Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 437-438: Jumping Through Hooper's

Tom Hooper is a director who went on an interesting journey on his way to the Oscar podium. Initially directing episodes of the likes of Byker Grove and Eastenders, Hooper found his niche in helming one-off TV movies about real people. These films included Longford and Elizabeth I as well as the cinematic release; The Damned United in which our old friend Michael Sheen played notorious football manager Brian Clough. It was a film based on a real story that earned Hooper national acclaim and saw him scoop the Best Director award at the 2011 ceremony.

That film in question was The King's Speech which had an interesting journey from initial conception to arriving on the screen. Screenwriter David Seidler learnt of the relationship between King George VI and Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue and wanted to tell the story partly because he himself had a stammer. After securing the diaries of Logue, his plans were halted when the Queen Mother asked Seidler not to write anything while she was still alive. After she passed away, Seidler continued writing and the finished article was his play The King's Speech. The film went on to become one of the most-watched films of that year and it attracted a generation to the cinema who hadn't been in years. Part of the reason for this is that The King's Speech is quite a universal tale about finding one's voice and standing up for yourself. At times The King's Speech resembles a sports film as it features many montages of Logue and King George training up for the latter's next important public function. But more than that it's about how a friendship can inspire somebody to be more than they ever thought they could be. I think the fact that the character in question is a British monarch is entirely by-the-by and instead the odd couple relationship works in the favour of The King's Speech. The film builds up to a sterling finale where Logue helps George prepare for the speech he is forced to deliver to announce Britain's entry into the Second World War. This scene is made all the more poignant by the inclusion of Beethoven's 7th symphony playing over the top of it which some people thought was actually part of Alexandre Desplat's original score.

Of course, like most of the films on this list, if you poke at The King's Speech too much holes will eventually start to appear. At times it did feel as if we were being rushed through the history of Britain between the wars, with the section on Edward and Mrs. Simpson being particularly poorly paced. However Seidler's main concern wasn't particularly with the history of the piece but rather with the characters themselves. This to me lifted The King's Speech over other similar period pieces that have been nominated for, and in this film's case, won the Best Picture award. The film is further enhanced by a trio of fine performers led by the spectacular Colin Firth in the role of King George. What's wonderful about Firth's performance is that he never overdoes George's speech impediment and he makes you really feel for the character every time he is stuck with nothing to say. I think that Firth makes the role more than just the disability as he ably portrays George's loving relationship with his wife and two daughters. As his wife, Helena Bonham Carter is just magnificent as she plays Elizabeth with the right mix of dignity and rebelliousness. Carter and Firth's chemistry is just perfect and they make for a believable royal couple throughout the film. Also worthy of a mention is Geoffrey Rush who is a joy to watch as the jobbing Australian actor who finds himself in a rather odd situation. Rush's larger-than-life turn is the perfect contrast to Firth's introverted performance and therefore the two make a rather great pair. The King's Speech went on to be the big winner at that year's Oscars with Hooper, Seidler and Firth all picking up awards along the way. Whilst by no means perfect, The King's Speech is a great character-driven piece that is more than just a costume drama. While it's never utterly remarkable, The King's Speech is an easy watch and one that has just enough positive features to justify its Best Picture win.

Two years later, Hooper returned with an adaptation of a much-loved musical that had been incredibly successful during its stage run. It's also one of only a few films to have its story adapted for two Best Picture winners as we previously saw a straight version of Les Miserables back in the 1930s. This time there is barely any dialogue as almost every word of Victor Hugo's original novel has been transformed into song by Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil. According to my research, the total number of songs in Les Miserables is a staggering fifty-one even if some our reprises and others don't last very long. One thing Hooper did differently from any of the other musical films we've seen so far is to get his actors to sing live. This worked well for most of the performers, many of whom had previous musical experience either on stage or on screen. However, this isn't true of Russell Crowe whose musical performance as the film's main antagonist Javert had been criticised by most. While I agree with them, I think Javert is the one role where the singing doesn't have to be that strong and I thought that Crowe was an impressive enough presence for his musical weakness not to be that much of hindrance. I thought that Crowe also worked well against Hugh Jackman who portrayed the film's hero Jean Valjean brilliantly. Despite Jackman being known for portraying action heroes on screen, he has a background in musical theatre will is well-utilised during the first half of the film. This half of the film covers a lot of ground and sees Valjean go from convict to mayor and factory owner in a number of years. Valjean's redemption comes after he takes in Cosette, the daughter of one of his late factory workers Satine. Anne Hathaway won the Best Supporting Actress Award for her role as Satine mainly as she nailed one of the musical's most memorable numbers 'I Dreamed a Dream'.

However, I personally feel as if the second half of the film is stronger than the first thanks to the themes of the French Revolution. I feel Hooper is at his strongest when portraying the conflict between the poor residents of Paris and the nobility. His direction of the film's key number 'Can You Hear the People Sing' is brilliantly done and reflects how well the musical has translated onto the screen. I would say that ascetically, Les Miserables is beautifully realised with every set, costume and character designed within an inch of their lives. Meanwhile the unrequited love between the lovely Eponine and revolutionary leader Marius is wonderful to watch thanks in part to the performance from Samantha Barks. In my opinion Barks, who at the time was a relative unknown, deserved as much recognition for her role as Hathaway did for hers but unfortunately this wasn't the case. I personally thought that the one weak point of this second half was the budding romance between Marius and the adult Cosette which I felt was a sickly sweet affair. In my opinion Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne didn't have great chemistry and therefore I didn't care if their characters got together or not. Les Miserables also saw Hooper work with Helena Bonham Carter once again as she portrayed landlady Madame Thernardier and made a great double act with Sacha Baron Cohen as her husband. In fact the scenes with the unscrupulous Thernadiers were some of my favourites and provided such much needed comedy in between all the dramatic revolutionary uprising. While enjoyable in parts, Les Miserables was too long for my liking and not all of the songs worked their magic on me as they did other people. While the performances, most notably those from Jackman and Barks, were good there was nothing about Les Miserables that was particularly remarkable. Although I do appreciate that Hooper wanted to do something different after The King's Speech I didn't think that he left much a mark on Les Miserables with his only input seeming to be the decision to have the actors sing live. But realistically there was very little difference between the film and stage versions of Les Miserables and I think the film would've received the same feedback regardless of who was directing it.

Next time we turn our attention to an actress who changed people's perceptions of her during the first half of the 2010s.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 328-329: The Two Faces of Elizabeth I

Even in the early days of Oscar, the academy loved British films that focused on the Tudor Monarchy. In fact the first ever British film to be nominated for an Oscar was The Private Life of Henry VIII for which Charles Laughton won a Best Actor statuette. At the 1999 Oscars, Henry's daughter Elizabeth featured in two films which focused on different stages of her reign. Although Elizabeth was played by different actors the pair of movies did share a pair of actors who featured prominently throughout. 

The imaginatively named Elizabeth was the first of these two films and saw Cate Blanchett take on the role of the titular Queen. Shekhar Kapur's film was based around Elizabeth's ascent to the throne following her sister Mary's death and her struggles to gain the respect she needed. It didn't help matters that everybody around her was trying to marry her off every five minutes or get her to declare a war on some country or other. It really seemed to me as if Elizabeth would've been better off continuing to dance round that field with Joseph Fiennes' Dudley rather than committing herself to running the country. Obviously things got a bit more complicated when it turned out when Dudley was married and plotting to have her removed from the throne. But the only other alternative was Vincent Cassel's hilariously campy cross-dressing French King who was flanked by an intimidating Eric Cantona. On the performances front, Elizabeth really belonged to Cate Blanchett who became an overnight sensation after appearing in the film. Elizabeth's transformation is the key aspect of Michael Hirst's script and Blanchett deals with this perfectly. She is convincing as the naive exile in the aforementioned dancing scenes but is equally great commanding rooms full of sceptical men. I feel the turning point in the film is Elizabeth's appearance in front of the bishops which Blanchett plays incredibly well, initially seeming nervous before becoming the strong-willed woman we know she will be. Geoffrey Rush puts in a supporting turn as Elizabeth's devious supporter Walsingham who ends up being her biggest ally. Rush is brilliant as he utilises a number of inquisitive facial expressions and tries to get the audience to second guess his actions. Christopher Eccleston's Norfolk is an incredibly brooding villain as he uses his cunning rather than any sort of brutality to get what he wants. The film is give an air of legitimacy via the inclusion of veteran performers such as Richard Attenborough and John Gielgud whilst at the same time introducing some new faces like Daniel Craig and Emily Mortimer. 

It's this use of new faces and exciting visuals that sets Elizabeth out from the standard costume drama. I was personally won over straight away when the incredibly modern title card sequence flashed across the screen. The intrusive camera work in some scenes helped make the audience part of the action and livened up an occasionally dull story. I was surprised that, among the seven Oscar nominations the film received, the innovative editing wasn't even recognised. I felt that several of the film's key sequences relied on some great editing to make them feel important and give Elizabeth the modern twist it deserved. Additionally, the film was unflinching in its depiction of violence, which I feel was another positive attribute to Elizabeth's overall success. From the burning of the protestants at the beginning of the film right up to Norfolk's beheading, Elizabeth set out to show us that life in the Tudor court wasn't all bonnets and balls. Up to this point I feel most of the period dramas have kept the violence and bloodshed behind closed doors but Elizabeth swung those doors wide open. The narrative of the film was well-paced and the two hour runtime perfectly suited the story of a Queen struggling to rule her nation. My main disappointment was that the film didn't pick up as many Oscars as it should have done, only winning the award for Best Make-up. Whilst I felt that the Tudor faces were well realised, Elizabeth was much more than just your standard costume drama. But the reason for its failure at the awards can be attributed to the next film on my list. 

The film was Shakespeare in Love, which won that year's Best Picture and a further six Oscars including one for Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth I. Dench's role in the film was minimal and therefore some sniped at her Oscar win. I have to admit at the time I was one of them but after seeing the likes of Beatrice Straight and Maureen Stapleton win Best Supporting Actress with minimal screen time I changed my mind. Dench's Elizabeth was definitely a scene-stealer and she portrayed the Queen as somebody who was frustrated by those who stood on ceremony. Dench dealt well with the comic nature of the screenplay and was convincing as the legendary virgin queen. The link between the two performances is the line in which Elizabeth talks about being a woman in a man's profession, something she's had to cope with since her reign began. Dench wasn't the only actress to win an award for the film as Gwynth Paltrow triumphed, playing theatre-fan Viola De Lessops. Viola's romance with Shakespeare during the rehearsals for Romeo and Juliet is the basis of the film which is odd seeing as she poses as a man for large portions of the movie. Gwyenth does put in a lively turn but does nothing to convince me that she should've beaten Blanchett at that year's Oscar ceremony. Geoffrey Rush and Joseph Fiennes do double duty in this entry as they play theatre owner Henslowe and the titular playwright respectively. Fiennes is a perfectly serviceable leading man and shares fine chemistry with Paltrow which helps to make their on-screen romance convincing. Rush meanwhile is the perfect comic foil for the rest of the cast and his harassed Henslowe is the stand-out turn of a great supporting cast. One of my favourite performances in the film came from Tom Wilkinson as Hugh Fennyman, a loan shark who gets enraptured by the theatre after bankrolling Romeo and Juliet. 

I don't personally feel that there's that much wrong with Shakespeare in Love and it's not particularly offensive. Instead it just feels a little unremarkable and too whimsical to ever be taken seriously as a Best Picture contender. Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman's script is a little knowing and overly comic for a film that I feel should be a little bit more serious. That being said I did enjoy some of the little touches; most notably the fact that the rowers are presented like modern-day taxi drivers. I have to admit that I did enjoy the film's final act as the performance of Romeo and Juliet itself was the highlight of the film. But it was the journey to the theatre that was the problem and I found plenty of the film's characters uninteresting or unlikeable. Stoppard and Norman don't appear to have put in a lot of work into making Colin Firth's Wessex a serious enough threat to Viola and Shakespeare's relationship. Even though she ultimately travels to America with him her heart will always be with the romantic playwright. I do feel it's a little mean to constantly cast Firth as the cuckold as he played a similar third wheel as Kristin Scott Thomas' husband in The English Patient. So how did a lightweight comedy costume drama come to be the last film to win Best Picture in the twentieth century? Well that's down to its involvement with Harvey Weinstein's Miramax studios which are notorious for aggressively campaigning for their films to win awards. Weinstein's campaign for Shakespeare in Love's win including holding a party for director John Madden and inviting several of the academy's key voters. He put millions of dollars into securing the film won in as many categories as possible and he was ultimately successful. However, after watching these two films back-to-back, its clear that Shakespeare in Love wasn't even the best Elizabethan film to be released that year. It's just a shame that politics and campaigning can get in the way of the right film winning the Best Picture and I feel that the 1999 ceremony exemplifies that point perfectly. 

Next time we stay with costume drama as we focus on the continued success of Merchant Ivory.