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.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 322-324: A Fiennes Trio of Films

Today Ralph Fiennes is considered one of England's finest actors and it's interesting that his success came quite quickly. After appearances in two TV movies, Fiennes' feature film debut saw him play Heathcliff in a 1992 adaptation of Wuthering Heights. His performance caught the eye of Steven Spielberg who decided he was the perfect person to play the despicable SS Officer Amon Goeth in Schindler's List.

In the film, which later went on to win Best Picture, Fiennes' performance is just one highlight in one of the best movies of all time. The film centres around Liam Neeson's Oskar Schindler, a German businessman who wants to keep the Nazi officers on side as the war begins. Throughout the film, Spielberg present Schindler as somebody who tries to keep everyone happy and who plays the fool in order to manipulate those around him. As Schindler builds a factory in Krakow, he enlists the help of Jewish accountant Itzthak Stern to draw up a list of workers. As the building of Schindler's factory coincides with the Nazis attack on the Polish Jews, Stern tries to save as many people as possible by employing them at the factory. Schindler is initially presented as somebody who doesn't care about the struggle of the Jews and turns a blind eye to Stern's recruitment process. Indeed he views the murder of the workers as a hindrance to productivity rather than a needless loss of human life. The first time we get the impression that Schindler's views are changing is when he witnesses the liquidation of the Polish ghetto. The brilliantly shot sequence features the iconic girl in red scene in which we see a hint of colour in an otherwise black and white film. Schindler's eye is drawn to the girl and it's only when we sees her red coat once again that he realises he must do something. Meanwhile the brutish Goth is won over by Schindler's bribes and agrees to let him build a new factory which is a front to save as many Jews as possible from going to Auschwitz. Compiling his titular list, Schindler's role as a saviour is documented in the final scenes in which the Jews thank him for saving their lives. 

Spielberg wanted Schindler's List to act as a documentary rather than a drama and this is clear in the final scene where the surviving members of Schindler's Jews arrive at his grave alongside the actors who portrayed him in the film. Spielberg clearly sets out to show that Schindler wasn't always a hero and when the film begins he is an unscrupulous charmer who is out for what he can get. His selflessness only manifests later on in the film and it's the brilliant performance from Liam Neeson that captures this perfectly. Neeson excels both in Schindler's early scenes as a charismatic businessman and in the more emotional moments as he breaks down in front of Stern just before the war comes to an end. Fiennes gives a scene-stealing turn as one of cinema's greatest villains as he coldly shoots Jews with no good reason and physically assaults his maid. But through Fiennes' performance we see that Goeth's actions are born out of a jealousy of people such as Schindler who are able to charm their way through life. Goeth's most sympathetic scene is when he tries to woo his maid as Fiennes briefly lets us see his character's more vulnerable side. But he doesn't stay sympathetic for long and by the end of the scene he becomes a monster once again. Praise must also go to Janusz Kamiński who cinematography is spellbinding as he helps Spielberg create the documentary-like feel he desired. John Williams' score is another of the film's triumphs as his Ben Kingsley's supporting turn as the quiet accountant Stern. In fact there are little negatives I can find in an almost perfect film and I think it deserved all the seven Oscars it won. I can't think that any of the other films nominated for Best Picture in that year was worthy of the accolade more than Schindler's List although you'll have to wait for me to make that decision when the decade is at an end. What I can say is that Ralph Fiennes was robbed of the Best Supporting Actor Oscar as he gave an absolutely compelling turn as one of cinema's most loathed characters. 

That being said Fiennes didn't even receive a nomination for his next film appearance which was in Robert Redford's Best Picture nominee Quiz Show. Fiennes role as the intelligent and handsome Charles Van Doren is a million miles away from the brutish Goeth. Instead he plays a man who is won over by the trappings of fame after becoming a contestant on the iconic 1950s quiz show Twenty One. Van Doren is chosen as the new regular competitor on the programme to replace the nervy Herb Stampel whose popularity is waning in the eyes of the public. Right from the start of the film it's made clear that the quiz show is being controlled by the head of the NBC Network and by the programme's sponsor, a supplementary gel called Geritol. As Herb is no longer a ratings draw, Twenty One's producer Dan Enright convinces Herb to lose the next programme to Van Doren. Here it's revealed that the producers have been feeding Herb the answers to the questions and continue to rig the quiz by giving Van Doren questions he knows the answers to. These methods completely go against the way the show is viewed by the American public who believe that Twenty One's question are kept in a bank vault. Soon enough Van Doren becomes adored by the public whilst Herb tries to get revenge by exposing the corruption behind Twenty One. Newly graduated lawyer Dick Goodwin takes it upon himself to investigate the scandal and soon finds it tough to know who to believe. As with the rest of the population, Goodwin is charmed by Van Doren and finds Herb to be a volatile personality. But Goodwin soon finds the evidence he needs and hopes to expose the corruption in both NBC and sponsors Geritol. But Redford's final message is that the corporations themselves never pay and instead it's the little people who suffer. Both Van Doren and Herb lose the public's respect as a result of the scandal whilst Enright and host Jack Benny are soon making their fortunes from television once again. 

I knew very little about Quiz Show before watching it and I think that aided my enjoyment of the film. From the opening credits which play over a stylised version of the 1950s you know you're watching a classy film. Robert Redford's direction isn't incredibly original but he helps capture the fast-talking style of all of his characters and makes you care about the three central protagonists. Indeed this is a film about a trio of men; the impressionable Van Doren, the bland Herb and the ambitious Dick all of whom are corrupted by the quiz show scandal in different ways. As Dick, Rob Morrow is every inch the slick junior lawyer as he attempts to gain notoriety due to his part in uncovering the corruption at NBC. John Turturro is fantastic as Herb, a man who has a little charisma and who is visibly hurt by his rejection from Enright. Turturro especially excels at portraying Herb's volatile nature and how much it hurts him to get a certain question wrong. I personally felt that Ralph Fiennes put in a fine turn here as Van Doren, an intelligent man but somebody who is swallowed up the hype surrounding his Twenty One appearance. Fiennes demonstrates his charisma throughout the piece and his final speech to congress his delivered excellently. Fiennes has brilliant chemistry with Paul Scofield, the only nominated member of the cast, who plays his renowned poet father Mark. Scofield's performance makes up only part of a great supporting cast that includes David Paymer, Christopher McDonald and Martin Scorsese as a Geritol representative. The real star here is Paul Attanasio, who was Oscar-nominated for his fantastically well-paced and snappy adapted screenplay. Attanasio's screenplay launches attacks on well-known brands and lets us know that they don't care who they sacrifice along the way as long as the money keeps coming in. Ultimately Quiz Show is an easy-to-watch film with fine performances and a great screenplay which has an identifiable message behind it. 

After appearing in Kathryn Bigelow's Strange Days in 1995, Fiennes' next film would see him get his only Best Actor Oscar Nomination to date. The film was The English Patient in which Fiennes played a character who, when we first meet him, is horribly disfigured after his plane crashes in Italy. As he won't live very long, French-Canadian nurse Hanna agrees to look after him primarily so she can get over the losses she's suffered recently. The mystery man, known as The English Patient, soon finds his life in danger when Canadian thief Caravaggio starts to take an interest in him. Caravaggio believes the man was directly involved with him being captured and tortured by the Germans so wants to take his revenge. Whilst all of this action takes place in 1944, the rest of The English Patient takes us back to Cairo of the late 1930s in which the mystery man is revealed as a map maker. In addition we learn he is not English but in fact the Hungarian Count László Almásy, who is part of the Royal Geographic Society. Joining The Count's expedition are married couple Geoffrey and Katherine Clifton the latter of whom catches the eye of our protagonist. It's not long before the attraction becomes mutual and the two begin an affair which they find easy to do when Geoffrey spends a lot of time away from his wife. But soon The Count finds himself being jealous of Katherine's interactions with other men and almost becomes abusive towards her. But there's no denying that there is still passion in their relationship and back in the Italian scenes The Count reveals the measures he took to care for the woman he loved. Ultimately The Count's words see both Carravagio and Hanna get what they want as he finally finds peace.

I remember my mum having a copy of The English Patient on VHS at one time and therefore snippets of the film seem familiar. However, as I was quite young I don't think I completely understood the fact that the film went backwards and forwards in time. When the film first began I was incredibly taken with Hanna thanks to Juliette Binoche's Oscar winning turn as the emotionally fraught nurse. Unlike something like The Thin Red Line where I never felt I really knew the characters, Anthony Mingella's adapted screenplay instantly made me warm to Hanna. Therefore it was the scenes set in Italy that I enjoyed more than the ones in the African desert mainly because the characters there were a little harder to like. It was only when Katherine appeared and the affair started that I began to care for The Count as Fiennes was able to portray his love for her brilliantly. It was great seeing Fiennes play the lead rather than take a supporting turn and his performance put me in mind of the classic film stars that we saw in the 1930s and 1940s. Every inch the charming lead, Fiennes made his character seem quite arrogant but also somebody who would do anything for love. Even in the scenes where he was covered in convincing make-up he still made us care for his plight right up to the bitter end. However, I felt that this film really belonged to the women as both of the central actresses really brought the film to life. As I previously mentioned Binoche lit up the screen as Hanna and she conveyed her characters loss as well as her capacity to find love with Sikh bomb disposal expert Kip. Kristen Scott Thomas is one of my favourite actresses and proved her worth here as the elegant Katherine. She and Fiennes also had a winning chemistry which made it easy to believe their love for one another.

The English Patient's other main strength is in its extremely striking visuals and so it's not surprising to learn that the film was showered with Oscars. John Seale's superb cinematography really brought the Tunisian and Italian exterior locations to life. Seale succeeded in taking the film's audience into both the African desert and the Italian countryside which helped to separate the two storylines. In his book, editor Walter Murch claimed that he initially struggled to intercut the two different timelines of the story. But I think he did an excellent job especially in the final scene in which we see both Katherine and Hanna reading the same story aloud. Gabriel Yared's score also adds to the overall feel of the film, particularly during the African scenes. Bringing all these elements together was the late Antony Mingella, who won awards both for his direction and screenplay. Mingella's vision for the film was perfectly realised in a film which I came to really enjoy over the course of the two and half hour runtime. What I liked most about The English Patient was the fact that this was a film set during war time but which focused more on how the fighting prevented the characters from ever truly being loved. Whether it was explosives ending lives or the paranoia that was present on both sides, the war really affected all the film's characters in different ways. However, I wouldn't describe The English Patient as a war film but rather a love story set during the time of war and I found that to be a refreshing change.

Next time we focus on a film that deals with both sexuality and race during a time of conflict. 

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 311-312: A Gaggle of Gangsters

As the decades have gone on some of the films on the Oscar Challenge have become more violent as film-makers began to push the envelope. The 1970s in particular featured plenty of nominees that had a violent tone and often focused on those operating outside the law. The gangster genre was revived to an extent in the 1990s with two films focusing on mobsters with both being slightly different in tone.

The first was 1991 nominee Goodfellas, a film I'm ashamed to say I've never watched up until this point. The film covers 25 years in the life of Henry Hill who famously always wanted to be a gangster. The opening of the film sees Henry ingratiate himself into the gang and proves himself to them when he refuses to give them up when he first appears in court. Henry's main associate throughout the course of the film is the incredibly volatile Tommy DeVito, who even clashes with his friends on occasion. The other character who recurs throughout the film is the more senior Jimmy Conway who is seen as a gentleman by those who know him. The majority of the film's first half sees the glamorous life that Henry's new position has earned him especially after partaking in numerous robberies. At the same time Tommy's temper gets the trio in a lot of trouble and they end up trying to bury an important member of the mob who was trying to humiliate Tommy. In fact Tommy later kills a young bartender just for insulting him, this coming after he injured the boy's feet. As the years pass Henry find himself in jail, whilst his relationship with his wife Karen deteriorates when he takes on a mistress. The final third of the film deals with Henry's new line in drug-dealing, something he started in prison, and the gang's involvement in the Lufthansa Heist at JFK airport. These latter scenes strip away the glamour of the criminal life as Henry's associates are either murdered or jailed. Despite all that's happened to him Henry still longs for the glamorous life that he no longer has now he's in witness protection.

Goodfellas is often held up as one of the best films of all time but while I enjoyed it throughout there was nothing particularly remarkable about it. Narratively the film has issues as it is led by an expositional voiceover delivered by Ray Liotta as the adult Henry Hill. Voiceovers like this are one of my pet hates in visual storytelling as part of the film mantra is usually 'don't tell us, show us'. In fact Goodfellas really riled me up when it introduced a second voiceover by Lorraine Bracco who played Henry's wife Karen. Although it does have faults, the script moves along quite sharply so we get all of the key facts about Henry's life without every settling down for too long. Director Martin Scorsese really focuses on the opulent life the gangsters enjoy, both at home and in their social life at the Copacabana. I feel that both the art direction and the costume design deserved to be recognised at the Oscars with the latter brilliantly changing to indicate the style of the time. In the role of Henry, Ray Liotta was a dependable presence who really came alive in the latter scenes when his character started to develop a serious amount of paranoia. As we've seen him become a star name over the past couple of decades it's odd that Robert De Niro was used sparingly until the film's final third. I think it works quite well as Jimmy is an interesting character who is explored more as the film goes on. But obviously the most famous performance in the film, and the one that won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar, was that of Joe Pesci as Tommy. From the moment he delivers his iconic 'Funny how?' speech you know you're in the presence of an actor at the top of his game. He employs a frantic energy which means you never know what Tommy will do next but at the same time he makes you sympathise with him when he unsuspectingly gets murdered on one of the happiest days of his life. Action-packed, well-shot and with a fantastic cast; Goodfellas is definitely a fun film to watch but I wouldn't add it to the list of my all-time favourites.

One of the films that I knew very little about before watching it was Barry Levinson's Bugsy which featured in the Best Picture line-up the next year. The film stars Warren Beatty as Ben Siegel who is known as Bugsy to everybody but doesn't like the nickname used in his presence. Bugsy looks at two aspects of Siegel's life both of which happen when he travels from New York to L.A. to sort outside business in the city's betting parlours. Almost instantly Ben falls in love with small-time actress Virginia Hill, who appears to really know how to play to a man's weaknesses. When they meet Ben is already married whilst Virginia is in a relationship with one of Bugsy's acquaintances. Despite that, after a night filled with banter, the two decide that they can't keep their hands off one another. The relationship between Virginia and Ben is rocky at best as he fails to get a divorce and he gets insanely jealous when she even looks at another man. Similarly Virginia is frightened of Ben's violent temper and occasionally he beats somebody up just because they annoy him in some small way. After being abandoned in the desert by Virginia, Ben realises that Las Vegas would be the perfect place to build a hotel and casino. Ben's mobster chums are less than thrilled by the prospect of ploughing a million dollars into a risky venture but they change their minds when they realise that gambling is legal in Nevada. While planning the hotel, Ben puts Virginia in charge of finances and so the project goes way over budget. Eventually Ben is facing problems from every side with his wife wanting a divorce and the mobsters needing a return on the money they've invested. Ultimately Ben's dream for hotel-filled Las Vegas survived but unfortunately he didn't.

Although both feature characters that essentially rob and murder for a living, Bugsy and Goodfellas are very different films. The main difference is that a lot of the violence in Bugsy takes place off-screen whilst Goodfellas is incredibly graphic from the word go. Although we do see Bugsy get physical on a fair few occasions the key murders in the piece are either only heard or performed a lot more subtly than they are in Goodfellas. Even though Goodfellas had the odd funny line, Bugsy is incredibly comedic at times with the dialogue spoken between Ben and Virginia being reminiscent of that of a screwball comedy. This central relationship forms the basis for a film which has a lot of great one-liners and plenty of energy throughout. Most of this energy is provided by Warren Beatty, who probably gives the best performance that I've seen during this challenge. Beatty makes you care about Bugsy and I couldn't help but be one over by his frantic movements and undying love for Virginia. Beatty plays brilliantly off Annette Bening, who one year later would become his wife, and the pair utilise their real life chemistry to great effect. Brilliant support is also provided by Ben Kingsley Ben's associate Meyer Lansky and by Harvey Keitel as the quick-talking Micky Cohen. Unlike Goodfellas, Bugsy also took home awards for its outstanding period costumes and art direction both of which helped to give the film a glamorous look. Again, like with Goodfellas, Bugsy isn't a film that's ever going to be one of my favourites but overall I found it entertaining and surprisingly funny. Additionally, as he was definitely the star of the show, I feel that Beatty should have won his Best Actor Oscar for Bugsy as it is a prize that has eluded him his entire career.

Next time we head to Italy for the two foreign language films that were nominated for Best Picture in the 1990s.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 307: Give Peace a Chance

So we're finally here, and a lot quicker than I thought we would be, as I've finished in the 1980s in just over two months. As always the decade is ending and with, you guessed it, yet another historical epic. Although not directed by David Lean, Gandhi almost feels like a tribute to Lean by its director Richard Attenborough. I suppose I feel this way because of the film's spectacular exterior scenes and the way ii which India is shot throughout the film. In fact Lean was on board at one point to direct Gandhi but due to different circumstances it was Attenborough who ultimately helmed the project. Like a lot of the epics I've looked at in this decade, Gandhi takes place over a number of years beginning in 1893 and ending in 1948. The opening scene depicts the young Mohandas Gandhi being thrown off a train after he refused to move classes. From there Gandhi begins to fight injustice, firstly in South Africa when a new rule comes in which essentially makes Indians feel like second class citizens. Throughout the movie, we learn that Gandhi is only interested in peaceful protests and doesn't get angry when he's thrown in prison for his beliefs. As well as making a number of enemies, Gandhi builds up a following and he has a few loyal friends who he's able to count on. Much of the film depicts Gandhi's attempt to end the British Empire's control of India and his participation in the country's eventual independence. But Gandhi soon realises that he still cannot fully bring about peace due to the fact that India's different religious groups begin to squabble amongst one another. To attempt to counteract this, Gandhi goes on a hunger strike and eventually convinces his countrymen to throw down their weapons. Although he's ultimately murdered, Gandhi's message of an eye for an eye leaves all of us blind is one that resonates long after the film has ended.

I was interested to learn that novelisation of Gandhi's screenplay starts with an introduction from the film-makers explaining that no man's life can be encompassed in one telling. That's certainly evident throughout Gandhi, which at times feels like a potted history of the man rather than a cinematic version of his life story. It was clear that this was a passion project for Attenborough, who had attempted to get the project off the ground for almost thirty years. I do feel his need to tell as much of Gandhi's story as possible has meant that the film was a lot longer than it should've been and contained many superfluous scenes that were full of expositional speeches. Like most epics, Gandhi was at least great to look at with the film's cinematography capturing the brilliant scenery that India had to offer. Though it needed to be cut down, the film's editing was great nonetheless especially when newsreel from the time was intercut into the main body of the picture. Period detail appears to be another element that Attenborough was keen on getting right and he accomplished that thanks to some superb art direction and costume design. On top of the film's technical achievements, Gandhi's other saving grace was the fantastic central performance from Ben Kingsley. Kingsley was cast due to his Indian heritage and through his performance he really explained why so many people wanted to follow Gandhi. Kingsley's performance is one of the most captivating I've seen over the course of this project and he was rightfully rewarded with a Best Actor Oscar. There were plenty of familiar faces among the supporting cast with Martin Sheen, Candice Bergen and Geraldine James all giving impressive turns. But, aside from Kingsley, the best performance in the film came from Rohini Hattangadi as Gandhi's wife and I personally feel that she should have least received a nomination for her part in the movie. Ultimately Gandi combines a brilliant central term with some fairly outstanding set pieces but is let down by a baggy script and an overly long run time.

But did Gandhi deserve to win the Best Picture prize? Find out next time as I review every Oscar ceremony from the 1980s.