Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 258-260: The Further Adventures of Redford and Newman

So here we are in the 1980s a decade in which the Oscar-nominated films weren't the most interesting being made at the time. In this decade I will be looking at familiar faces from the past decades and looking at what they're doing now while in addition focusing on some of the new stars of the era. I'll start though by delivering on a promise that I made in the last post and seeing what Robert Redford and Paul Newman got up to in the 1980s.

Strangely the first film on this list features neither Redford nor Newman but instead is the former's directorial debut. Interestingly, Paul Newman's directorial debut - Rachel, Rachel was also Oscar-nominated but Redford went one better and actually won the Best Director Award. Also winning that year's Best Picture statuette, Ordinary People focused on a seemingly normal suburban family who were going through a terrible ordeal. Their older son Buck died in a boating accident the previous year whilst younger son Conrad, who was also in the boat, tried to commit suicide presumably at his guilt over causing the accident. The film starts just after a month after Conrad's return to the hospital and sees him taking up dad Calvin's suggestion of seeing a therapist. The therapist in question, Dr Berger, is quite long-in-the-tooth and doesn't appear to be that interested in what Conrad has to say. But, rather predictably in my eyes, the pair forms a relationship that grows into a stronger bond than that which Conrad shares with his mother Beth. Throughout the film, Beth is constantly trying to prove that everything is alright and that her family is completely normal, when in actuality they are far from it. An early scene at a friend's party shows the disparity between the couple as Beth is making idle chit-chat whilst Calvin is having an earnest conversation about his son's health. Calvin later finds himself caught in the middle when Beth snaps at Conrad for having quit the swim team without consulting them. Though Ordinary People is seen as Conrad's story, especially considering he is also involved in an awkward romantic plot, for me this is all about Calvin's failure to appease both of the people who loves dearly.

I did indeed feel that Ordinary People was as its best when focusing on the relationships between the three members of the Jarrett family. The strained relationship between Beth and Conrad was brilliantly handled as was the way that Calvin and Beth behave in private and when out with friends. I did feel that Ordinary People was less successful when we were dealing with Conrad on his own and especially when we saw him pal around with his school friends or attempt to romance choir member Jeannine. Similarly, Conrad's exchanges with Dr. Berger felt a little exaggerated and spoilt the realistic narrative that I feel Redford and the writers were going for. This was definitely an assured debut for Redford, however at times I did feel that he was a little obvious with he let his audience see. For example, I feel that the boating accident in which Buck died shouldn't have been part of the film and instead should have just been an event that the audience pictured in their own mind. I had a similar issue when Calvin was thinking about finding Conrad dead in the bathroom but I feel that ultimately this seen worked thanks to the facial expressions of Donald Sutherland. Indeed, I found Sutherland to be the best performer out of the central cast and he made Calvin feel the most real out of any of the major characters. Oddly, Sutherland was the only major cast member not nominated for an Oscar which I feel is a major oversight on the part of the academy. Best known for her work as the nation's favourite sitcom star, Mary Tyler Moore played a fairly unlikeable character in socially aware Beth. I felt Moore's performance was incredibly compelling and she shared great chemistry with Sutherland. Another sitcom actor, Judd Hirsch, was cast as Dr. Berger a role he played with vigour even if I didn't feel he completely pulled it off. Meanwhile, in his debut, Timothy Hutton was awarded with a Best Supporting Actor award for his role as Conrad. Though not perfect, Hutton was an engaging presence especially when he was onscreen with a member of the Jarrett family. Whilst Ordinary People was an interesting exploration into suburban life, it didn't exactly leave a lasting impression and therefore I'm not quite sure how it won Best Picture. In fact the only thing that's stayed with me about the film is its use of Pachelbel's Canon which is currently stuck in my head.

Whilst his buddy was jumping behind the camera, Paul Newman was staying very much in front of it, playing attorney Frank Galvin in The Verdict. Once a member of a major law firm, Galvin has recently has suffered a fall from grace due to his divorce and the fact that he hasn't been able to win a case. Galvin's old friend Mickey hands him a new case in which the family of a woman in a coma is suing the hospital that the feel put her in that condition. Five years ago, Debra Ann Kay went into the hospital to have a baby but was given the wrong anaesthetic and ended up comatose. Mickey gives the case to Galvin as he feels the Catholic hospital will most likely want to settle out of court. The hospital's lawyers offer Galvin £210,000 to settle but, after visiting Debra in hospital, he feels that he has to do the right thing and takes the case to trial. Frank is fighting a losing battle from the word go as he finds himself up against slimy defence attorney Ed Concannon and a bench full of lawyers. In addition, all of the doctors who were in the operating room are covering each other's backs and the only person who'll testify is an MD who regularly appears as a star witness. Even the trial's judge works against Frank as he seems as somewhat of an adversary. Just when it looks like Frank is out for the count, he figures out exactly why only one of the nurses wouldn't testify. He works with this particle of information and eventually finds a witness that will be able to testify against the hospital. I personally feel that The Verdict plays out almost like a sports film with Frank being the once great sportsman who now struggles to keep up with the youngsters. So, just like a sports movie, the final scenes let the audience decide whether Frank still has it or if he'll lose to somebody who has superior tactics.

The Verdict perfectly demonstrates the sort of role Paul Newman was taking at this point in his career. He was no longer Butch Cassidy or The Sting's Henry Gondorff and instead specialised in playing once great men who are past their former glory. Though he only was nominated for Best Actor here, it would be reprising the role of The Hustler's Eddie Felson that would finally win him the award four years later. His performance in The Verdict is a thing of beauty and perfectly demonstrates how Newman devotes himself entirely to his character. Despite his faults, we're rooting for Frank Galvin from the word-go as he's a man that's willing to do the right thing and essentially wants to right the wrongs he's made in the past. Every good hero needs an antagonist and James Mason plays his role as Concannon perfectly. Regularly cool, calm and collected; Concannon is later revealed to be a master manipulator and attempts to defend the hospital, fully knowing that they're in the wrong. Providing excellent support are Charlotte Rampling, as Frank's love interest Laura, and Jack Warden as his best mate Mickey. As well as marking Newman's final appearance in a Best Picture nominee, The Verdict marks the last appearance in this blog of Sidney Lumet. Lumet once again is able to direct a character-driven piece that provides shocks and ultimately makes us care about the outcome. Lumet was aided by a brilliant script from David Mamet, who creates a group of characters who feel realistic and are forced to make moral decisions that we may have to make at some point. The Verdict is definitely a stripped-down old-fashioned courtroom drama but it does what it does excellently. It's fair to say that, of the three films I've watched in this post, The Verdict was definitely the one I enjoyed the most so surprisingly it's the only one that didn't go on to win Best Picture.

Three years later, Robert Redford would go on to star in his final on-screen role in a Best Picture nominee, that being eventual victor Out of Africa. Though Redford's name appears first on the opening credits, he doesn't appear much in the film's first hour. Instead we follow the exploits of Karen Blixen, a Danish lady who early on marries her friend Baron Blixen and takes him to her family's farm in what is now Kenya. Once in Africa, Karen is introduced to Redford's big game hunter Denys through a mutual friend Berkeley Cole. As the philandering Blixen often leaves Karen to her own devices she starts to entertain both Berkeley and Denys. The First World War changes things in Africa, with Karen forced to move out of her farm and she later returns to Denmark after contracting a fairly serious disease. The second half of the film charts the course of the relationship between Karen and Denys as she moves him into her house and the two begin a courtship of sorts. But any opportunity to make their relationship into a more permanent arrangement is thwarted by Denys' lack of commitment and his insistence to live like a wild animal. Denys would rather fly his plane around then enter a serious conversation about marriage and Karen finally realises that their romance is doomed. Following a number of other tragedies, Karen prepares to leave Africa and hopes to reunite with Denys on more time before journeying to Denmark.

I feel that director Sydney Pollack really brought Karen's story to life due to the dazzling cinematography which perfectly captured the Kenyan scenery. The scenes that really stuck in my head were the set pieces involving Karen's first arrival into Africa and her first trip in the plane with Denys. The sweeping shots of the African countryside are perfectly accompanied by John Barry's majestic score. However, despite its visual grandeur, Out of Africa was beset by many problems, the first being its length. Clocking in at over two and half hours, the film had a meandering narrative that felt like it was trying to stick too much to the original source materials. In fact every detail of Karen's life was included in the film and I did feel as if Pollack could have edited Out of Africa down to about two hours. Though she is given some gorgeous costumes to wear, I never really believed in Meryl Streep's Oscar-nominated performance as Karen. As well as a wavering accent, she never really made me care about Karen's struggles and so I wasn't that disappointed when things didn't go her way. At times it appeared as if Redford was in a different movie to Streep as his performance of Denys almost felt like he was channelling an India Jones-esque hero. Though Redford and Streep did have some chemistry, it was still a stretch to believe in their on-screen romance which was the basis of the film's second half. To me the best performances came from the supporting cast namely Michael Kitchen as Berkeley and Klaus Maria Brandauer as Baron Blixen. Despite some stunning visuals, Out of Africa to me felt too over-indulgent and long-winded to be a really good film. Due to its important message and exotic locations, I can understand why it won Best Picture but I have a sneaking suspicion that there were better released that year that deserved it more.

So that's it as far as on-screen performances from Redford and Newman are concerned. Whilst another of Redford's directorial efforts will pop up in the 1990s, neither would appear in a Best Picture nominee again. I do feel that both, Newman in particular, have progressed a lot since we first met them and this post begins an interesting trend of following the career trajectory of actors who we've followed for quite some time. Continuing the theme next time is a film featuring a man who starred in two of my favourite nominated films from the 1970s.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 235-236: Altman's All-Stars

As regular readers of the Oscar Challenge blog will now, I often put together films from the same director that have been nominated in the same decade. This time it's the turn of Robert Altman whose movies M*A*S*H and Nashville were give nods in the 1970s. Both very different in tone, they are similar in the way that Altman employs his ensemble casts and the sprawling nature of the plot.

In the early 1970s, Altman had his first breakthrough with M*A*S*H, a film loosely based on Richard Hooker's original novel about medical personnel stationed at an army hospital during the Korean War. The main plot of the film sees three new surgeons arrive at camp and instantly stir things up. The first two of these troublemakers are 'Hawkeye' Pierce and 'Duke' Forest who regularly steal, drink and cause chaos. They instantly rub their new cam pmates up the wrong way especially Robert Duvall's religious Frank Burns who they're able to get rid of due to his inferior surgical abilities. Senior nurse Margaret Houlihan is similarly outraged by their sexist behaviour and their insistence on referring to her as 'Hotlips'. Joining their number soon after is 'Trapper' McIntyre another surgeon who is as insubordinate as Hawkeye and Duke. The film then becomes quite episodic in nature but does see Trapper and Hawkeye become medical heroes after saving the lives of a congressman's son. Despite seemingly uninterested in their work, our central duo are always concerned with doing the right thing, even if they have to resort to blackmail to do it. This theme about the working man sticking up for the people who can't defend themselves, spoke to the audiences of the 1970s who were experiencing political unrest at the time.

Altman quickly marked himself out as a maverick director by using very little of the original source novel for his book while in addition encouraging the actors to improvise in certain scenes. However, when the film was made in 1970, Altman hadn't earned the reputation yet to work in such a reckless way. This led to the film's leads Elliot Gould and Donald Sutherland to try and get Altman sacked on numerous occasions. Obviously, the film today is hailed as a classic and went to win the Palme d'Or at Cannes as well as the Oscar for Best Screenplay. Altman's gambles all paid off here as I thoroughly enjoyed M*A*S*H and thought it was one of the best Oscar-nominated comedies of all time. As Hawkeye and Trapper; Sutherland and Gould were fantastic and they shared great on-screen chemistry throughout. Altman's script was packed full of great lines but there was plenty of social commentary hidden behind the laughs. Despite having quite a sporadic structure, M*A*S*H was held together thanks to the strength of its characters and the solid narrative that Altman provided throughout. This film fully put Altman on the map and, after watching it, it's not hard to see exactly why.

Five years later, Altman returned to the Best Picture list with another film that has a sprawling narrative - Nashville. Set in the musical city of Tennessee; Nashville follows twenty-four characters during five days which lead up to a political rally for vice-presidential candidate Hal Philip Walker. The film basically focuses on the country music scene and the measures some will go to to enhance their careers. There's the legendary Haven Hamilton, who has political aspirations of his home and whose fame is fading fast. Barbara Jean is one of the most popular country singers around but suffers from exhaustion and spends most of the film in hospital. As the country music business is a fickle one, Barbara Jean's manager eventually replaces her at several events with the inferior but beautiful Connie White. We also meet Tom Frank, a womanising member of a country music trio who attempts to break out on his own throughout the course of the film. Then there's Sueleen Gay, another aspiring country singer who has no talent what to speak of and gets exploited in one of the film's most memorable scenes. The film's climax brings the majority of the characters together at the aforementioned rally and sees one of the characters attempt to shoot two of Nashville's biggest stars. Despite this tragedy occurring Winifred, another aspiring country singer, takes to the stage and finally gets her big break.

Having enjoyed the sprawling, episodic narrative throughout M*A*S*H, I was dismayed that I didn't enjoy the same structure so much with Nashville. I believe part of the reason for that is due to the fact that it's a drama rather than a comedy so can't get away with being as fragmented as Altman's previous film. One of the other issues the film had is that there's far too many characters and interconnected plots for the film to work. At over two and a half hours, I felt the film dragged too much despite the fact that almost half of it was musical performances by various members of the cast. That being said some of these musical performances were incredibly entertaining and really gave Nashville a sense of place. In fact one of its more positive features is how it immerses the viewer in the culture and style of Nashville; including the religious nature of all of its inhabitants seen in the scenes set at various church services. There were some brilliant performances amongst the ensemble most notably from Lily Tomlin, Ronee Blakely and Henry Gibson. Throughout this voyage I have questioned why a few of these films are held up as classics and I'm afraid I'll have to add Nashville to this ever-growing list. Don't get me wrong I did enjoy parts of it, but as a whole it was overlong and incredibly dull in places.

Next time we have yet another comedy, the last of the genre to win the Best Picture Award.