Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 250-251: Franklin in Reverse

Sometimes I plan these double bill posts in advance, but occasionally they happen by accident such as when I realised my next two films were directed by the same man. The man in question is Franklin J Schaffner, who helmed two historical epics both of which went on to be bombarded with Oscar nominations. However, due to the fact that I only found out about this connection after watching the first film, I've presented this brief retrospective of his career in reverse.

We start with 1972 nominee Nicholas and Alexandra, an audaciously filmed account of the Romanov family and in particular the marriage of Tsar Nicholas to Princess Alexandra. Problems start to arise from the very beginning of the film when the couple's newborn son is diagnosed with hemophilia. Distraught at this news, Alexandra looks for answers which she finds from Russian peasant Grigori Rasputin, who claims to be a holy man. Rasputin's words of faith calm Alexandra who believes that he alone can heal her ill son, but his presence in court has a negative impact on the monarchy due to his lewd behaviour. When Nicholas is forced to cast Rasputin aside, Alexandra is upset and their son's condition worsens. It's only upon his return that Alexi begins to get well again and Nicholas is forced to find some other way to get rid of him. In the meantime Russia is really going through social upheaval, and Nicholas turns a blind eye when he hears of the Bloody Sunday Massacre. The second half of the film deals with World War I and how the Russians struggled to cope with leaders that were odds with one another. As the conflict continues, the Romanovs lose power and are shipped around Russia while their fate is decided elsewhere. Ultimately, this film has a rather grizzly ending but one that is somewhat left to the imagination.

While watching it, I felt like Nicholas and Alexandra would work as a great companion piece to Doctor Zhivao, due to both focusing on major events in Russian history. So I wasn't surprised to learn that producer Sam Spiegel decided to work on the film after being shut out by David Lean on Doctor Zhivago. The choice of Schaffner as director came after a number of men had already walked out on the project due to the length of time it took to construct a script. To Shaffner's credit he managed to construct the film well with Freddie Young's cinematography bringing to life some of the big historical events on show here. Due to budget restraints, Spiegel was forced to cast relative unknowns in the lead roles and have the big stars in smaller roles, such as Laurence Olivier as royal advisor Count Witte. But I feel the casting of lesser known actors was ultimately a positive for the film and there was much to like about the two leading performances. As Nicholas, Michael Jayston plays the flawed leader to perfection and even makes us sympathise with him in the later scenes. But he is acted off the screen by the brilliant Janet Suzman, who is absolutely compelling as Alexandra as she showcases the entire spectrum of emotions throughout the course of the film. Suzman was rewarded with the film's only acting nomination with the piece ultimately going on to win two awards for its sumptuous production design and brilliant costumes. One performance that I did feel was deserving of a nod was that of Tom Baker as the hedonistic Rasputin, who stole the first half of the film for me. It's odd watching Baker and not thinking of Doctor Who, but his Rasputin was one of the things about the film that get me going when the rest of it was dragging. Having watched film-making grow in the 1970s, Nicholas and Alexandra definitely felt a little old-fashioned, especially due to the fact that it had an interval. But there's no denying the visual spectacle of the piece coupled with a number of memorable performances.

Schaffner actually took on the direction of the film after scriptwriter James Goldman saw Patton, the film that had won the Oscar the year before. Just like with Nicholas and Alexandra, Patton is an incredibly well-shot story about a flawed leader who didn't really ever have his priorities in check. That leader was General George S Patton and the film follows his exploits over World War II from his work in North Africa to his final arrival into Germany. Patton opens with arguably its most memorable moment, the General's address to his troops in front of a massive American flag. From there we see him ruffle the feathers of a number of American officers in Africa who he believes aren't taking the campaign seriously. Though he's portrayed as a brilliant man, his inability to follow orders often makes him appear pig-headed and that's certainly true of the scenes involving the invasion of Sicily. Patton's views also get him in trouble when he accuses a shell-shocked soldier of cowardice and tells him to get back to the front line. Though Patton eventually weasels his way back into being part of the Battle of the Bulge, his words continue to get him in trouble. He insults the Russians on several occasions and finally loses command of his troops completely after comparing the major US political parties to the Nazis. In the end Patton isn't the stereotypical flag-waving war film that the opening suggested it would be, which made me enjoy it even more.

One thing I would say about both of the films in this post was that they were extra-long and could've probably done with trimming down at least twenty minutes from the overall running time. I did get the impression here that Schaffner and the screenwriters felt that every part of Patton's history was important and took almost three hours to tell a story that could've probably be done in two. That being said Patton the character is a lot more compelling that Patton the film thanks to the brilliant performance given by George C Scott. In fact it's Scott's performance that carries Patton from beginning to end and definitely why it won the Oscar for Best Picture. Patton is a flawed character and somebody who always speaks his mind even he should probably keep his mouth shut. Though we've seen Scott in supporting roles in the past, his role as Patton was his defining moment and resulted in a well-earned Best Actor Oscar that he ultimately declined. The problem with having such a memorable screen performance like Scott's is that every other cast member suffers as a result and not even the brilliant Karl Malden made an impression in one of the many supporting roles. Just like with Nicholas and Alexandra, Schaffner excels at presenting the historical set pieces and makes all the major battles feel important. Jerry Goldsmith's brilliant score adds almost an unsettling tone to the film with the brass instruments making me uneasy whenever I head them. Though I did find Patton compelling at times, I struggled to maintain my interest in the film over the three hour running time. Thankfully Scott kept me going throughout and I do feel that without his performance Patton wouldn't be as well-regarded as it is today.

Next time we have something completely different from the audacious historical dramas that I've just written about.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 194: Another Day in Court

In the 1950s we had two courtroom films that were nominated for Best Picture in the same year. The 1960s has also had its fair share of courtroom films, so join me as I spend another day with two more legal movies.

The first movie is almost solely set around the trial of a man convicted of shooting another man in cold blood. The film in question - Anatomy of a Murder has often been hailed by law professors as the greatest pure trial movie in history and after watching it it's easy to see why. James Stewart stars as Paul Biegler a former DA who now runs a failing law firm alongside a loyal secretary who sticks by Paul despite his lack of cases. Biegler is contacted by Laura Manion who wants him to defend her husband Paul who has been charged with the murder of innkeeper Barney Quill. It transpires that Biegler went to Quill's inn after discovering that Quill had raped Laura but once getting there shot him in cold blood. As Biegler realises the case will be a tough one to win, he decides to go with a defence of temporary insanity. This involved explaining to Paul exactly what he wants him to say on the stand and hopes this will be enough to get him off. Meanwhile Paul also tells Laura to dress more demurely in court as her seductive outfits may give the wrong impression to the jury. Paul's other issue is that the prosecution have drafted in a hot new attorney in the form of Claude Dancer who initially rungs rings around the world-weary Paul. It is only when Paul does some digging that he discovers the relationship between Quill and his barmaid Mary. Paul implores Mary to come forward as a witness as he feels that his case would depend on her testimony. But with Dancer getting the best of Paul, is Mary going to be enough to win the case?

I would agree that Anatomy of a Murder is a great trial movie and one that bases most of its action in and around the gathering of evidence. Despite being over two and half hours long, Anatomy of a Murder flew by thanks in part to Wendell Mayes' script which is incredibly well-paced, and giving a lot of time to each individual part of the story. Even though the vast majority of it is set in the courtroom, Otto Preminger still manages to make his film seem utterly stylish. The film is also given a contemporary air thanks to the Duke Ellington soundtrack which makes Anatomy of a Murder seem a lot less stuffy than other trial movies of the time. This is also true of the film's content, as it was one of the first to deal with both rape and sex in graphic terms as they both play heavily into the trial itself. Of course the cast are all terrific, with James Stewart earning a Best Actor nomination for his role as the once great DA who has now fallen on hard times. New kid on the bock George C Scott was also awarded a nomination for playing the young and hungry Dancer with some of the film's highlights being their courtroom sparring. Elsewhere, Lee Remick's sexuality makes you question whether or not Quill did force himself on her, while Eve Arden is on brilliantly comic form as Biegler's secretary Maida. Overall, Anatomy of a Murder is a fantastic film, full of intrigue, great performances, an amazing soundtrack and a well-paced script. It's also probably the best film I've ever seen that's largely set in a courtroom.

The other film covered in this post isn't largely set in a courtroom, but is still all based around trial. The film in question is Robert Mulligan's adaptation of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. For those who have never read the book, the film is all seen through the eyes of 'Scout' Finch a young girl with a big imagination. Along with her broth Jem, she lives in the fictional town of Maycomb, Alabama where their father Atticus is a pioneering lawyer. Atticus believes that everybody should be given a fair trial regardless of their race, sex or beliefs and this ethos often gets him into trouble. The middle section of the story sees Atticus defend Tom Robinson, a black man accused of raping a local girl with a violent father. A lot of the irrational townspeople take against Atticus defending Tom and want to kill Tom before he even gets to court. The pivotal scenes in the film do take place in the court as Scout and Jem sneak into the courtroom to see their father in action. These scenes allow us to witness how innocent Tom actually is however the racist jury don't see it that way and find Tom guilty. From there the tension in the film rises as the people of Maycomb take against Atticus for pleading Tom's innocence and for wanting him to take part in a retrial. Atticus' actions also put Scout and Jem in danger however they are eventually saved by an unlikely guardian angel.

As someone who hasn't read the book, I went into To Kill a Mockingbird with no prior knowledge of the story. What I found this to be was an innocent observer's view of an unjust society and another of cinema's most iconic courtroom scenes. I thought watching this and Anatomy of a Murder as a double was interesting as that film's protagonist may well be guilty, while Tom Robinson is blatantly innocent. Russell Harlan's cinematography is keen to make us feel like we're watching the entire story through Scout's eyes and makes sure the camera is at her level. Robert Mulligan also makes the whole town of Maycomb seem like a sweltering, confined environment where prejudice is rife and where everybody knows each other's business. I was personally entranced by the performances from the two young actors, Mary Badham and Philip Alford, who played Scout and Jem respectively. Badham was brilliant as the narrator of the piece and was rewarded with a Supporting Actress Nomination for her part in the film. Meanwhile, I found Brock Peters to be absolutely enticing as the tragic Tom Robinson as he really made you feel sorry for his character. However this film will be most remembered for Gregory Peck's Oscar-winning turn as the mighty Atticus Finch. Peck is captivating throughout the film's run and is able to make Finch into one of cinema's biggest heroes of all-time. Peck's Finch is admirable without being preachy and he is able to anchor the film perfectly. While To Kill a Mockingbird may not be as stylish or compelling as Anatomy of a Murder, it is full of heart and real character and that's why I fell in love with the film.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 177: Dropping the Bomb

There are several films that I believe people won't realise that have been nominated for Oscars for example a lot of you will be surprised to learn that Star Wars was nominated in the late 1970s but was beaten out by Annie Hall. Another surprise for a lot of you will be that Stanley Kubrick's Cold War comedy Dr Strangelove was also a nominee in the 1960s however it again lost out this time to My Fair Lady. For those unfamiliar with the film it basically centres around a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union and the government bosses who attempt to avoid a nuclear apocalypse. The element of the film most will be aware of is that Peter Sellers plays three very distinct roles the first of which is RAF Captain Lionel Mandrake who is bared with the general who makes the initial command in Sterling Hayden's Ripper. The relationship between Ripper and Mandrake creates a lot of humour as it explores the different reactions to war given by both the English and the Americans. Meanwhile Sellers also plays the US president who is advised by his very gruff colonel Buck Turgidson, played by George C Scott who makes a second appearance in this blog in the same amount of days, a very war-hungry army man. Eventually Turgidson grows tired of the president believing everything the Soviet ambassador is telling him and starts to fight with him which leads to the classic line 'there's no fighting in the war room'. Finally Sellers' former Nazi Dr Strangelove is called in to talk about his Doomsday Machine and despite swearing his allegiance to the Americans there appears to be an ulterior motive to his actions. As the men continue to argue the film hurtles towards a very funny and some would say shocking conclusion.

For most people Dr Strangelove will go down as one of the greatest satires of all time and do feel that it earns that moniker however at the same time it does feel a little old-fashioned. To an extent it is a group of sketches woven together by a interlinking narrative and one actor who plays three lead roles and to be fair Sellers is great throughout the film especially when he gets to ham it up as Strangelove. Kubrick's script has some brilliant one-liners but also a deep passion to mock those in a position of authority while in addition taking pot shots at the general attitude of the time. As I was watching this film it did get me thinking if a film like this would ever be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar again as a lot of today's nominees seem positively tame in comparison to this. To be fair though despite the nominations, including one for Sellers, the film failed to match opposition from the much more twee and Academy-friendly My Fair Lady while Rex Harrison's performance in the film was judged more superior that Sellers' triple-header. Despite its ultimate failure at the awards I implore everyone to seek out Dr Strangelove as it is both an important and entertaining film which demonstrates what a great director Kubrick was as well as how he could work in a variety of different genres.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 176: A Gamblin' Man

So it's that time of year again where I wonder whatever happened to that blog about Oscar-nominated films I started a while ago? So yes I'm starting the good old Oscar Challenge Blog up once again and we're back in the 1960s for a film that gives a real feel to how films were changing throughout the decade. Yes because while we were still getting the Technicolor musicals like My Fair Lady and The Sound of Music as well as some mighty epics there were films focusing on different aspects of American life. One such film was Robert Rossen's The Hustler a dingy movie set in the pool halls of America and starring Paul Newman as Fast Eddie Felson. The film essentially is split into three acts the first sees Eddie build up a reputation as a hustler eventually getting to meet the great Minnesota Fasts one-on-one. Eddie comfortably beats Fats but he keeps going unwilling to stop the game until Fats says it over however in the meantime Fats has enlisted betting expert Bert Gordon to help throw Eddie off the game with Fats eventually ending up the victor. Eddie then ends up on a downward spiral only saved through his relationship with the equally damaged Sarah who helps rehabilitate Eddie before the two move in together however Eddie still craves for his former life. Eddie eventually meets up with Bert who agrees to be his manager and the pair, along with Sarah, head to Louisville where Eddie makes enough money to play Fats once again however the cost is his relationship with Sarah. This builds up to an emotionally charged final scene in which Eddie and Fats square off once again however this time there's a personal issue at stake also.

I'm so glad that I got back into taking up this project once again if only so I could watch The Hustler which is everything a film should be from the way it is shot down to the four central performances. Rossen shot the whole film on location in New York using two real life pool halls for the key scenes while he even confused patrons at the bus terminal cafe where Sarah and Eddie first meet. I found everything so engrossing from Eddie's first tour of various bars to the emotionally charged scenes in Louisville and Eddie and Fats' final showdown. As Eddie, Paul Newman gives one of the best acting performances I've ever seen as you can truly see him feel love and pain for the first time in his relationships with both Bert and Sarah. Piper Laurie's upper class drunk Sarah is also a sympathetic character as she slowly falls in love with Eddie despite knowing that it won't go anywhere and ultimately ends up destroying herself. Comedian Jackie Gleason is also wonderfully restrained as Fats portraying a pool player who keeps a cool head in the two scenes we see him in. George C Scott meanwhile is great as the film's antagonist Bert who knows how to get exactly what he wants from people but is ultimately humiliated in the final scene. Though I found the film a tad slow in the middle overall this was a fantastically acted and shot film that was rightfully nominated for a ton of Oscars, including four acting nods, and I really hope to watch more films just like this one as I continue on with this blog.