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.
Welcome back to the 21st Century guys and, at least for the time being, this is where I'll be staying as I get closer to completing my quest. However, as the next four films from the decade are all biopics of sorts, I'll be shooting around various time periods. We start with two films that focus on real life pianists albeit two men who have very little else in common.
First up we have The Pianist; a film based on the memoirs of Polish composer and pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman. The film is a blow-by-blow account of what happened to the Jewish Szpilman during the Second World War as he attempted to survive as Warsaw crumbled around him. The interesting thing about Szpilman is he is never presented as any type of hero but instead as somebody who is simply trying to survive the extraordinary circumstances he's found himself in. Although early on he does his best to try and save his family, once he's separated from them he's essentially concerned about himself. The other interesting thing about the character is that his survival often comes from the help of non-Jews including a friendly couple and a man who married the woman who Szpilman once loved. In the film's latter scenes, Szpilman's survival is aided by a German officer whose sole reason for helping him is to hear his music. Indeed, music is one of The Pianist's main attributes and we can see Szpilman's pain as he's forced to keep quite while in a room with a piano. Although it's a film set during wartime, I don't think The Pianist can really be described as a war film and instead it sees the devastation of Poland from Szpilman's eyes. Screenwriter Ronald Harwood cleverly punctuates scenes of actions with quieter moments that simply focus on Szpilman's deterioration. We follow him as he tries to get over his jaundice and his struggles to find food and water in the film's final scenes. The Pianist's main triumph is in presenting a sympathetic character who is necessarily a heroic man but is someone who's pain the audience can identify with.
It's no surprise that Adrien Brody won the Best Actor prize for his performance as Szpilman as he completely commands the screen throughout. Brody has the mannerisms of a silent film star which helps in the latter half of the film where there is very little dialogue. Brody helps the audience understand Szpilman's feelings as he slumps about the deserted streets of Warsaw clutching a jar of pickles in his hands. I felt Brody was absolutely captivating at playing both the charming musician in the film's early moments and the shell of a man in the film's latter scenes. Brody was aided by director Roman Polanski who made the town of Warsaw as big a character as Szpilman. I found some of The Pianist's images truly shocking as Szpilman was horrified by the dead bodies strewn across the streets and later surveyed the hollowed out buildings which were once occupied by happy families. In my opinion Pawel Edelman deserved an Oscar for his superb cinematography which at times made The Pianist feel like a documentary. Thankfully Polanski was awarded with a Best Director honour for helming a truly memorable piece of cinema which has as much to say about the holocaust as Schindler's List. If there's one criticism I have of The Pianist it's that I didn't feel as strong an emotional connection with Szpilman as I possibly could have done. Whilst I admired the film, I was never completely drawn in to what was happening on the screen and instead I felt more like a bystander. Maybe this is the reason that The Pianist didn't win the Best Picture award however I do feel it deserved it over the film that eventually scooped the award.
While The Pianist dealt with just one period of Szpilman's life, the other film in this post was a wide-reaching biopic of a famous pianist and vocalist. Ray, looked at the life and times of the legendary Ray Charles; from a small boy growing up in Florida to one of the most successful jazz artists of all time. Director Taylor Hackford and screenwriter James L White take a fairly linear approach to telling Ray's life; starting with his first performances in a country band. From there we see his first appearances on stage, touring with a band and meeting his future wife. Throughout the course of the story, the film flashes back to Ray's childhood to witness two very traumatic events in his life. The first is the death of his brother, who drowned in a laundry tub, and the second was the gradual loss of his eyesight. I believe that the film explained how Ray managed to get about with a stick or a dog and showed how exactly he seduced the ladies on a nightly basis. What I liked about the film was that it didn't shy away from the more negative side of Ray's personality, particularly his drug use. As the film progressed, and Ray's success grew, so did his reliance on heroin which as a result put him at odds with his friends and family. Additionally Ray's dalliances with various women are portrayed as he conducted various extra-marital affairs throughout his career. One in particular, with backing singer Margie, has disastrous consequences after she dies from an overdose only a couple of years after giving birth to his child. One problem I did have with the film was that it was pretty uneven as it spent too long on some moments and not enough on others. I found that Hackford and White took too long documenting the build-up of Ray's career and not enough time on other key moments in his life. I'd have like to have seen more about his protests against segregation and his attempts to kick his drug habit. As a result I found that the screenplay was largely inconsistent and that slightly affected my enjoyment of the film.
Thankfully Ray benefited from a tremendous Oscar-winning performance from Jamie Foxx, one that arguably made him a big name star. Foxx could've easily portrayed Charles as somewhat of a caricature but instead made him a fully-rounded character. He was particularly strong at portraying Ray's gradual dependence on drugs and the subtle changes in his character. Additionally, he was able to convey Ray's charisma and you could believe just why so many people fell under his spell. Foxx was ably supported throughout the film by a cast of character actors most notably Richard Shiff and Curtis Armstrong as a pair of Atlantic record chiefs and Regina King as the tragic Margie. I think that your enjoyment of Ray does depend on how much you can tolerate jazz music but I personally felt the music in the film was one of its most positive elements. Hackford and White use the majority of Ray's songs to tell a certain story about a period in his life and as a result give the film the feel of a musical. Paul Hirsch deftly edits together these set pieces to allow the audience to associate Charles' songs to either his success or certain moments in his personal life. It was no surprise to me that, alongside Foxx's honour, the film also won the sound mixing Oscar as I believed that the way the music was used was crucial to Ray's success. As his wife notes towards the end of the film, Ray loved music more than drugs, women and even his own family, a message that the film conveys perfectly. Whilst it doesn't really hold up against some of the more prestigious Oscar films, Ray is a fun biopic with lots of enjoyable musical sequence and is anchored by a fantastic central performance.
We continue our cavalcade of biopics with two more films that earned their stars Best Actor Oscars.
I do feel that when a director has achieved particular acclaim he can get away with most things. Terrence Malick is one such director who was well on his way to being a legend after helming Badlands and Days of Heaven in the 1970s. Malick took a twenty year hiatus following Days of Heaven so when it was announced that he'd be returning to the screen plenty of actors wanted a role in his new film. Luckily he was able to accommodate a fair few big names into The Thin Red Line, a film focusing on the Battle of Mount Austin fought in the Pacific between the Americans and the Japanese. Malick's first cut of the film was supposedly five hours long and obviously had to be cut down substantially to half of that original length. Even then I feel that the copy of The Thin Red Line I watched was overlong and confusing in some regards. One of my main issues was that of the duelling narration between Jim Caviezel's Private Witt and Nick Nolte's Lt. Col. Tall. Witt's story is that of a man who is dissatisfied with army life while Tall is trying to prove himself to his superiors who feel that a man of his advancing years shouldn't still be at war. Because of this Tall makes some risky decisions and it's one of his final choices that has an impact on the team. Events become even more complicated when Malick introduces another story later in the film as Ben Chaplin's Private Bell discovers his wife wants a divorce. The fact that both Caviezel and Chaplin are given voiceovers was rather confusing as at times I couldn't really tell the pair apart. It was only after he nobly died to save his comrades was when I realised that Witt was meant to be the hero of the piece. That alone should tell you that Malick's script was confusing and that some of what was cut from the film may have been important.
Spare a thought then for poor Adrien Brody, who prior to the release of The Thin Red Line had told people that he was the main focus of the film. After watching the film Brody's appearance amounted to nothing more than a five minute cameo towards the conclusion. Brody was understandably upset by the decision and he feels that Malick should have at least have informed of the changes that had been made prior to the film's screening. But at least Brody made into the film which is more than can be said for the likes of Martin Sheen, Micky Rourke, Gary Oldman and Billy Bob Thronton who all had their scenes cut entirely. As there are so many big names floating around it's incredibly hard to single out one or two actors to praise their performances in the film. Nick Nolte probably gives the best turn as the weary Tall and both Sean Penn and John Cusack made good impressions during their extended cameos. Like with most Malick films, the strongest aspect of The Thin Red Line is in its visuals. John Toll's cinematography is outstanding, especially when we follow the soldiers inside the long grass where they hide during their attacks. Toll's point-of-view shots really make you feel part of the action and in a way add to our understanding of what war might have been like for these men. But to me there was almost too much of a focus on arty camerawork and not enough done on character development. I personally wasn't a fan of certain characters reminiscing about their families back home and thought these scenes represented Malick's undisciplined approach to film-making. Hans Zimmer's score really helped the film achieve the emotional tone it was looking for especially when it accompanied The Thin Red Line's battle scenes. But that being said, ultimately I found The Thin Red Line to be a beautifully shot war film that really never compelled me to care about specific character. Rather than changing my views about Malick as a film-maker its simply reinforced them and I've still not be able to see what others do in this supposedly great director.
Next time we look at three films from a respected British actor who appeared in two Best Picture winners during the 1990s.
