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.

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.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 127: My Day in Court

So finally a new decade in the Oscar challenge and we move from the tumultuous 1940s to the glorious 1950s in which the big screen came alive as Technicolor became more and more frequent and the cinemas were dominated by large, colourful epics luckily Oscar still had place in its nomination slots to honour smaller films that were well written but may've only had two or three sets to their name. And we're starting off with two such films both based in a courtroom setting.

The first of these two films is 1958 nominee Witness for the Prosecution the adaptation of Agatha Christie's novel starring Charles Laughton as the belligerent Sir Wilfred a brilliant barrister who has just returned to his chambers having suffered from health problems. It is not long before Wilfred is visited by a solicitor friend who has a new client - Leonard Vole who is accused of murdering the wealthy spinster Emily French with strong circumstantial evidence pointing towards him as the killer. The only person who can vouch for his whereabouts and act as his alibi is his German wife Christine, here played by the sultry Marlene Dietrich, but Wilfred warns that a testimony from a loving wife doesn't hold up to much. The best scenes of the film happen in the Old Bailey mainly because the set is so impressive, it had been recreated by Alexandre Trauner, and is also where the trial begins The prosecution calls several witnesses before their key witness is revealed as Christine acting as the titular Witness for the Prosecution. Anything I say from there would spoil the film and I was told specifically at the end of the film by a stern voice-over not to tell my friends anything about the film's conclusion. I will say however that I very much enjoyed Witness for the Prosecution and most of that is down to Laughton's performance a mix of drama and comedy he captures what I believe the character needed and ultimately is able to do the right thing. It is odd to see Laughton act this way after portraying a bunch of villains in the 1930s, in films such as Les Miserables and Mutiny on the Bounty, however he did display comic flare in Ruggles of Red Gap and he uses that here getting a Best Actor Nomination but ultimately losing to Alec Guinness. The other Oscar nominee here is Elsa Lanchester who plays Sir Wilfred's fussing personal nurse Miss Plimsoll with whom Wilfred clashes but by the end they have a grudging respect for what the other does while I did enjoy this performance I'm surprised Dietrich didn't get a nomination for playing her feme fatale role to great effect. Sometimes the tone doesn't feel just right, occasionally the comedy feels misjudged especially since this is a film about an old woman who has been murdered but the great ending which I didn't see coming makes up for any shifts in tone.

Also nominated at the 1958 ceremony was a film which is still my favourite of all time that being the late Sidney Lumet's classic 12 Angry Men. If you haven't seen the film then you need to as, in the words of one of my friends, it's good for you but I will indulge you with a small plot summary nonetheless. Almost all of the film takes place in a jury room in which the twelve men who make up the jury are discussing whether the boy on trial killed his father or not and if they find him guilty he will go to the chair. The boy has been raised in a slum and two witnesses attest to seeing the boy stab his father or that they heard him shout that he was going to kill him. Initially only Henry Fonda's Juror Number 8 stands up for the boy voting Not Guilty in the first round of votes so that there can be a discussion about the trial and whether all the evidence was completely accurate. Some people bring their own prejudices to the table for example one juror has a problem with people from slum backgrounds while another lets his personal issues cloud his judgment. The best thing about the film, in my opinion, is the way in which the plot unravels and the characters are given more depth as the time goes on. We only learn two of the juror's names and that only happens in the very final scene instead they are referred to simply by their juror numbers. Despite the cramped setting, filmic techniques are still employed throughout 12 Angry Men including using different shots to focus on either the whole set or one character in particular for example a close-up on Juror Number 4 who in his own words never sweats but is in fact seen perspiring during one key moment. I honestly can't find fault with this film and have seen it so many times and I'm still horrified that it didn't win Best Picture or at least Best Screenplay. The only actor nominated for his role in the film was Fonda which I think is a mistake there are plenty of strong performances most notably from Lee J Cobb as the last angry man Juror No. 3. Overall a masterpiece and that's my final word on the matter.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 59: Journeys to India and France

A bit of globe-trotting now as we journey to India and then to France. First off is the Lives of a Bengal Lancer which was nominated for Best Picture at the 1936 ceremony. It's hard to describe the film as it isn't really a war film although it does feature scenes of conflict. It is set during the days of the British Raj where Lt. McGregor is stationed and welcomes two new Lieutenants the cocksure Forsythe and Tom Stone the son of the unit's commander Donald. It is this relationship between father and son that is the backbone of the film, as Tom is captured following being tempted by a woman working for the villainous Mohammed Kahn. Despite being told by Donald not to go after his son, Forsythe and McGregor journey to the enemy camp where they are captured and all three are tortured. Tom eventually gives out sensitive information to Kahn but before he can use it Donald and his men burst in and in the ensuing battle Tom kills Kahn but McGregor dies. Tom and Forsythe are given medals of honour and McGregor is posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross. Although not exactly packed full of action, The Lives of a Bengal Lancer was still a very accomplished picture. This was mainly due to the screenplay, which was nominated for the Oscar, which gave opportunities for all the central characters chances to grow and develop and also develop some laddish banter, especially that between Forsythe and McGregor. The acting is also very good with Gary Cooper giving his best performance so far on this quest and Richard Cromwell was also very stoic as Donald the man who wanted to get to know his son but his life as a soldier and almost stunted his emotions. The film was nominated for eight Oscars in total but only one two Oscars for its assistant directors, which is a shame as I really enjoyed this one.

After looking at Charles Dickens adaptations the other day, we have another adaptation this time of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, now much better known as a musical than from its source text. In this version it is Frederic Marsh who plays Frenchman Jean Valjean the man who is imprisoned and after escaping is treated almost like a beggar but is able to rehabilitated by a kindly priest. He then transforms himself into Monsieur Madelaine a factory owner and later mayor however he encounters Inspector Javert, played by Charles Laughton, the head of the police who he remembers from his time in prison. At the same time Madeline takes in the woman-of-questionable-morals Fantine and her daughter Cossette. Javert reveals that a man is being tried under the name of Valjean, as he is about to be imprisoned the real Valjean reveals himself. Just before Javert is able to bring him to justice he escapes along with Cossette. Valjean is then able to work as a gardener and make enough money to enrol Cossette into a fancy school. During this final part of the story there is an uprising in France as groups start to rebel against the harsh nature of the police. Cossette falls for the leader of the group, who themselves start to attract police attention. This means that Javert comes back into Valjean's life, although Javert is captured by Valjean he reconsiders and lets him go. Javert continues to pursue Valjean but in the end commits suicide by jumping in the river and Valjean and Cossette are reunited. Having only been faintly familiar with the story I think Richard Boleslawski did a good job of bringing it to life. The scenes at the end of the film involving Javert and Valjean are incredibly startling as our Valjean's life following him leaving prison. Like with a star is born, Frederic March is able to display a full range of emotions as Valjean while Charles Laughton steals the show as the villainous and despicable Javert. The film doesn't outstay its welcome and hits all the main plot points without lingering on any one character for too long. However it lost to another Laughton film, Mutiny on The Bounty.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 32: Not Much of a Bounty

It's been a while since I've watched a winner and the Mutiny on The Bounty DVD has been lingering on the side since it was delivered from LoveFilm several weeks ago. Mutiny on The Bounty one the Best Picture Award at the 1936 ceremony beating off competition from films I've watched already including a Midsummer Night's Dream, Captain Blood, Ruggles of Red Gap and Top Hat. Another film that I've already watched, The Informer, was nominated alongside Mutiny on The Bounty and was the big winner that year. In fact Victor McLaglen won Best Actor over three actors in Mutiny on The Bounty - Charles Laughton, Clark Gable and Franchot Tone. Having previously bigged up McLaglen's performance I'm now not entirely convinced that he deserved the award mainly because Charles Laughton's performance as the monstrous Captain Bligh was completely mesmerising. If the award for Best Supporting Actor was around then (it didn't come in till the year after) I think Laughton would've fit that role better. As you can probably guess from the title the plot revolves around the ship The Bounty and the mutiny that eventually occurs on it. That is mainly due to the way that Bligh tortures the sailors under his command and eventually Clark Gable's Officer Fletcher Christian decides enough is enough and sets Bligh adrift with a number of his supporters. Meanwhile Franchot Tone plays the man in the middle who is forced into mutiny and goes back to England to face his penalties at the end of the film.

For me the film was at its best in the scenes on the ship with Laughton lashing the disobedient sailors and depriving them of food. He was absolutely brilliant in the role and I feel the film lags when he's not in it. Most of these scenes are off the ship in 'Tahiti' where both Christian and Tone's Byam fall in love with local girls. I found a lot of the portrayal of the natives insulting and their native ways were sneered upon. It is Tone rather than Gable who is the dashing male lead and is the more reasonable of the three men, meanwhile Gable gets to play the rebel and probably changes the most throughout the film. While The Informer was the big movie at that year's Oscars, the grand scale of Mutiny on The Bounty obviously shined over the gloomy 'Irish' scenery in John Ford's film. I certainly think this film was better but I don't know if I want to watch it again, however I have to watch the remake which was also nominated for the Oscar in the 1970s.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 27: The Butler Did It

In 1934, Charles Laughton won a Best Actor Oscar for his role in The Private Life of Henry VIII which cemented his career and made him a big name in Hollywood. Fast forward two years and Laughton stars in two films both nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. One was eventual winner Mutiny on The Bounty which got him a Best Actor Nomination, the other was culture clash comedy Ruggles of Red Gap, a film that gives us very old school humour and presents us with several stereotypes in order to give us the desired comic effect. Laughton plays Ruggles, a man servant to an English lord who is lost in a card game to a ghastly American couple who have come into money and have ideas above their station. While the wife wants their money to improve their lifestyle, the husband would rather stay grounded and be a rich cowboy wearing completely checked suits and sporting a giant moustache. The first half of the film takes place in Paris in which Ruggles is encouraged to relax by the husband and he gets him to start drinking which doesn't sit well. Ruggles is certainly taken back to Red Gap in Washington where he meets the wife's brother-in-law who also has aspirations above his station. While the wife and brother-in-law expect Ruggles to stay true to his manservant roots the rest of the population of Red Gap are quite happy for him to become a new man. The comedy takes an unexpected turn when Ruggles falls for a local girl and also gets mistaken for an English colonel an event which leads to him being sacked by the brother-in-law. Ruggles then finally finds himself becoming more independent and, in probably the film's finest scene, is the only one in a bar full of Americans to be able to remember Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This inspires him to open his own restaurant and at the end he is congratulated by his old boss for making a success of his life.

Ruggles of Red Gap is a very simple film and one that would never be nominated for an Oscar today although the high standard of the acting puts it ahead of any modern culture clash comedies. The Americans are either a little bit stupid or a little bit stuck-up, the French are all very randy and the British are incredibly reserved. Laughton's performance is brilliant and his transformation from obedient manservant to someone who is able to embrace Red Gap as his new home is just fantastic. Mary Boland and Charles Ruggles are also very good as the tiresome Floods, Boland especially excels as the nouveau-riche monster. Overall very enjoyable and charming comedy but one, it seems, that was used to bump the Best Picture category up to ten as it was not nominated for any other awards.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 22: The British Are Coming, The British Are Coming

Gandhi, A Man For All Seasons, The English Patient, Chariots of Fire and Slumdog Millionaire all British films that won Best Picture at the Oscars over the years. But the first ever British film to be nominated for Best Picture was at the 1934 ceremony and that film was The Private Life of Henry VIII. The film's plot is basically self-explanatory, as it is about Henry's relationship with his wives, well most of them anyway. To just give you an example of how historically accurate the film is the opening subtitles tell us that - 'Henry VIII had six wives, Catherine of Aragon was the first but her story is of no particular interest she was a respectable woman so Henry divorced her'. From there we get what is basically Henry VIII: The Edited highlights. The start of the film sees Merle Oberon as Anne Boleyn getting ready for her execution like she was getting ready to go for a good night out. Charles Laughton's Oscar winning performance as Henry starts off as he barks at some of his staff and then flirts with his new young wife Jane Seymour. After Boleyn's head is chopped off we flash forward 18 months were Seymour has given birth to a son while Henry is hunting but has died before he gets back. The main crux of the film though is about Catherine Howard, who is one of the more obscure of Henry's wives, and her ambition to be queen despite her having a relationship with one of Henry's courtsmen. But first Anne of Cleves the famous ugly wife, who isn't actually ugly but makes herself unattractive to Henry so she can re-marry her first love. Then Howard gets her claws into Henry but it's not long before she gets her head chopped off for her affair. There's just about five minutes of screen time left for Henry to finally get a 'good wife' in Catherine Parr who is first seen as Elizabeth and Edward's nanny and she begins to nanny Henry into his final years the last shot being one of Henry with the infamous chicken leg in his mouth.

What an auspicious start to the British film entries into the Academy Shortlist? A film full of historical inaccuracies and bawdy behaviour which gave everybody the image of a fat Henry VIII who loved to shove chicken legs in his mouth. As Henry, Charles Laughton earned his only Oscar and this propelled him and legendary British director Alexander Korda to fame. This is a very well-produced and well scripted film but there are some lines today which would cause anarchy but said by Henry they are meant to be archaic, there's a nice line about North Americans being savages which I'm sure the American audiences just loved. At just over 90 minutes it's by no means a historical epic but whatever it is this was the first time that the Brits could be proud of a film that did so well across the pond.