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 Day 391: One Day in September

As we've seen over the course of this journey only a few directors have truly been able to thrive in multiple decades. One who we've followed almost throughout his career is Steven Spielberg who we first met when he helmed Jaws and most recently caught up with when he won his two Best Director Oscars. Both of his 1990s Oscar favourites; Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, looked at the Second World War from two interesting perspectives. Spielberg's latest Oscar-nominated film on this list looks at another memorable event; the massacre at the Munich Olympics, and the resulting retaliation operation against the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

The opening scene depicts, in quite graphic detail, the Munich massacre itself and the ensuing media storm that ensued. We then meet our lead protagonist; Mossad agent Avner Kauffman; who is tasked with heading up a band of mercenaries to track down those responsible for the attacks. Spielberg's film then takes up an episodic approach as the gang travel around the globe attempting to assassinate the members of the PLO one-by-one. One of the best things about Tony Kushner and Eric Roth's script is the fact that these men are rather unlikely assassins. Therefore the conversations between hits ring true as the group ponder the moral consequences of their actions and whether they're ultimately doing any good. Avner's contact, shadowy Frenchman Louis; is another intriguing character as he appears to be helping out the group purely for monetary gain. It's then up to the audience whether or not he's playing a game and helping out both sides in return for more money. Where Munich fell down for me slightly was in its pacing and I felt that, at two and half hours the film was far too long. This is especially true of the final half hour, where Avner is looking back at the mission and wondering whether any of the men he killed were actually part of the massacre in the first place. Although there is a neat sequence in which Avner's memories play out while he's making love to his wife; his post-traumatic stress disorder is played out for far too long.

One thing that you can always count on in terms of a Spielberg movie are several explosive moments and in terms of Munich the explosions are quite literal. One of Munich's strengths are its well-punctuated scenes in which bombs are set off in houses and hotels to rather shocking effect. One of these set pieces that stays in the mind is the assassination of Mahmoud Hamshari which is briefly halted when the group learn that his daughter in this house. Similarly memorable is the explosion in a hotel in which Avner himself is caught up with. However, not all of the set pieces hit the mark and in particular I felt uncomfortable after Avner and driver Steve slaughter a Dutch female agent who has killed one of their own. Of the cast, I felt that Eric Bana was perfect as the Israeli every man, dedicating his cause to a wife and new born child that he may never see again. A pre-James Bond Daniel Craig was also perfectly used as rough and ready South African Steve whilst Geoffrey Rush was brilliant in his brief role as Avner's handler Ephraim. I also really liked Mathieu Amalric as the shadowy amoral Louis. At the same time I don't think any of the cast members really gave stand out performances and that's perhaps why none of them were nominated for acting Oscars. Ultimately I feel that, even though its only ten years old, Munich is already one of Spielberg's forgotten films and I can sort of see why. At times powerful, at others frankly dull, Munich has its moments but is overall fairly inconsistent.

Next time, two films that peer beyond the picket fence and look at the seedy side of suburban America.

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. 

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 315-316: Hitting all the Right Notes

Welcome to another post with two films that similarly have little in common but are linked by a number of factors. The most obvious common theme running throughout Shine and The Piano are that both of its protagonists play the titular instrument. However the themes run deeper as both films are set in Australasia, both feature central characters with a disability and both saw their lead performers collect awards at that year's Oscars.
The Piano takes us to New Zealand of the mid-19th century as we see Scottish Ada McGrath and her young daughter Flora travel from Scotland. Ada has been mute since she was a child but has been promised in marriage to frontierman Alisdair Stewart. Early on in Jane Campion's film its established that Ada's piano is the most important thing to her and she uses it to let out her emotions. So it's a bitter blow to Ada when Alisdair decides that the instrument is too heavy to carry and too big for his small house. Eventually Ada's piano is bought by Baines, a man who is sometime in Aisdair's employ and who is seemingly torn between the area's white population and the Maori natives. Baines claims he wants piano lessons but this is later revealed a simple rouse to bribe Ada into giving her piano back. It's made clear that Baines is sexually frustrated and often walks round nude in front of Ada or gets her to pitch her skirt up. Somehow Baines' presence in her life has a positive effect on Ada and she misses him watching her when she finally gets the piano back. The stage is then set for somewhat of a love triangle as Alisdair soon learns of the relationship tht has started between Baines and his wife. Alisdair later takes some very bloody revenge against Ada which I found to be a very shocking yet memorable moment. Eventually Ada is able to decide who she truly wants to be with even though she is forced to loose her piano in the process.

Other than being a film that won a few Oscars, I knew very little about The Piano prior to watching it. I did find it hard to get into the film partly due to the fact that the main character didn't speak however this later became one of The Piano's most positive features. My previous experiences with Jane Campion's work had been incredibly poor as I didn't warm to her 2009 biopic Bright Star or the TV miniseries Top of the Lake. However the artistic direction added to the overall feel of the film with Stuart Dryburgh's cinematography perfectly capturing the Kiwi exteriors and adding to The Piano's period feel. Although we're into the mid-1990s by this point, Jane Campion's nomination for Best Director was the only second time that a woman had received recognition in that category something I find hard to believe. The Piano was a film that featured strong female characters both behind and in front of the camera so I'm glad that Campion won an award for her original screenplay. Holly Hunter's performance as Ada was truly captivating and she managed to communicate her character's feelings beautifully without ever opening her mouth. Although I felt that Hunter should have won Best Actress for her turn in Broadcast News her win for The Piano was more than deserved. The film's third Oscar went to young Anna Paquin who, in her debut performance, more than held her own opposite much more experienced co-stars. Paquin shared great chemistry with Hunter and you could really believe that the pair were mother and daughter. For a child star, Paquin was never annoying and at times was my favourite thing about the film. I was less keen on the male performances with Sam Neill being lumbered with the thankless part of Alisdair and Harvey Keitel struggling to settle on an accent for Baines. One of the film's most memorable attributes was Michael Nyman's haunting score, which was stuck in my head for days after watching The Piano, so I was shocked to learn that he didn't win an Oscar for it. Overall, The Piano was beautifully filmed and included two fantastic performances but still felt a little uneven for me to truly enjoy every minute of it.
As we know by now Oscar loves a biopic and therefore Shine's inclusion in the Best Picture category was a given. Shine is a very straightforward retelling of the life of pianist David Helfgott whose incredible talent was almost wasted due to his mental issues. Part of David's issues were due to his strict upbringing by a father who always felt he knew best and was very sceptical about outside interference. The first example of this is when a music teacher spots David at a competition and offers to train him on the piano. A teenage David is later offered the chance to study music in America but the dream is snatched away by his father. Thanks to his friendship with a local novelist, David soon picks up the courage to confront his father and take a scholarship in London. It's while in London that David's mental state starts to deteriorate as he attempts to learn a difficult piece of music for an upcoming competition. Although David wins the competition the practise drives him insane forcing him into an institution. Shunned by his father, David spends years in an asylum before being rescued by a volunteer who recognises his talents. But she eventually abandons him and leaves him in a hotel where his destructive tendencies appear once again. It's only through his friendship with a restaurant owner, who lets David play the piano there, does he start to rejoin society. David even finds love and makes a comeback at the end of the film.

Interestingly Shine met with controversy over two of the film's main plot points. The first was David's mother's claims that her husband was never abusive towards his children. Shine's director Scott Hicks denies these allegations claiming that he'd had contact with David's siblings who corroborate the film's version of events. Secondly there have been claims that David's comeback performances weren't as brilliant as the film was suggest and that he definitely lost some of his early talent during his later years. Even after learning about these issues, neither really bothered me although I did have other reservations about Shine. Coming into the film, the only thing I really knew about it was the fact that Geoffrey Rush won a Best Actor Oscar for his role in Shine. Because of this I had high expectations about Rush's turn in the film and I'm sad to say they weren't met. Part of the reason for this is that Rush only plays David in the latter stages of Shine and the character is first portrayed by Alex Rafalowicz and then by Noah Taylor. Rush's performance put me in mind of Dustin Hoffman's portrayal in Rain Man as both played characters who have mental health problems. Just like Hoffman, I felt that Rush overdid that aspect of his character a little bit and his performance was a little over-the-top. It did almost seem as if the Academy had honoured the three actors playing the character but given the award to Rush who started and finished the film as David. In fact I personally preferred Taylor's interpretation of the character as a teenager and felt he particularly excelled in showcasing David's descent into madness. Armin Mueller-Stahl was similarly strong as David's overbearing father whilst the scenes depicting David's piano playing were well-shot and choreographed. Ultimately, I was a little disappointed with the film as a whole as it petered out towards the end. While individual elements of it should be applauded, Shine really wasn't as excellent as I thought it would be and I think that's a real shame.

Next time we catch up with a familiar screen star as he reunites with one of his favourite directors