Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 446-447: A Couple More Pitts

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.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 377-378: More Real Life Tales

As we saw in the last post, and indeed throughout this whole blog, Oscar loves a biopic. Whilst films such as Ray document the whole life of their subject most of these best picture nominees focus on a specific time in that person's life. That's certainly true of the next two films on the list both of which won their leading man the Best Actor Oscar at their respective ceremonies.

It's with a tinge of sadness that I settled down to watch the first part of this double bill, Capote; one of the few 21st century Best Picture nominees I'd not seen before. Obviously this is due to the fact that last year we lost the man who played the lead role of Truman Capote, the excellent Philip Seymour Hoffman. The film concentrates on Capote's life after he became a household name thanks to Breakfast at Tiffany's and follows him during the creation of his famous non-fiction work In Cold Blood. From the start of the film, director Bennett Miller and screenwriter Dan Futterman present the difference between Truman's life of alcohol-fuelled parties and the stark brutal world of the murder of four members of the Clutter family. Fascinated by the murders, Truman and friend Harper Lee journey to Kansas as he attempts to craft an article about the incident for The New Yorker. However, Futterman's real focus is on Truman's fascination with Perry Smith who, along with Dick Hickock, is found guilty of the crime. Whilst occasionally Truman's obsession with Perry is presented as somewhat of a romantic leaning, it appeared to me as if the film was suggesting that the author's fascination was with the criminal's conflicting character. Although charged with four murders, Perry appeared ever so sensitive, was a brilliant artist and appeared to be incredibly eloquent when compared to Dick. As the film progresses, so does Truman's book however more problems arise when the convicted duo are given a stay of execution. Truman's desperation for an ending of sorts conflicts with his feelings for Perry and in the end he surmises that there can be only one conclusion.

Having never seen Capote before I didn't really know what to expect and I was pleasantly surprised by what I found. Obviously part of my enjoyment stemmed from Philip Seymour Hoffman's Oscar-winning turn as the eponymous writer. Hoffman's skill is in not simply doing an impression of Capote but instead playing him as a fully-fledged character. It's fair to say that Hoffman became Capote to the extent that I forgot at times that I was watching the actor playing the part. Hoffman brilliantly conveyed Capote's feelings for Perry and how his writing of 'In Cold Blood' started to affect him emotionally. For her role as Nelle Harper Lee, Catherine Keener was nominated for a Best Supporting Actress prize, however I didn't feel that she made that big an impact. If I were to give another acting award for the film then it would go to Clifton Collins Jr. as the charismatic killer Perry Smith. Collins Jr. gave an enigmatic turn as the sensitive murderer whose reluctance to tell his full story was the driving point of the film. Futterman's screenplay was well-paced and presented the facts in an entertaining manner, ensuring that the audience was never bored. Meanwhile Miller proved himself to be a fine director; transposing Truman's booze-soaked party life with the cold, harsh reality of the Kansas murders. At just under two hours, Capote was a very easy film to watch and I found myself being wrapped up in the story. At the same time there was nothing particularly remarkable about it outside of Hoffman's fine central turn. So, while I can understand why the film appeared in the Best Picture category, I never particularly felt that it should've won the big prize.

The same can be said for the other film in this double bill; Gus Van Sant's Milk - a biopic of the first openly gay man to hold office in the U.S.; Harvey Milk. Just like Capote, Milk looks at a specific point in Harvey's life as he moves to San Francisco and later decides to run for office. The film is presented as a tape recording our hero makes as he believes he'll soon be assassinated and it starts on the eve of Harvey's fortieth birthday when he meets arguably the love of his life Scott Smith. Together Scott and Harvey open a camera shop in the heart of a burgeoning gay community in San Francisco known as 'The Castro'. Milk's frustration with the way the gay community is being persecuted leads him to run for city supervisor, however his first two campaigns are unsuccessful. Meanwhile the campaigning puts a strain on his relationship with Scott, who eventually leaves him, reappearing every now and again in the film to praise his former lover's success. After finally getting into office in 1976, Harvey constantly clashes with the boorish Dan White; another supervisor who takes offence at his colleague's way of life. Dan's jealousy appears to stem from the fact that he isn't nearly as charismatic as Harvey and therefore finds it hard getting his voice heard. The other story is Harvey's need to get the controversial Proposition 6, which states that all gay teachers be sacked, overturned in the state of California. This story provided it's fair share of uplifting moments as Milk went head-to-head in debates with the bigoted John Briggs, who felt that all homosexuals were perverted. Even if you didn't know the story going in, it was quite obvious that Harvey wasn't going to make it till the end of the film and is eventual assassination at the hands of Dan White was well-handled. The candlelight vigil at the end of the film provided a heart-warming ending to what was another enjoyable and thought-provoking watch.

Of the four Best Actor-winning performances I've watched recently, Sean Penn's is possibly the least-deserving of the prize. I personally feel he's the one who is visibly acting while the other three performers deliver effortless turns. Although Penn's performance isn't as clichéd as it could've been I didn't really feel that he was as at ease with Dustin Lance Black's dialogue as he should have been. Maybe I'm a little biased, as I wanted Mickey Rourke to win Best Actor for The Wrestler, but I believe that Penn didn't convey the full extent of Milk's charisma. Reading around on the film it appears that, when the idea of a film about Milk was first conceived, Robin Williams was attached to play the role and I ultimately think that he would've suited the role much better. Penn was lucky that he was surrounded by such a fine ensemble of actors who beautifully portrayed the friendship between the men and women who became a family on The Castro. I really thought James Franco gave a grounded performance as the put-upon Scott who'd finally had enough of play second fiddle to the great Harvey Milk. Meanwhile Emile Hirsch and Allison Pill were similarly great as Milk's supporters Cleve Jones and Anne Kronenberg. However, the performance of the film came from Josh Brolin as the rather old-fashioned Dan White, a man who couldn't understand just why Harvey was as popular as he was. Brolin received a Best Supporting Actor nod for his role in the film but I believe he should have won the awards but unfortunately that year saw him come up against Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight. Harris Savides' cinematography is another of Milk's positive elements as he gets in amongst the film's many protests and makes the audience understand just how intense the gay protests were during the 1970s. Gus Van Sant appears to have devoted a lot of time into getting the area of The Castro as authentic as possible and transformed the area into looking like it would in the 1970s. I personally feel that Milk works as a study of the gay movement of the 1970s and the strength in numbers that the community experienced during the time. However, I'm in the minority of people who weren't won over by Penn's performance and don't think he was as deserving of the prize as his predecessors.

Next time we leave real life behind as we explore one of the most successful film franchises of all time.