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.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 283-284: Peter's Pictures

Throughout this challenge I have encountered some directors that I've previously been unaware of in the past. This is usually because these directors aren't particularly big names and don't get the same publicity as the likes of Spielberg and Scorsese. One of these directors is British Peter Yates who, by the 1980s, had already helmed a diverse range of films from the Cliff Richard classic Summer Holiday to the iconic Steve McQueen picture Bullitt. But it wasn't till the 1980s that his films began to get nominated for Best Picture, with two very different offerings up for the big prize.

The first film is an incredibly American piece of cinema, so much so that it's hard to imagine that it's been directed by a Brit. Breaking Away focuses on four nineteen-year-old men living in the college town of Bloomington, Indiana none of whom have elected to take on higher education. Dave, Mike, Cyril and Moocher have instead decided to take a year off from doing anything in particular much to the chagrin of Dave's second-hand car dealer father. Dave's big passion in cycling and in particular he has a love from everything Italian from the music to the language. Posing as an Italian exchange student, Dave captures the eye of college attendee Kath and the two begin a relationship. Meanwhile, Dave is excited when a group of Italian racers come to town, primarily as he is eager to compete against them. However, the experience at the race leaves him disenfranchised with life in general and he drops the Italian fascination altogether. Meanwhile Mike, sick of being disparaged by the college students, is eager for the group to participate in the 'Little 500' a bike ride that is traditionally only open to the members of the institution. This forces a dejected Dave to put his life in order and build a proper relationship with a father that he has more in common with than he first thought.

Breaking Away definitely feels like it's been influenced by coming-of-age films like The Last Picture Show and American Graffiti. But, whereas those films were stuck in the past, Breaking Away still feels relevant almost thirty-five years after it was released. There's just something relatable about the four central protagonists who haven't quite decided want they want to do with their lives and are under pressure to find their place in life. Steve Tesich's script is incredibly well-observed as the four protagonists talk to each other as young men would and each has a clearly defined character. The cycling motif of Breaking Away forms some of the film's best set pieces namely the end race which has plenty of time devoted to it. But Breaking Away is more than just a cycling film and is an exploration of both friendship and the bond between a father and a son. I'm not afraid to admit that I got emotional at least once during the last twenty minutes of the film as Dave's dad finally opened up to his son. The whole film is enhanced by the use of the Italian classical music which gives Breaking Away its own identity and sets it apart from other coming-of-age movies. In terms of performances the film really belongs to Dennis Christopher as Dave as he delivers an incredibly captivating turn throughout. Christopher won newcomer awards for his role here but oddly he's the only member of the cast who isn't a recognisable name. Instead Christopher's co-stars Daniel Stern, Jackie Earl Haley and especially Dennis Quaid have gone on to have bigger success further down the line. If I have one criticism of the film then it's that Stern's Cyril really doesn't have a lot to do save a couple of overtly comic moments. But that's a minor quibble in a film that I enjoyed incredibly as it combined emotional, realistic drama with some genuinely funny lines.

To an extent the same can be said for Yates' other offering from the 1980s, The Dresser but it differs in every other way. Based on the 1980 play by Ronald Harwood, The Dresser follows a struggling Shakespearian company who continue to put on productions despite the Blitz being in full effect. The company has been cut quite dramatically due to the war and is ruled over by its often dictatorial star simply known here as 'Sir'. The majority of the film centres around the company's production of King Lear during which 'Sir' is set to play the lead role. However, the day of the performance, he has a breakdown in the street and is hospitalised leading us to believe the he is suffering from senility. The majority of the cast and crew feel that the show should be cancelled and that 'Sir' is in no fit state to be on the stage. The only person who wants the show to go on is our leading man's 'dresser' Norman, an effeminate Northerner who has devoted his life to looking after his idol. Norman is essentially the Smithers to Sir's Mr Burns and is jealous of the affection that he gets from others. He also hates it when people are mean towards 'Sir', often believing him to be past his sell-by-date and living-in-the-past. This is especially true of Oxenby, a younger actor feels he should be part of the group. Over the course of the film we see King Lear played out with 'Sir' dishing out some home truths and Norman hoping his idol can light up the stage one more time. For me, the major problem with the film is the ending, which I felt was a little too over-the-top however there's not much that Yates could do if that's how the play ended.

As is the case with a lot of plays that become films, The Dresser isn't overly cinematic seeing as its primarily set in a theatre. There are some early exterior scenes, including a great set piece at a train station, but once 'Sir' returns from hospital then everything else is indoors. With Ronald Harwood adapting his own play, the script is incredibly tight and really showcases the backstage politics in local theatre. Harwood's main strength is in the creation of the two characters of 'Sir' and Norman both of whom feel incredibly human. Despite both appearing to be difficult to deal with, Harwood ensures we have a huge amount of sympathy for each of them. As we can see he's suffering from senility, 'Sir' is somebody who goes from grand posturing on stage to behaving like a scared child in his dressing room. Meanwhile Norman is somebody who cares for the theatre so much that sometimes he can get incredibly nasty. What made the film for me though was the performances from Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay who sparkle as 'Sir' and Norman respectively. Finney is incredibly convincing as the ageing actor, he was only in his forties at the time, and his sensitive portrayal of the actor's dementia is incredibly moving. Courtenay has the harder role but is absolutely astounding, instantly portraying Norman's role as we see him by Finney's side. Both Finney and Courtenay were nominated for Best Actor but lost out to the deserving Robert Duvall, however Courtenay did tie with Duvall for the prize at the Golden Globes. Though I found it funny and moving at times, I thought The Dresser didn't really showcase Peter Yates' directorial skills as much as some of his other features. This was obviously a labour of love for Yates and he did create a memorable film with two magnificent performances however it was never a film that astounded me visually.

Continuing along the British theme next time we have an Oscar-winning film that proved that the British were definitely coming.