Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 199 and 200: All at Sea

So here we are, back again with another post featuring two films bound together by a common theme. This time I'm taking it to incredibly tenuous levels by focusing on two movies that are both set on boats. One is a remake of a previous Oscar winner, the other is a periodic drama focusing on a number of characters aboard a German ocean liner.

And we'll start with the latter film, Ship of Fools, which is based on a novel but feels like it's been adapted from a play. The film focuses on a plethora of characters aboard a liner that has departed from Mexico and is on the way to Germany. Several to camera monologues are performed by a dwarf named Glocken, who is regularly ostracised on the ship and spends his dinner times eating with the Jewish passengers. The majority of the film is seen through the eyes of the ship's Doctor Schumann, who is about depart the vessel as he has found out he is dying from a heart condition. Schumann is drawn to one of the latest passengers - a drug-addicted countessa from Spain who is bound for a Mexican jail. Schumann and La Contessa fall in love but both realise that their courtship cannot last. Aging divorcee Mary Treadwell is attempting to glam herself up but she discovers she isn't as young as she used to be, something former baseball player Bill Denny is also learning. Meanwhile younger couple Jenny and David are having issues as he feels like she doesn't appreciate his art and doesn't have as many ideas and beliefs as him. Finally we meet Rieber, a bigoted businessman who is a member of the Nazi Party and perfectly represents the feeling of some Germans in 1933.

I personally found Ship of Fools to be a mixed bag of stories, some that I liked more than others. I felt the relationship between Schumman and the countessa was perfectly played by Oskar Werner and Simone Signoret. This sort of tragic love story was at the heart of the film and I would've preferred to have seen the film focus on just that. Vivien Leigh, in her final film role, is brilliant as Mary a former beauty who is losing her looks, and I really liked the scene in which she put on make-up in front of the mirror while talking to herself. But I found other stories to be less engaging especially the one focusing on Jose Ferrer's Rieber and his ostracising of several of his fellow passengers. One of the better performances from me came from Michael Dunn who, as Glocken, has to narrate the story straight to the audience. The film certainly looked impressive, with the flamenco scene in particular catching my eye, but there's only so much you can do with a film set almost completely on a boat. Given the cast, I would've thought that Ship of Fools could've been better but there was just far too much going on. While I'm not surprised that it received a ton of Oscar nominations, I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. I also found myself comparing it to previous Best Picture Winner Grand Hotel which this bore more than a striking resemblance to.

Talking of Best Picture winners from the 1930s, we have our first remake of one in the form of Mutiny on the Bounty. This version, director by Lewis Milestone, sees Captain Bligh and Fletcher Christian return but this time both characters seem slightly different. The story is the same, namely that a crew of men set off to Tahiti but on the way their Captain starts to act in a tyrannical fashion. As Captain Bligh wants to keep the water rations low, he starts to deprive his men of their basic rations and raises the ire of Fletcher. But in this version of Mutiny on the Bounty, Fletcher is presented as more of a fop who is influence into mutiny by his fellow shipmates. One seaman in particular, Mills, gets in Fletcher's ear and provokes him into fighting against his captain. One other big change is that Fletcher ultimately regrets his decision and tries to return to England but his plans our sabotaged by other mutineers. This version of the story also introduced a narrator in the form of horticulturist William Brown whose job it was to identify the breadfruit plants when the crew got to Tahiti. However, I didn't believe Brown would've been part of the mutiny and felt the only reason for his betrayal was so that he could recall the story on camera.

I personally wasn't much of a fan of this version of Mutiny on the Bounty than I was of the Oscar-winning 1935 original. Part of the reason for that is that a lot of the performances lacked the passion that was present in the previous cast. A case in point is Trevor Howard, who played Bligh, as he is a lot less menacing and therefore comes across as less of a brute than Charles Laughton. Indeed, Bligh was fairly friendly at times and most of his dastardly acts were at least explainable to an extent. I get the feeling that Fletcher Christian's change of character was due to the fact that Marlon Brando played him. Brando, who allegedly held up the production, obviously wanted to play more of a hero so in this version Fletcher literally goes down in flames. I fact I found the most compelling member of the cast to be Richard Harris as idealistic Seaman Mills. At almost three hours, the film is way too long and I honestly didn't really get into it until the second act. The film really gets going during and after the mutiny with all the cast excelling in their various roles. There's no denying that this version of Mutiny on the Bounty is more visually spectacular than its original but other than that there's nothing new here. I especially wasn't a fan of Brando here, and I feel that he's lost something since I last saw him in On the Waterfront and Sayonara.

Next time we continue on the sea - this time with Steve McQueen.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 197: Many Hur-dles to Jump

Obviously this blog has already covered many iconic films most of which have gone on to win the Best Picture prize. It has also allowed me to fill in a lot of gaps in my cinematic viewing as there are many classic films that I have never watched. One such film is Ben-Hur, which grabbed the top prize at the 1960 Academy Awards. Obviously I was aware of the film's iconic chariot race but at the time I didn't realise how much of it relied on the characters' religious beliefs.

In fact some of the early scenes in the film revolve around us seeing Joseph and Jesus at the former's carpentry warehouse. However, as you probably guessed, the film is mainly based around Charlton Heston's titular character. At the beginning of the film, Ben-Hur is a wealthy prince who is glad to have his old friend Messala back in town as the new Roman tribune. However, the two fall out after Ben-Hur doesn't give Messala the names of the Jews who criticise the Romans. As revenge, Messala condemns Ben-Hur to the galleys after a roof slate falls during a parade for the Romans. Now a slave, Ben-Hur finally gets to prove himself when their ship is attacked by Macedonian forces and he frees the boat's commander Arrius. Ben-Hur stop Arrius committing suicide and the two are later rescued, with Arrius successfully petitioning for Ben-Hur's freedom. Arrius then adopts Ben-Hur as his son and treats him to the finer things in life but Ben-Hur eventually decides he needs to return to Judea. On return to his hometown he meets his old slave's daughter Esther who informs him that his mother and sister have died. In actuality, the pair have contracted leprosy and are now living in a commune, but they don't want Ben-Hur to know about it. Filled with rage, Ben-Hur agrees to compete in a chariot race for wealthy Sheik Ilderim so he can defeat Messala once and for all. After being successful in the chariot race, Ben-Hur sees Jesus perform the Sermon on the Mount and later witnesses his crucifixion. He also attempts to give Jesus water, as Jesus had given Ben-Hur water earlier on, and in return for this Jesus miraculously cures Ben-Hur's mother and sister.

Ben-Hur is definitely a film that is of its time. I think if it came along today then it wouldn't receive the same praise as it did back then. Indeed Ben-Hur has gone down in Oscar history as one of three films, along with Titanic and Return of the King, to win 11 awards. Among these was a Best Actor Award for Charlton Heston who essentially played the same role as he did in The Ten Commandments. Heston's brooding Ben-Hur was certainly compelling but I feel he over-did his performance at some points. Hugh Griffith, as Sheik Ilderim, was also rewarded with the Best Supporting Actor Award for what was a primarily comic turn. Indeed I believe the best performance in the film came from Jack Hawkins as the emotionally tormented Quintus Arrius. I felt Hawkins excelled in the scenes in which his ship comes under attack and he attempts to kill himself only to be freed by one of his slaves. Obviously the film is best remembered for the chariot scene and I felt that was visually spectacular. Indeed, this was what I'd been waiting to see and it didn't disappoint with both director William Wyler and cinematographer Robert L Surtees going out of their way to make this scene completely thrilling. Elsewhere I really enjoyed the scenes in which Ben-Hur was a slave on the boat and found the award-winning Art Direction was also in full force during the section of the film that was set in Rome. I have to say though, and I know this may be seen as heresy, but I felt that the film took a good while to get going and could've been trimmed down by at least thirty minutes. Having said that, I can at least argue that Ben-Hur deserved its Best Picture Oscar as this was a visually-stunning and bold epic which audience wouldn't have seen at the time. While it's far from perfect, it has enough going for it to be a rightful winner and I have no problem with this being one of the eighty or so Best Pictures that I will encounter on this blog.

Next up we continue our religious theme with a very different film.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 189: Me and Mr Jones

Every time I come across a Best Picture winner I haven't seen before I get a little bit more excited. In theory every winner of the Best Picture award should be an outstanding film and in some cases we've seen that. However for every Casablanca there's an Around the World in 80 Days and I'm afraid that Tom Jones may fall into that latter category. The 1964 Best Picture winner was of course an adaptation of Henry Fielding's novel however I'm not sure how much writer John Osbourne stuck to the original source material. The basic story of the film sees a Squire adopt the titular hero after believing he was the result of an affair between two servants. When Tom Jones grows up, and is played by Albert Finney, he turns into a womanising hunter with no respect for the high society into which he was adopted. Tom does find love with Susannah York's Sophie however her suitor tries to keep Tom and Sophie apart. He eventually convinces the Squire that Tom is evil so the Squire sends Tom away to seek a life outside of his house. The second half of the film then sees Tom join the army and almost get murdered by a fellow officer. Sophie meanwhile runs away from home and the two keep missing each other before finally ending up in London. It is in London that Tom falls under the spell of the devious Lady Bellaston who claims she will reunite him with his beloved Sophie. Eventually Tom is falsely arrested for attempted murder and robbery with a race ensuing to save him from the gallows after certain truths are revealed.

The best way to describe Tom Jones would be as a series of set pieces tied together to make one film. I have to say I wasn't a fan of the film as a whole although certain set pieces were fairly enjoyable. I found Tony Richardson's directorial style to be fairly anarchic and he almost employed the philosophy of 'let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks'. Therefore there are a lot of different styles employed such as a silent-film homage as an opening sequence and later a lot of characters are seen to be breaking the fourth wall. Richardson also has seemed to ask all of his cast members to ham it up as much as possible because that is the style of acting that most are employing here. I have to say Albert Finney was at least an amiable presence in the lead role and his cheekiness was endearing rather than annoying. The better members of the female cast were Joan Greenwood as the sly Lady Bellaston and Joyce Redman as the boisterous Mrs Waters. My personal favourite elements of the film had to be John Addison's lively score and Walter Lassally's sumptuous cinematography. While Tom Jones isn't the worse film to win the Best Picture Award I still found it completely unremarkable and there was never one moment like I felt that this could've been the best film in contention at the 1964 ceremony. However you'll just have to keep reading to find out what I thought deserved to win the award that year.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 173: Even More Musical Melodies

Back again with another double bill of musicals kicking off with a film that sneaked its way into being one of the five nominees at the 1968 ceremony.

Possibly the least impressive of the four films in this blog is the only one I hadn't seen before that being the original 1967 version of Doctor Dolittle. For me the film is most famous for two things Rex Harrison and the song 'If Could Talk to the Animals' however after reading around the production it seems it has an infamous backstory. Originally projected to cost only $6 million dollars the end budget almost tripled that and the film was known as the picture that almost bought Warner Brothers to its knees. The only reason I'm watching it is due to the studio launching a rather aggressive campaign in which it wined and dined Academy members in order to get seven nominations. It won two deservedly for the ahead-of-their-time special effects, which included a two headed llama and a giant snail, as well as for the aforementioned song. Rex Harrison, who wasn't nominated, was brilliant as the former people doctor who'd turned to animals and learnt to communicate with them but had angered several people around him because of this. The first half of the film deals with his past while the second half sees him take off to find the elusive Great Pink Sea Snail eventually ending up on the floating Sea-Star Island. Personally I'm not quite sure what audience this film is aimed at as many of the songs would be too much for the kids while the romance between Dolittle's assistant played by Anthony Newley and the snotty-nosed Emma is really uninvolving. Bar Harrison, a couple of the songs and the effects this is could be described as a white elephant of a film, incidentally not one of the animals that Dolittle deals with, as large set-pieces on the island plus one at a circus fail to provide any interest. In a year in which more interesting films should've taken the Best Picture slot that Dolittle ended up getting it proves just how easily-influenced the Oscar panel were back in the 1960s and depending on who you listen to not a lot has changed in term of the way things work today.

Ending on a more positive note with the film that won the Best Picture at the final 1960s Oscar ceremony that being Oliver! Unlike a lot of these films, which were basically screen musicals adapted almost note-for-note, the film version of Oliver! changed some roles, got rid of some songs and made the whole thing seem more like a film. For example the second half of the film version has a lot less songs than the stage version does which makes it seem rightly a lot more dramatic and less light-hearted than the first half. Not that you can say most of the plot of Oliver! is generally light-hearted dealing as it does with an orphan who runs away from the workhouse to end up working for a gang of young thieves led by a cunning Jew and a woman-beating Neanderthal. Obviously I'm referring there to Oscar nominee Ron Moody's Fagin and Oliver Reed's Bill Sikes who was a character that had a minimal role in the musical but appears more for the film audience to realise that he's no good. Like Mary Poppins, Oliver is one of the films on this list that I have watched many times before however I approached it this time thinking does this feel like a Best Picture winner? My answer would probably be yes but from an earlier decade as by this time the Academy was awarding more alternative films for example the prior winner to Oliver! was In the Heat of the Night and the one after was Midnight Cowboy. What Oliver! is is a brilliant musical with fine turns from Moody, Reed, Shani Wallis as Nancy, Harry Secombe as Mr Bumble and Jack Wild as The Artful Dodger who was the only other cast member to get an Oscar nomination. There are some great set pieces namely in the 'Consider Yourself' and 'Who Will Buy' numbers the latter of which is one of my favourite moments. However as I am one for darker stuff I love the last twenty minutes most notably Fagin and Dodger's reprise of Reviewing the Situation as well as the eventual capture of Bill, hell even Bullseye the dog is brilliant. In 1969 film was changing however if you'd watched Oliver! as a representation of what movies were like at the time then you wouldn't know it although it is an excellent musical I feel that something grittier could've possibly won in its place but then again I haven't watched its competitors yet so only time will tell.

OK  more Oscar blogging to come soon with an Audrey Hepburn double coming up next.