team finish their rotation however Boal's lasting message is that some soldiers can't leave war behind. Indeed the film starts with the message that 'war is a drug' and concludes with James returning to Iraq after finding that he can't cope with the mundane nature of his regular domestic life. This final scene is a little jarring to me as I never quite knew whether The Hurt Locker was an anti-war or pro-war film. The characters of Eldridge and Sanborn represent soldiers who want to get home and the latter in particular voices his need to get more out of life. At the same time the portrayal of the majority of the Iraqis as 'the enemy' makes this feel more like the recently recent American Sniper than something like Apocalypse Now.
Along with this odd balance of pro and anti-war sentiment, The Hurt Locker's other issue is that it doesn't really have a story to speak of. Instead the film is made up of a series of incidents that are strung together through the trio of characters who grow on you throughout the course of the film. James is a particularly memorable character who is initially portrayed as arrogant but later comes through for his team. His relationship with a young Iraqi boy known as 'Beckham' is also touching which explains his reaction when he thinks that the youngster has been used as a body bomb. Jeremy Renner's performance as James is very naturalistic and adds to the whole documentary-like feel of the film. This seems to have been Bigelow's intention as she cast three relative unknowns in the roles of James, Sanborn and Eldridge. What I liked most about The Hurt Locker was the fact that it at times it didn't feel like I was watching a fictional film at all. Cinematographer Barry Ackroyd's use of 16mm cameras meant that the audience were able to look at multiple angles at once. Bigelow wanted us to get multiple perspectives during the film's many set pieces and I certainly feel this is one thing that the film achieved. Particularly memorable was one of the film's final scenes in which James is unable to detach a bomb from an innocent Iraqi man before it is detonated. The Hurt Locker really doesn't feel like any other Best Picture winner as its focus on realism over story is something knew. The only Best Picture winner it resembles is Platoon and even that had more of a focus on story than The Hurt Locker. To me this almost validates the Academy's decision to extend the Best Picture category especially if we're going to get films that play more towards realism than fiction. It's also great to see Bigelow, who did a fantastic job anchoring the film, being the first woman to pick up an award that has had only male recipients up to this point. Here's hoping that more female directors are honoured in the years to come and that Bigelow's victory isn't just a one-off.
Bigelow's next film, Zero Dark Thirty, was also in the Best Picture field although she herself wasn't nominated for director. Again the film focused on a modern day war setting, this time the War on Terror with the lead characters on the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Although it possessed quite macho themes, Zero Dark Thirty's lead character was young CIA officer Maya. The film followed Maya from meek rookie to Osama obsessive as gradually the hunt for the terrorist mastermind engulfed her life. Originally the film was going to focus on the fruitless search for Osama straight after the World Trade Centre attacks however, following the capture and death of Bin Laden, Bigelow and Boal had to go back to square one. That to me is why the film feels incredibly fragmented with the first ninety minutes featuring Maya's attempts to get close to Osama's associates. It's a frustrating watch as every time Maya feels like she's getting somewhere she hits a brick wall or finds her plans wrapped up in red tape. The second part of the film sees Maya transported back to Washington after an attempt on her life in Pakistan as we watch her fight against the system again. The final third, which focuses exclusively on the army's hunt for and eventual murder of Bin Laden, feels almost tacked on to the end. Although this is where the film is at its tensest, this final half an hour is separate from the rest of the film save a few shots of Maya that appear to have been thrown in for continuity. The fragmented feel of Zero Dark Thirty is slightly off-putting at times and whilst all three sections are well-made they don't quite fit together. The scenes with Maya back in Washington are a particular drag and are only saved by James Gandolfini's appearance as the CIA's Director.
Despite my problems with the uneven structure of the film I think that Zero Dark Thirty is a step up on The Hurt Locker due to the fact that it has a proper story. As it's based on true events you know what we're building up to even though you're not quite sure what's going to happen on the way there. Boal and Bigelow punctuate the shocks well as there are several jump-out-of-you-seat moments such as when Maya and fellow CIA analyst Jessica experience a terror attack at a restaurant. In addition I felt I knew the character of Maya more so than I did any of the trio of bomb disposers in The Hurt Locker. Maya's progression from slightly nervous analyst to confident woman who isn't afraid to stand up to the CIA director is told well by Boal. The character is enhanced by Jessica Chastain's fantastic performance which earned her a Best Actress nomination. Chastain brilliantly conveys all of Maya's strengths and weaknesses which means that you start to feel for her as the film goes on. The fact that Chastain all but vanishes once the hunt for Bin Laden begins is one of the problems with the film for me. However I think she manages to save it right at the end with a tender moment as she boards a plane having finally succeeded in bringing down her nemesis. The supporting cast is almost universally fantastic with special mention going to Mark Strong, Jennifer Ehle and Joel Edgerton. Zero Dark Thirty's other big plus point is Greig Fraser's cinematography which employs a similar documentary-feel to Barry Ackroyd's camera work in The Hurt Locker. This is especially relevant in the final section of the film as you feel at times like you're part of the team who are being used to hunt down Osama. Zero Dark Thirty didn't have nearly as much success as The Hurt Locker did and only managed to win one award in the Sound Editing category. In fact this wasn't even a universal victory as the Zero Dark Thirty team found themselves tied with the sound effects team from the Bond film Skyfall. I do think it's a shame that Zero Dark Thirty wasn't as well-regarded by the Academy as The Hurt Locker as I believe it's a superior film. Despite my problems with the structure I think the characters, performances and story are stronger than Bigelow's Oscar-winning endeavour.
But one thing you can say without a doubt is that Bigelow broke through the barrier and will always be remembered for being the first female Best Director winner. Unfortunately, since her win no other women have been nominated despite several female-helmed projects featuring in the Best Picture category. I do feel this balance needs to be addressed soon and I'm hoping it won't be long before somebody joins Bigelow in the female Best Director winner's club.
Next time we explore the work of a male director who had three films in the Best Picture category in the space of only four years.
The person in question was Kathryn Bigelow who became the first woman ever to win the Best Director Oscar. Oddly, in the seventy plus years of the Oscars only four women including Bigelow were nominated which tells you something about the sexism that surrounds the film industry in general. It's also interested that the film Bigelow won the Oscar for is a fairly macho affair and features very few female characters throughout. The Hurt Locker is based on journalist Mark Boal's experiences living and interviewing members of the army in 2004. Boal, who won an Oscar for the film's screenplay, interviewed over 1,000 officers before beginning his work on the film. The film's protagonist is Sergeant First Class William James, a talented but reckless bomb disposal expert who joins a three man bomb disposal team who are nearing the completion of their time in Iraq. The film follows the team throughout their last days in the country with James' colleague Sergeant Sanborn getting more frustrated with his superior's lack of compliance to regulations. The third member of the team, Specialist Owen Eldridge, is portrayed as somebody who is desperate to get home and is regularly visited by the Camp's doctor. After several incidents, which include Eldridge getting his leg shot off, the team finish their rotation however Boal's lasting message is that some soldiers can't leave war behind. Indeed the film starts with the message that 'war is a drug' and concludes with James returning to Iraq after finding that he can't cope with the mundane nature of his regular domestic life. This final scene is a little jarring to me as I never quite knew whether The Hurt Locker was an anti-war or pro-war film. The characters of Eldridge and Sanborn represent soldiers who want to get home and the latter in particular voices his need to get more out of life. At the same time the portrayal of the majority of the Iraqis as 'the enemy' makes this feel more like the recently recent American Sniper than something like Apocalypse Now.
Along with this odd balance of pro and anti-war sentiment, The Hurt Locker's other issue is that it doesn't really have a story to speak of. Instead the film is made up of a series of incidents that are strung together through the trio of characters who grow on you throughout the course of the film. James is a particularly memorable character who is initially portrayed as arrogant but later comes through for his team. His relationship with a young Iraqi boy known as 'Beckham' is also touching which explains his reaction when he thinks that the youngster has been used as a body bomb. Jeremy Renner's performance as James is very naturalistic and adds to the whole documentary-like feel of the film. This seems to have been Bigelow's intention as she cast three relative unknowns in the roles of James, Sanborn and Eldridge. What I liked most about The Hurt Locker was the fact that it at times it didn't feel like I was watching a fictional film at all. Cinematographer Barry Ackroyd's use of 16mm cameras meant that the audience were able to look at multiple angles at once. Bigelow wanted us to get multiple perspectives during the film's many set pieces and I certainly feel this is one thing that the film achieved. Particularly memorable was one of the film's final scenes in which James is unable to detach a bomb from an innocent Iraqi man before it is detonated. The Hurt Locker really doesn't feel like any other Best Picture winner as its focus on realism over story is something knew. The only Best Picture winner it resembles is Platoon and even that had more of a focus on story than The Hurt Locker. To me this almost validates the Academy's decision to extend the Best Picture category especially if we're going to get films that play more towards realism than fiction. It's also great to see Bigelow, who did a fantastic job anchoring the film, being the first woman to pick up an award that has had only male recipients up to this point. Here's hoping that more female directors are honoured in the years to come and that Bigelow's victory isn't just a one-off.
Bigelow's next film, Zero Dark Thirty, was also in the Best Picture field although she herself wasn't nominated for director. Again the film focused on a modern day war setting, this time the War on Terror with the lead characters on the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Although it possessed quite macho themes, Zero Dark Thirty's lead character was young CIA officer Maya. The film followed Maya from meek rookie to Osama obsessive as gradually the hunt for the terrorist mastermind engulfed her life. Originally the film was going to focus on the fruitless search for Osama straight after the World Trade Centre attacks however, following the capture and death of Bin Laden, Bigelow and Boal had to go back to square one. That to me is why the film feels incredibly fragmented with the first ninety minutes featuring Maya's attempts to get close to Osama's associates. It's a frustrating watch as every time Maya feels like she's getting somewhere she hits a brick wall or finds her plans wrapped up in red tape. The second part of the film sees Maya transported back to Washington after an attempt on her life in Pakistan as we watch her fight against the system again. The final third, which focuses exclusively on the army's hunt for and eventual murder of Bin Laden, feels almost tacked on to the end. Although this is where the film is at its tensest, this final half an hour is separate from the rest of the film save a few shots of Maya that appear to have been thrown in for continuity. The fragmented feel of Zero Dark Thirty is slightly off-putting at times and whilst all three sections are well-made they don't quite fit together. The scenes with Maya back in Washington are a particular drag and are only saved by James Gandolfini's appearance as the CIA's Director.
Despite my problems with the uneven structure of the film I think that Zero Dark Thirty is a step up on The Hurt Locker due to the fact that it has a proper story. As it's based on true events you know what we're building up to even though you're not quite sure what's going to happen on the way there. Boal and Bigelow punctuate the shocks well as there are several jump-out-of-you-seat moments such as when Maya and fellow CIA analyst Jessica experience a terror attack at a restaurant. In addition I felt I knew the character of Maya more so than I did any of the trio of bomb disposers in The Hurt Locker. Maya's progression from slightly nervous analyst to confident woman who isn't afraid to stand up to the CIA director is told well by Boal. The character is enhanced by Jessica Chastain's fantastic performance which earned her a Best Actress nomination. Chastain brilliantly conveys all of Maya's strengths and weaknesses which means that you start to feel for her as the film goes on. The fact that Chastain all but vanishes once the hunt for Bin Laden begins is one of the problems with the film for me. However I think she manages to save it right at the end with a tender moment as she boards a plane having finally succeeded in bringing down her nemesis. The supporting cast is almost universally fantastic with special mention going to Mark Strong, Jennifer Ehle and Joel Edgerton. Zero Dark Thirty's other big plus point is Greig Fraser's cinematography which employs a similar documentary-feel to Barry Ackroyd's camera work in The Hurt Locker. This is especially relevant in the final section of the film as you feel at times like you're part of the team who are being used to hunt down Osama. Zero Dark Thirty didn't have nearly as much success as The Hurt Locker did and only managed to win one award in the Sound Editing category. In fact this wasn't even a universal victory as the Zero Dark Thirty team found themselves tied with the sound effects team from the Bond film Skyfall. I do think it's a shame that Zero Dark Thirty wasn't as well-regarded by the Academy as The Hurt Locker as I believe it's a superior film. Despite my problems with the structure I think the characters, performances and story are stronger than Bigelow's Oscar-winning endeavour.
But one thing you can say without a doubt is that Bigelow broke through the barrier and will always be remembered for being the first female Best Director winner. Unfortunately, since her win no other women have been nominated despite several female-helmed projects featuring in the Best Picture category. I do feel this balance needs to be addressed soon and I'm hoping it won't be long before somebody joins Bigelow in the female Best Director winner's club.
Next time we explore the work of a male director who had three films in the Best Picture category in the space of only four years.
Sunday 19 April 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 425-426: Days of Future Past World Tour
As we've seen throughout the course of this journey very few foreign films are actually nominated for the main Best Picture prize. In fact to this day only nine films not made in the English language have been in contention for Best Picture and none of these have been successful. That's partly why foreign films have their own category at the Oscars which often features better films than those in the Best Picture race. In this post I return to the late 1960s and early 1970s to look at two films from the small group of nine to have found themselves among the five Best Picture nominees.
The first of the two films in this post feels extremely relevant and if I didn't know it already I would've been surprised that it was forty-five years old. Costa-Gavras' Z is an incredibly intense film about the assassination of a communist speaker by the hands of the far right government. Cinematographer Raul Coultard employs an incredibly realistic tone to his camera work meaning that at times you feel like you're watching a documentary. The bulk of the film focuses on Jean-Louis Trintigant's investigating magistrate who attempts to get to the bottom of conflicting statements given by both the assailants and the witnesses. Along the way he discovers false statements, witness intimidation and persecution of anyone who tries to argue with the right-wing establishment. Having previously watched Costa-Gavras' only other Best Picture nominated film Missing I know that his style is very much that of a fly-on-the-wall film-maker. Additionally both films were about political injustice and as a result I found myself getting more and more invested in Z as it went on. Particularly powerful was the final scene in which it was revealed that the majority of the generals who were charged with conspiracy ultimately went free whilst most of the witnesses were killed. Z won that year's Best Foreign Language Film Oscar with Françoise Bonnot also being rewarded for his excellent editing of the movie. Another notable element of Z was the fantastic score by Mikis Theodorakis which was at times incredibly jarring but added to the overall feel of the film. Z is an example of a movie that I feel deserved to win Best Picture and I think if it had been released in the English language then it would have done just that. Ultimately I think Z is an outstanding piece of cinema and was more than deserving of winning the Best Picture prize as well as the title of Best Foreign Language film.
The other film in this post, Jan Troell's The Emigrants, also featured in both categories but oddly in different years. This occurred due to the fact that, at the 1972 ceremony, it had only been screened in its native Sweden rather for the larger Academy audience. After attaining a proper screening the following year it was nominated for Best Picture as well as a further three Oscars. The film looks at a group of people, all from the same small province in Sweden, who decide to emigrate to America. This group includes proud farmer Karl-Oscar, his idealistic brother Robert, his wife Kristina, their children and an oddball preacher. My main issue with The Emigrants was the fact that the group didn't get on the boat to America until 90 minutes into this three hour epic. I feel that Troell could've easily have skimmed 45 minutes of the running time had everything happened a little quicker. That being said the second half of the film more than made up for the first with Troell drawing the audience in to the claustrophobic settings of the boat journey from Sweden to the USA. It was in this second half that I became engrossed in the characters' fates partly due to the fact that the performances were fantastic. Liv Ullman, who was nominated for Best Actress, was brilliant as the young mother who was worried that she'd never set foot in America meanwhile Max Van Sydow gave a powerful turn as her strong-willed husband. The film built up to a great ending which also set up for a sequel, The New Land, which was nominated for Best Foreign Language Feature the same year that The Emigrants featured in the Best Picture category. It's fair to say that The Emigrants is definitely a film of two halves and I definitely struggled to make it through the first part of the feature. Despite the pay-off being rewarding I think the subject of foreign travellers coming to the USA has been dealt with better elsewhere most notably by 1960s nominee America, America. Ultimately The Emigrants was a realistic film with some fine performances but one that suffered from some bad pacing and an inflated running time.
And with that we're back to the present day as I sprint to the finish line next with the final fifty or so Best Picture nominees.
The first of the two films in this post feels extremely relevant and if I didn't know it already I would've been surprised that it was forty-five years old. Costa-Gavras' Z is an incredibly intense film about the assassination of a communist speaker by the hands of the far right government. Cinematographer Raul Coultard employs an incredibly realistic tone to his camera work meaning that at times you feel like you're watching a documentary. The bulk of the film focuses on Jean-Louis Trintigant's investigating magistrate who attempts to get to the bottom of conflicting statements given by both the assailants and the witnesses. Along the way he discovers false statements, witness intimidation and persecution of anyone who tries to argue with the right-wing establishment. Having previously watched Costa-Gavras' only other Best Picture nominated film Missing I know that his style is very much that of a fly-on-the-wall film-maker. Additionally both films were about political injustice and as a result I found myself getting more and more invested in Z as it went on. Particularly powerful was the final scene in which it was revealed that the majority of the generals who were charged with conspiracy ultimately went free whilst most of the witnesses were killed. Z won that year's Best Foreign Language Film Oscar with Françoise Bonnot also being rewarded for his excellent editing of the movie. Another notable element of Z was the fantastic score by Mikis Theodorakis which was at times incredibly jarring but added to the overall feel of the film. Z is an example of a movie that I feel deserved to win Best Picture and I think if it had been released in the English language then it would have done just that. Ultimately I think Z is an outstanding piece of cinema and was more than deserving of winning the Best Picture prize as well as the title of Best Foreign Language film.
The other film in this post, Jan Troell's The Emigrants, also featured in both categories but oddly in different years. This occurred due to the fact that, at the 1972 ceremony, it had only been screened in its native Sweden rather for the larger Academy audience. After attaining a proper screening the following year it was nominated for Best Picture as well as a further three Oscars. The film looks at a group of people, all from the same small province in Sweden, who decide to emigrate to America. This group includes proud farmer Karl-Oscar, his idealistic brother Robert, his wife Kristina, their children and an oddball preacher. My main issue with The Emigrants was the fact that the group didn't get on the boat to America until 90 minutes into this three hour epic. I feel that Troell could've easily have skimmed 45 minutes of the running time had everything happened a little quicker. That being said the second half of the film more than made up for the first with Troell drawing the audience in to the claustrophobic settings of the boat journey from Sweden to the USA. It was in this second half that I became engrossed in the characters' fates partly due to the fact that the performances were fantastic. Liv Ullman, who was nominated for Best Actress, was brilliant as the young mother who was worried that she'd never set foot in America meanwhile Max Van Sydow gave a powerful turn as her strong-willed husband. The film built up to a great ending which also set up for a sequel, The New Land, which was nominated for Best Foreign Language Feature the same year that The Emigrants featured in the Best Picture category. It's fair to say that The Emigrants is definitely a film of two halves and I definitely struggled to make it through the first part of the feature. Despite the pay-off being rewarding I think the subject of foreign travellers coming to the USA has been dealt with better elsewhere most notably by 1960s nominee America, America. Ultimately The Emigrants was a realistic film with some fine performances but one that suffered from some bad pacing and an inflated running time.
And with that we're back to the present day as I sprint to the finish line next with the final fifty or so Best Picture nominees.
Tuesday 14 April 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 423-424: Days of Future Past Part Seven
After several posts focusing on the early days of Oscar this catch-up segment goes into the late 1950s and 1960s to look at a few nominees that had previously evaded me.
William Wyler has been a regular face on this blog and is the only director to helm three Best Picture winners in Mrs. Miniver, The Best Years of Our Lives and Ben-Hur. Although Wyler has directed many iconic pictures he's also been involved with some less memorable offerings. Friendly Persuasion definitely fits into that latter category as its the quintessential example of middle-of-the-road film-making. The film focuses on the Birdwells; a Quaker family living in Southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Over the course of the two and a bit hours, the family are constantly chastised for their reluctance to fight for their land. This story is an interesting one and the scenes in which the eldest Birdwell child Josh considers his fate are some of the film's most memorable. The problem with Friendly Persuasion is that the first hour is fairly devoid of plot and at times is quite episodic. There are some interesting set pieces including one at a state fair and some of the final scenes in which Josh fights for the home guard. The main issue I had with the characters in general though was the fact that none of them seemed to be happy Quakers with the possible exception of matriarch Eliza. It appeared that they'd rather fight, play music and dance than sit in a prayer hall for hours on end and to be honest I don't blame them. Whilst Wyler does make use of the fine locations afforded to him, I feel he left it too late to really pull the trigger on the film's grittier moments. I did find that Gary Cooper and Dorothy McGuire gave fine depictions of parents Jess and Eliza however the younger actors portraying their children were a little wooden. It was also odd seeing Anthony Perkins playing the sympathetic Josh knowing that four years later he'd portray a cinematic icon in Psycho's Norman Bates. Ultimately Friendly Persuasion wasn't a bad film but it was stunningly mediocre which is a surprise seeing as it comes from the normally reliable Wyler.
Moving on two years now we finally have a bit of light relief in the form of Auntie Mame, Morton Da Costa's adaptation of the play version of Patrick Dennis' novel. As I've noted in the past, it's very rare that a comedy film actually features in the Best Picture field and so it was a refreshing change to experience some laughter during this challenge. Despite being two and half hours I found that Da Costa's film flew by thanks in part to the fantastically large performance that Rosalind Russell put in as the titular matriarch who loomed large over the screen. The basic plot of the film sees Mame become guardian to her nephew Patrick after his stuffy father dies unexpectedly. From there on the two form an odd couple relationship with Patrick becoming the straight man to Mame's audacious character. The progression of the film sees Patrick grow up and get engaged whilst Mame marries, is widowed and eventually writes her autobiography. I wasn't surprised to learn that Auntie Mame was originally a stage play as each scene is quite easily signposted. In fact, Da Costa doesn't shy away from the film's roots and has the house lights dip when the location of the scene changes. I felt Russell was magnificent throughout the course of the film as she devoured every line magnificently and balanced the comedy of the film with its more tragic elements. Russell was well supported by a fantastic ensemble most notably Forrest Tucker as Mame's first husband and Peggy Cass as dowdy secretary Agnes Gooch. Auntie Mame is also incredibly well-designed with the costumes being a particular highlight as were the many decorative sets. I'm surprised to learn that Auntie Mame didn't win any of the Oscars it was nominated for and I feel it really should have snapped up at least one. However a film that makes people laugh is rarely an awards contender and I think the film should just be happy that it's cheered me up after a run of particularly mediocre fare.
Skipping forward another two years we have a completely different sort of film in The Sundowners, an Australian-set adventure starring Robert Mitchum. Fred Zinneman's film, an adaptation of Jon Cleary's book, introduces us to the Carmody family, a trio of sheep-herders who trek across Australia's back country. Mitchum's patriarch paddy is joined by his wife Ida and their son Sean as they take small jobs, camping through the night before moving on to their next destination. The film looks at the change in mood amongst the family as Ida wants to find somewhere for the family to live with Sean agreeing with her. However, Paddy is dead against it and wants to continue living a nomadic lifestyle for as long as possible. The Carmodys, alongside refined English acquaintance Rupert, end up spending some time at a sheep station where they get to re-evaluate their priorities. Going into The Sundowners I wasn't expecting a great deal so I enjoyed what was an enjoyable film about what it takes to be a family. Deborah Kerr's performance was particularly powerful as she portrayed Ida as a woman who was sick of moving round and wanted to a have a home of her own. For her role in the film, Kerr was nominated for her sixth and final Oscar and I think it's a shame that she didn't win at least one. Peter Ustinov was fantastic in the supporting role of Rupert whilst Glynis Johns, who I only knew from Mary Poppins, gave a scene-stealing turn as landlady Mrs Firth. However, the most prominent aspect of The Sundowners are the fantastic Australian exterior shots which boost the authenticity of the picture. Although it's not an outstanding piece of work, I found The Sundowners an easy watch which was bolstered by some fine performances and an interesting ending.
Next time is the final Days of Future Past post as the blog takes a quick European tour.
William Wyler has been a regular face on this blog and is the only director to helm three Best Picture winners in Mrs. Miniver, The Best Years of Our Lives and Ben-Hur. Although Wyler has directed many iconic pictures he's also been involved with some less memorable offerings. Friendly Persuasion definitely fits into that latter category as its the quintessential example of middle-of-the-road film-making. The film focuses on the Birdwells; a Quaker family living in Southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Over the course of the two and a bit hours, the family are constantly chastised for their reluctance to fight for their land. This story is an interesting one and the scenes in which the eldest Birdwell child Josh considers his fate are some of the film's most memorable. The problem with Friendly Persuasion is that the first hour is fairly devoid of plot and at times is quite episodic. There are some interesting set pieces including one at a state fair and some of the final scenes in which Josh fights for the home guard. The main issue I had with the characters in general though was the fact that none of them seemed to be happy Quakers with the possible exception of matriarch Eliza. It appeared that they'd rather fight, play music and dance than sit in a prayer hall for hours on end and to be honest I don't blame them. Whilst Wyler does make use of the fine locations afforded to him, I feel he left it too late to really pull the trigger on the film's grittier moments. I did find that Gary Cooper and Dorothy McGuire gave fine depictions of parents Jess and Eliza however the younger actors portraying their children were a little wooden. It was also odd seeing Anthony Perkins playing the sympathetic Josh knowing that four years later he'd portray a cinematic icon in Psycho's Norman Bates. Ultimately Friendly Persuasion wasn't a bad film but it was stunningly mediocre which is a surprise seeing as it comes from the normally reliable Wyler.
Next time is the final Days of Future Past post as the blog takes a quick European tour.
Thursday 9 April 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 420-422: Days of Future Past Part Six
Welcome once again to our time-travelling trip through the decades as we attempt to fill in the gaps of the challenge.
First of all apologies for jumping around the timeline a bit but at the last minute I managed to get my hands on a copy of 1931 nominee Five Star Final. Although the film was released around the same time as Trader Horn, I found that the newspaper drama felt a lot more contemporary. Mervyn La Roy's film focuses on editor Joseph Randall who finds himself under pressure to increase the distribution of his tabloid. He's talked in to producing a series of articles focusing on the twentieth anniversary of a murder committed by the notorious Nancy Voorhies. Little does he know that Nancy is now happily married and has a daughter who herself is about to tie the knot. The revelation in the papers soon spoils the family's happiness and results in both Nancy and her husband Michael committing suicide. What I initially thought was going to be a drama in the same vain as previous early nominee The Front Page turned dark very quickly. The double suicide coupled with the general reaction to the event meant that Five Star Final was one of the earliest examples of a press satire. It was quite easy to deduce that Five Star Final's origins lay on the stage however LaRoy at least went out of his way to use the cinematic techniques available to him. Most notably he employed some clever editing during a sequence in which Nancy is desperately trying to get Randall to drop the story about her family. As Randall, I thought Edward G. Robinson was brilliant as he conveyed his character's guilt perfectly and his final speech was brilliantly delivered. Although The Front Page is definitely of its time I think it holds up a lot better than the three films in the previous post and I found it to be an incredibly easy watch. It's also no surprise to learn that the film was one of the two that made Robinson a star and I'm only surprised that he hadn't been a big name before Five Star Final was released.
We now move in the right direction for probably the last 1930s film I'll review for as part of this blog. The Citadel is an interesting film that almost feels like three episodes of a miniseries featuring Robert Donat's trainee Doctor Andrew Mason. The first part of the film looks at Mason's training in a small Welsh town in which he meets resistance from the senior doctor's wife but at the same time is able to help out several villagers. The second part of the movie looks at Mason's move to a Welsh mining village and his marriage to beloved schoolteacher Christine. Once again Andrew faces opposition, this time from the miners who don't want him to change the way they've been doing things for years. Andrew refuses to punch their unfit for work cards and wants to explore the troubling coughs that the miners develop. Eventually frustrated he leaves Wales for London but he struggles to find patients for his burgeoning clinic. The final third of the film looks at Mason's corruption at the hands of the Harley Street set and the fact that he makes a lot of money from doing very little. I personally found the general structure of The Citadel to be quite frustrating as, just as one plot starting to develop, director King Vidor changed the action to another location. The one memorable moment of the film comes halfway through when Mason helps rescue several people from a collapsed mine. However, the film then gets a little dreary as we see Andrew become more and more enchanted with the superficial London lifestyle. I have to say that the point The Citadel was making was quite an obvious one and I found the ending completely anticlimactic. In fact the only thing that saved it was the central turn from Robert Donat who certainly showed qualities that would later see him cast in his Oscar-winning role in Goodbye Mr. Chips. Aside from Donat though there was very little about The Citadel that was memorable and at the end of the day it feels like yet another also-ran nominee.
But describing our next film; The Yearling as an also-ran nominee would almost be giving it too much credit as its one of the most inconsequential pieces of cinema I think I've ever seen. Set in 1878, The Yearling follows the adventures of the Baxter family - former Civil War soldier Penny, his withdrawn wife Ora and their son Jody. Throughout the film Ora's emotional state is explained away by the fact that she'd lost all of her other children and only Jody remained. I have to say if I was in Ora's position I'd be a little annoyed to as Jody is especially annoying. Films like The Yearling only work if the cute child star isn't annoying and unfortunately in this movie that isn't the case. It's particularly annoying as the majority of the film deals with Jody's relationship with a young fawn named Flag who he tries to raise. But, when the time comes to set him free, Jody doesn't take it and instead experiences proper loss for the first time. Whilst I can see what director Clarence Brown was trying to achieve with The Yearling the results are incredibly mediocre. Aside from Claude Jarman Jr's cloying performance as Jody, the cast are uniformly forgettable. Most surprising was the fact that Jane Wyman, who was so superb in Johnny Belinda, made little impression in her role as Ora. To be fair to Wyman the role didn't require much of her apart from sitting sour-faced whilst performing some menial task. Though Gregory Peck tried his best to make us warm to Penny, I found him a little too squeaky clean and didn't think he came down hard enough on his son. Surprisingly The Yearling was nominated for seven Oscars including for the performances given by Peck and Wyman. The fact it won in the colour cinematography and art direction categories leads me to believe that its main appeal to the Academy was its bright colours. Indeed, when films were primarily still shot in black and white, I'd feel that The Yearling would definitely stand out in the crowd. But it's a film that hasn't aged well and at the end of the day I don't think it would've been nominated at all were it not for the fact that it had been filmed in colour.
The only good think about watching The Yearling was the fact that it was the last Best Picture Nominee of the 1940s that I was yet to watch. To that end the next post looks at my completion of both the 1950s and 1960s.
The only good think about watching The Yearling was the fact that it was the last Best Picture Nominee of the 1940s that I was yet to watch. To that end the next post looks at my completion of both the 1950s and 1960s.
Sunday 5 April 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 417-419: Days of Future Past Part Five
After completing the first decade of the 21st century I find myself almost eighty years back in the past as I look at three more films that I've unearthed from the 1930s.
_poster.jpg)
We start with a film from the 1931 ceremony in the rather controversial Trader Horn. The film itself was ground-breaking as it was the first non-documentary film to be shot on location in Africa. Trader Horn certainly makes use of this fact by including plenty of facts about the country's various wildlife population. In fact at times these scenes, some of which were shot in Mexico, felt like they were straight out of a nature documentary as lead actor Harry Carey informed the audience of the beasts' various attributes. The story, which was very slight, saw Carey's titular ivory trader take his new apprentice down the Nile whilst avoiding hungry native tribes and the brainwashed missing daughter of a missionary. At times the film would just stop and start without a lot of explanation whilst a lot of the sound recording was patchy at best. Part of the reason for this would be that a lot of the sound was re-recorded in the States although this led to suspicion that the film hadn't actually been shot in Africa at all. Trader Horn is almost more interesting for its behind-the-scenes stories including the fact that two crew members died; one eaten by a crocodile whilst the other was gored by a charging rhino. Meanwhile lead actress Edwina Booth's career was effectively ended when she contracted a disease, possibly malaria, which she took the next six years to recover from. Although viewed by modern eyes Trader Horn is quite hokey, there's no denying that it's influential in the way it shot on location. If you take into consideration that film-making was still in its infancy then director W.S. Van Dyke needs applauding for the risks he took whilst making Trader Horn. Ultimately, even though it doesn't hold up today I believe that Trader Horn's historical significance at least justifies it a place amongst its fellow best picture nominees.
Moving forward three years we have Sidney Franklin's The Barretts of Wimpole Street which essentially tells the story of how Elizabeth Barrett married Robert Browning. The majority of the film felt like a play that had simply been put on the big screen primarily as it was almost all in set in one room. The room in question was the one in which Elizabeth had been recuperating following an illness that had left her incredibly weak. The illness was being used by her despicable father Edward to keep her with him for as long as possible as he felt all of his children were deserting him. Elizabeth's redemption came through her correspondence with Browning who later appeared at the house in person and eventually convinced her that she wasn't as ill as she believed. Everything about The Barretts of Wimpole Street is pure melodrama from Herbert Stothart's overly dramatic score to the performances given by the primary cast members. Norma Shearer definitely plays to her strengths as the damsel in distress who is both subdued and rescued by seemingly stronger men. Meanwhile Frederic March is every inch the dashing hero as Browning who isn't particularly convincing as one of literature's most famous figures. Meanwhile, as Edward, Charles Laughton hams it up big time as he delivers all of his evil lines with great aplomb. If there was an image that perfectly summed up the film then it would be one of the many times that Laughton appears out of nowhere to confront one of his troublesome daughters. His arrival is coupled with ominous music whilst Laughton himself lays on an expression that just screams out villain of the piece. I think the film best demonstrates the fact that ten nominees during the 1930s was just too many especially if movies like The Barretts of Wimpole Street rank among the year's best.
I would echo that sentiment when it comes to another Frederic March vehicle, Anthony Adverse. The film is based on Hervey Allen's epic novel and is directed by the dependable Mervyn La Roy. Anthony Adverse is essentially a nuts and bolts literary adaptation filled with overblown exterior shots and cloying heart-to-hearts between characters. The titular character initially grew up in an orphanage after his mother's despicable husband dropped him off after learning he was the product of an affair. As chance would have it, Anthony ends up working for and living with his grandfather who knows of his identity but never informs him of it. As Anthony grows up, and is eventually portrayed by March, he falls in love with Angela; the daughter of the housekeeper. Angela and Anthony eventually marry but are separated soon after as he goes to Cuba and then Africa where he attempts to recoup his family fortune by participating in the slave trade. If this doesn't sound far-fetched enough then the film climaxes with Anthony learning that opera singing Andrea is now Napoleon's mistress but not before giving birth to her husband's baby. There were only a couple of things I liked about Anthony Adverse the first being an enthralling carriage ride that climaxed in an unfortunate servant plummeting to his death. Additionally I felt that Claude Rains delivered the best performance of the bunch as the despicable Don Luis who attempts to bring down Anthony several times as revenge for his mother's infidelity. Unfortunately March and female lead Olivia De Havilland don't make much of an impression and the adapted screenplay makes the whole plot feel even more overblown than it is. Anthony Adverse's only lasting legacy is the fact that it made Oscar history by containing the winner of the first ever Best Supporting Actress Award. The performer in question was Gale Sondergaard who played Don Luis' partner in crime, devious ladies' maid Faith. Whilst Sondergaard did thrive in her handful of scenes, I don't think she did that much to warrant being awarded an Oscar. Thankfully the recipients of the prize only got better from here on in and I would say that Anthony Adverse was another nominee that didn't really deserve its place amongst the Best Picture contenders.
I will return soon with more films from the 1930s and 1940s.
_poster.jpg)
I will return soon with more films from the 1930s and 1940s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)