Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 285: The Brits Run Away With It

Way back on Day 22 of the Challenge I wrote a post entitled 'The British Are Coming' which was dedicated to the first British film to be nominated for Best Picture, The Private Life of Henry VIII. However the quote itself is attributed to screenwriter Colin Welland who let out the exclamation after winning the Original Screenplay Award for his work on Chariots of Fire. The film itself, described as a Cinderella story by its producer, is a British production featuring on two very different athletes both attempting to compete at the 1924 Paris Olympics. Cambridge University student Harold Abrahams faced anti-Semitism during his time at the establishment but impressed his superiors with his athletic ability. Meanwhile, Scottish missionary worker Eric Liddell is viewed as an extraordinarily quick runner and its his wish to compete in the 100m. But his dreams are quashed by his sister, who feels that his love of running is stopping him from fulfilling his true purpose of spreading God's word. Eventually he's able to convince her that it was God who gave him the ability to run so fast and that he'd be doing his God a disservice if he didn't run. The plot follows both Harold and Eric over the course of a number of years as they race against each pursue their racing dream. It also explores how the world of athletics is a tricky place for both especially the Jewish Harold who is forced to deal with anti-Semitic comments from those at Cambridge. Harold later hires a trainer to help him improve his game with the two forming somewhat of a bond ahead of the Olympics. At the games themselves, Eric and Harold find themselves matched against the superior American team. But, like the film itself, both the British runners find themselves beating the heavy favourites and finding glory when it counted.

As this was my first time watching Chariots of Fire, I was searching for some semblance of patriotic pride that I'm sure the film was going for. My knowledge of the film going in was that it was the little British film that could and had indeed been described as a 'Cinderella Story'. However, I have to admit that for large portions of Chariots of Fire I was thoroughly underwhelmed. My personal problem was that the film never really grabbed me and in a way was almost too polite, just like any decent Brit I suppose. In fact possibly the best scene occurred during the opening credits which included the famous running scenes on the beach accompanied by Vangellis' Oscar-winning score. Welland's script was full of moments of pride and self-reflection but at times I found these scenes almost too worthy. In the roles of Abrahams and Liddell, Ben Cross and Ian Charelson are full of charm but I found neither possessed enough intrigue to truly make me care about their characters. Even the usually reliable Ian Holm, who was Oscar-nominated for his role as professional trainer Sam, didn't really set the screen alight. That's not to say that Chariots of Fire isn't a good film with one of its best qualities being that it lacks the mawkish melodrama that has been present in most of the 1980s Best Picture winners so far. Visually, the film is stunning with the costumes, period detail and exterior locations all proving to be aesthetic treats. The characters were well-drawn even if the stiff upper lips they possessed really prevented me from getting to know them all that much. Ultimately Chariots of Fire is the little film that could and it needs to be applauded for that fact even if I wasn't as engrossed as I possibly should have been.

Next time we focus on a star who really came into her own in the 1980s and in particular two films in which she was nominated for Best Actress.

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.