After exploring Brad Pitt's back catalogue in the early noughties it appears that the Academy's love affair with the movie star is continuing into the next decade. However, as Brad grows up, so does the films he stars in and this post deals with two very different dramas that he had a a hand in.
We commence with Moneyball, in which Pitt plays Billy Beane, the General Manager to the Oakland Athletics Baseball Team. The film follows the fortunes of Beane as he attempts to construct a new team on a small budget after the departure of his three top players. Instead of listening to his more experienced scouts, Billy decides to follow the advice of Peter Brand a young Yale graduate who he meets at one of the other clubs. Peter's philosophy involves looking at the runs that each player has acquired over a season and working out how each game should be played. As a result of Peter's theory, Billy finds a team for a budget he can afford even though each player has some major flaw whether it be a bad attitude, a lack of confidence or that they're just over-the-hill. Though Moneyball does follow the format of sports films I've watched it the past, what makes it work is its fast-paced script. Based on the book of the same name by Michael Lewis, Moneyball has been adapted by the master that is Aaron Sorkin alongside Steve Zaillian. Moneyball does include a lot of dialogue that is pure Sorkin, as Billy and Peter banter back and forth in expert style. Sorkin and Zaillian deftly weave the story of Oakland's 2002 season with Billy's back story in which we learn that he himself was a first draft pick. Unfortunately, Billy suffered from a lack of confidence and later decided that being a scout would be a better role for him than on the pitch. I feel that these flashback scenes make us sympathise more with the character of Billy and we're willing him to succeed as Oakland starts to make a comeback later in the season. If I have one qualm about the script then it's the quite clichéd relationship that Billy has with his twelve-year-old daughter which is basically a set up to the final scene in the film.
Alongside the fabulous script, Moneyball's other ace in the hole is Brad Pitt whose performance in the film is great. I believe that Moneyball ushers in a shift in the tone of Pitt's performances as he adds an extra layer of maturity to the character of Billy. This is best exemplified during the scenes in which Billy is listening to the games being played as he never attends the games mainly due to superstition. Pitt earned his second Best Actor nomination for Moneyball and I have to say that it was a lot more deserved than his previous nod for Benjamin Button. While in that film the make-up did most of the work, Moneyball's realistic feel allows Pitt to be front and centre. Also worthy of praise is Jonah Hill, who left the world of frat boy comedy behind to play the slightly nervous Peter Brand. Hill never played his role for laughs and instead his character formed an awkward relationship both with Billy and the players. Hill's Supporting Actor nomination should have been a turning point in his career but unfortunately he followed this up with the woeful comedy The Sitter. Despite him not having a major role as Oakland's manager Art, Philip Seymour Hoffman still gets to showcase his major skills in a number of scenes. I believe part of the reason Hoffman appears in the film is because it reunites him with Capote director Bennett Miller. Just like in Capote, Miller proves himself to be a solid director as he weaves an easy-to-follow narrative with some brilliant scenes of each individual game. Despite acquiring six nominations at that year's Oscar ceremony, Moneyball ultimately went home empty-handed which I feel is a shame especially for Sorkin and Zaillian. Although I have seen Moneyball before I definitely enjoyed it more this second time around and I feel that it's a solidly enjoyable drama which is bolstered by two fine performances by Hill and Pitt.
Two years later Pitt finally won his first Oscar but it was for his role as producer rather than actor. Pitt does have a small role in Steve McQueen's 12 Years a Slave but his character Samuel Bass only appears in the latter stages of the film. But it was Pitt's Plan B Production Company who financed the project that was first conceived by director McQueen and writer John Ridley. Both had wanted to create a movie about the slave trade and it was only when McQueen's partner read Solomon Northup's book of the same name. When the film begins, Northup is a free man living in proper society and making a living as a violinist. I got the impression that the film would spend more time focusing on Northup's life as a gentleman but instead he was sold into slavery quite early in the film. After being double-crossed by two men, Northup finds himself being sold to plantation owner William Ford. Ford is presented as quite a kindly man who grows fond of Northup, who now goes under the name of Platt, especially when he realises how educated he is. But Northup falls foul of Ford's overseer Tibeats and the two finally come to blows with the former almost being hung to death. The second half of the film is possibly the most memorable as Northup is sold to the tyrannical Edwin Epps, a man who views the slaves as his property. McQueen focuses on the vicious manner in which he punishes the slaves the don't pull their weight at his cotton-picking facility. Meanwhile, cinematographer Sean Bobbitt closes in on the scars that Solomon and his co-workers have following their punishment. Edwin's feelings for female slave Patsey are also described in great detail with his wife taking against her husband's desire for the girl. What follows are more brutal scenes as Edwin's wife takes out her frustrations on Patsey whilst the couple later involve Northup in their torture. It's only when Bass arrives in the final scenes that Solomon finally earns his freedom but McQueen is quick to inform us that the brutality continued for Patsey and her ilk.
In the past I've been a fan of McQueen's work and in particular his second film Shame which was perfectly shot throughout. McQueen's former career as an artist is definitely on show here as there are some brilliant sweeping shots of the New Orleans scenery. As I previously mentioned the cruelties inflicted on the slaves are captured in shocking detail and at times I found 12 Years a Slave hard to watch. The issue I have with a lot of true life tales is that you know how the story will end and that's certainly true of a movie that has the length of Solomon's hardship in its tale. The fact that the audience know that Solomon is a free man makes 12 Years a Slave a frustrating watch as our hero must fight adversity in order to get out of his predicament. As with a lot of 'issue-based' films, 12 Years a Slave occasionally feels overly preachy as McQueen and Ridley's message is a little overbearing. At the same time I think they do their best to avoid sentimentality and instead focus on a man who uses his intelligence to survive his unjust time as a slave. Part of the reason I was involved with the film as I was was due to the fantastic lead performance by Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon. From the first time Solomon finds himself in chains, Ejiofor is fantastic at using facial expressions to convey just how much his character is suffering inside. Due to the fact that Solomon has decided to keep his head down, Ejiofor doesn't have too many lines of dialogue but tells the story via his body language, which I feel is the mark of any true actor. McQueen's regular collaborator Michael Fassbender excels as the despicable Edwin Epps and is particularly great during the film's harshest moments. Although both Ejiofor and Fassbender were nominated for Oscars it was Lupita Nyong'o who triumphed winning Best Supporting Actress for her role as Patsey. However I wasn't blown away by Nyong'o's performance and I feel that the Academy mainly honoured her due to the suffering her character experiences throughout the film. Ultimately 12 Years a Slave was artistically directed and brilliantly shot while Ejiofor gave a fantastic central turn. But at the same time I don't think I was as emotionally invested in the film as I probably should have been and as much as I respected the film I wasn't ever moved by what happened to Solomon and his fellow slaves.
Next up we continue to evaluate the work of a pair of brothers who have made a major impact at the Academy Awards.
No comments:
Post a Comment