Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 198: Practise What You Preach

Next up a look at how religion became big business and how preaching the Lord's name for profit can sometimes be a bad idea. The film in question is Elmer Gantry, with the titular hard-drinking salesman being played with verve and vigour by a game Burt Lancaster. In the early part of the film, Gantry is portrayed as a man who likes women, whisky and gambling but his world soon changes when he encounters public evangelist Sister Sharon Falconer. After several attempts to attract her attention, Elmer finally weasels his way into her roadshow team and gradually becomes part of the service himself. Elmer and Sharon quickly develop a good cop/bad cop routine where he tells everyone they're going to hell before she promises to save their souls. Meanwhile, the pair's exploits attract the attention of sceptical journalist Jim Lefferts who gains notoriety himself after trying to expose Gantry for the fraud he is. Despite Jim's criticisms, Sharon and Elmer continue to build-up a following and start taking their show to larger cities, drawing bigger crowds as they go. Elmer is also able to talk himself into presenting a radio show and tells the locals to shut down known speakeasys and brothels. However, when Elmer breaks into one of these brothels, he encounters an old flame of his - Lulu who has fallen on hard times since Elmer left her. Lulu attempts to get revenge by staging a scene in which Elmer is seen giving her money and planting a kiss on her lips. When Sharon, who has since become Elmer's lover, sees the pictures she resolves to pay Lulu the money she wants but the pictures make it to the paper nonetheless. As Elmer's reputation is muddied, the roadshows are almost empty with most of the congregation made up of people who want to heckle and throw things at Sharon and Elmer. But, after Elmer comes to Lulu's aid, she recants her tale and admits that the whole thing was a set-up just to avenge the way Elmer treated her. As the crowds return to Sharon's show, it seems that her life is back on track but one more tragedy hits that changes everything.

I have to say it did take me a while to warm to Elmer Gantry, mainly because the first twenty minutes were simply spent building up to Elmer's first meeting with Sharon. I felt director Richard Brooks' script, which was partly based on Sinclair Lewis' novel, really presented an interesting character in Elmer. Throughout the film you didn't know how much of what he said was genuine and whether he really believed in what he was saying or that he was simply trying to make a fast buck. Similarly, Sharon's motives are initially questioned, as it seems as if her preaching the name of God is simply to get famous, however we later learn the truth about where the money is going. While the film presented a number of interesting characters, including Jim and Lulu, I never felt it was visually stunning until the final ten minutes. The final disaster of the film, which I won't ruin in this post, is presented in a way in which you really fear for the lives of all of the characters. Elmer Gantry's other strength is the Oscar-Winning central performance from Burt Lancaster who really steals the show as the fast-talking conman. From the very first scene, Lancaster is truly captivating as he wanders around with a big smile on his face and preaches the word of the Lord with such conviction. Jean Simmons was also brilliant as Sister Sharon, a character whose motives change several times during the film. I'm surprised that Simmons wasn't even nominated for an Oscar seeing as her performance is just as engaging as Lancaster's. The film's other acting award went to Shirley Jones, who is captivating in the film's second act as the damaged and vengeful Lulu. While some of the scenes in the film could've been slightly shorter, I felt that Elmer Gantry had a lot to offer with its themes of whether religion can ever be used as entertainment. It's odd that this film isn't as well-remembered as some of the other films from this decade; however I'm now going to go out and preach the word of one Elmer Gantry.

Next time we step on board two very different ships.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 141: A Double Bill of Biblical Proportions

During the 1950s we saw the dawn of big pictures being made in Cinescope and Techincolor. To this effect some of the old sword and sandals epics from the early period of cinema started to be updated using these new techniques two of which are the biblical epics we will cover in this blog post.

We start with The Robe which was nominated for Best Picture at the 1954 ceremony adapted from the novel by Lloyd C Douglas it tries to tell the story of what happened to the Roman soldier who won Jesus' robe. The soldier turns out to be Tribune Marcellus Gallio, played here by Richard Burton, a well-liked man who at the beginning of the film takes on a slave Demetrius. Gallio treats Demetrius well but then one day the latter glances upon Jesus and starts to believe in him so refuses to take orders from one of the men who is overseeing the crucifixion. After winning the robe Marcellus starts to get fits and egged on by his love interest Diana and the Emperor Tiberius he starts to discover Jesus' works and his miracle and himself becomes a Christian. However when Tiberius dies and Caligula takes his place Marcellus is forced into taking trial as a conspirator against the empire as Caligula and Marcellus are enemies after Diana left the former for the latter. At the end of the film Marcellus is sentenced to his death and Diana walks with him as the screen fades out they are both walking into clouds with angelic music playing behind them. That final scene displays all you really need to know about The Robe in that its main motive is pro-Jesus and even if you die you'll find happiness in the next life. There's no denying that the film is well made and well shot and fully takes advantage of the Technicolor aspect of the picture. The opening scene in which Marcellus walks through the market just before meeting Demetrius is the film's most spectacular taking in all manner of animals and people later on however the film loses its epic feel as it becomes a lot of people talking in rooms but mind you they are well furnished rooms and all the people in them are well-costumed. Richard Burton was nominated for Best Actor here however I feel the best performances come from Victor Mature as Demetrius and Jean Simmons as Diana. Overall a good example of the 1950s swords and sandals epic that peters out towards the end of its run as its religious message really begins to kick in.

Three years after The Robe and four years after he won Best Picture, Cecil B DeMile presented his final picture The Ten Commandments a nominee in 1957. As you can probably garner from the film's title it deals with the story of Moses and how The Ten Commandments came to be. However that part of the story takes part in the film's final half hour, before that there are three and a half hours explaining Moses' entire life and his need to let his people go. As I really feel there's no need to go over the story of Moses in detail I instead want to focus on how visually spectacular this film is. From Moses discovering the Burning Bush, to the various plagues of Egypt and the famous scene in which Moses parts the water every effect is delivered perfectly which at that time was quite hard to do. In addition there was a 'cast of thousands' involved in the film as a lot of The Ten Commandments see the Egyptians whipping the Hebrews into shape in order to get their cities built. Of the main cast members Charlton Heston ages and grows hair superbly here to play Moses he has much more personality than he did in The Greatest Show on Earth and is able to carry the film although I did think Yul Brynner did a good job as Ramses making him both a forceful and later sympathetic character. However some of the supporting roles, especially Edward G Robinson's Dathan did lapse into pantomime at points as did the part of the film in which the Hebrew people are corrupted and start to worship false idols. Of course the big problem here is that the film does not need to be four hours long and there's easily an hour or so, most of it around the point where Moses meets his wife, that could be cut out to make the film flow a lot more steadily. But at the end of the day this is a visual spectacle that definitely deserves its Oscar nomination and its place in history and indeed both this and The Robe are still in the top 100 grossing films of all time including inflation adjustment. So it just goes to show that there is big money to be made from Bible-based movies so I'll have to grab my copy of The Great Book and start adapting now!

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 105: More from Charlie and Bill

Next up we have adaptations of two classic works of British literature from two classic British directors. First of all Charles Dickens' Great Expectations directed by David Lean and then Laurence Olivier's adaptation of William Shakespeare's Henry V. When writing about any of these films its always tempting to go into plot detail but with works of classic literature it feels like ret-reading old ground a lot of the time so instead I shall simply discuss the style and acting.

First up then Lean's Great Expectations which goes straight into the story as young Pip first encounters the convict Abel Magwitch and is forced to steel food and a file so that the convict can get away and have something to eat. These scenes between the startled Pip and the terrifying Magwitch are some of the film's best and the way they are shot and edited and the music that accompanies them all adds to the haunting mood and rightfully the film did win the Oscars that year for Art Direction and Cinematography. The Art Direction is also prevalent in the later scenes when Pip is invited to play at the house of Miss Havisham and her ward Estella whom Pip falls in love with. Lean again gets it just right showing this house as a large daunting place full of cobwebs and dust where the clocks are stopped to the time when Miss Havisham was stood up at the altar. About an hour into the film the action switches and Pip is now an adult played by John Mills, it is in these scenes that Pip goes to London to live with Alec Guinness' adorable Herbert Pocket and also romances the grown Estella. For me I felt that Mills was miscast as Pip, I felt that he seemed almost too old to be playing a 21 year old and also didn't really convey the fact that he'd made the transition from blacksmith's mate to gentleman in training. But Mills' performance is the exception rather than the rule as there are some fine performances in the supporting cast from Francis L Sullivan as the belligerant lawyer Mr Jaggers to Bernard Miles as the kindly Mr Joe and Finlay Currie as the terrifying Magwitch all these roles are played as they should be my only criticism is that I feel that Martita Hunt went a little overboard as Miss Havisham almost making her performance lapse into pantomime. As the final scenes come on and Pip finds out who it was that paid for him to become a gentleman and also of Estella's true parentage the film comes together with the final scenes playing out as they should. Lean abridges the book rightfully chopping out the bits that don't really contribute to the overall narrative and at the end producing a great piece of British cinema which was ahead of its time in many ways and was certainly deserving of the two technical Oscars that it won.

Similarly Olivier's Henry V was deserving of the Special Oscar it won for Laurence Olivier in his achievement of bringing this unique retelling of one of the Bard's most famous works to the screen, he was honoured as a director, producer and actor and excels in all three. This film was shot in Technicolor which, in 1944 when it was being shot, was still quite rare and the way the colour is used in this film also feels ahead of its time creating almost like a separate world as Henry V and his charges head to France. However the film actually starts as a performance in The Globe theatre as we see the audiences take their seats and Leslie Banks, as the chorus, welcomes us to the performance as the actors deliver the first couple of scenes from the stage before Henry and the English hit the sea to France to fight in the Battle of Agincourt. The Agincourt scenes themselves are spectacular, the exterior shots are obviously done in interior studios but at some times I had to sort of take a double back as they are so realistic but at the same time quite obviously fake. This contrast creates almost a surrealist feel and when two soldiers are surrounded by what is meant to be snow covering the French castle it feels out of the ordinary. Olivier makes a brilliant Henry V and his performance and the film as a whole are a lot better than Hamlet the film that won him the Oscar and took home the same prize. Henry V was seen as a morale-booster for the British army and therefore this Techincolor marvel was funded by the British Government and some of Olivier's speeches do have a certain morale-boosting resonance to them. This is getting away from just a filmed version of a Shakespeare play and using the medium of film to try and play around with the audience's expectations. I have to say my favourite parts are when the camera goes backstage to see the actors getting ready before taking the stage again at The Globe. As Henry and Katherine get married at the end of the film we return to the theatre with the audience clapping and I'd like to think that the post-war audience was doing the same thing.

O.K. that's your lot for this little update hopefully be back with more Oscar-ness soon.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 72: Great Danes

After two Shakespearian adaptations failing to win the Oscars in the 1930s, the final winner at a 1940's Oscar Ceremony was indeed based on one of Will's best loved works. And it was by one of the men who would become famous for his Shakespearian leads that being Laurence Olivier who also won as Best Lead Actor and produced and directed the piece. Unlike a lot of the other films I'm not providing a plot synopsis here because most of you should know the story of Hamlet i.e. Danish prince tries to avenge the death of his father by his uncle, who then married his mother, by trying to get him to admit to the crime and then killing him himself. Obviously this being a tragedy the lion's share of the characters die one way or another, Hamlet's love Ophelia goes a bit potty and drowns herself, Hamlet's mum is poisoned and my favourite is Polonius who is stabbed while behind a curtain giving us the message that Peeping Toms never prosper. But adaptations of Shakespeare's plays should always be analysed by how they look visually. To some extent Olivier has done a good job the scene in which Hamlet writes a play basically about his uncle killing his father is done very well, with the space used for the play being particularly apt. The way this whole scene is lit is brilliant and some colour almost creeps into the scene also. The way that Hamlet's father's ghost is portrayed is also done very well with a suit of armour with a blacked out face surrounded by smoke creating a sense of fear. The filmic techniques also allow for some of the dialogue to be changed with Hamlet delivering some of his soliloquies in voice-over. On the whole though I did find the film was overly stagey and Olivier didn't quite utilise all that was available to him in terms of filmic space. As there was so much opportunity to do something special I feel it was squandered and most of the scenes felt like they were simply being acted on the stage. I know it's an adaptation but Olivier failed to make edits and almost 2 and a half hours it feels too long.

Another problem I had was in Olivier's lead performance, although there's no denying he's one of the greatest actors of all time, I just feel that he was maybe a little too old for Hamlet and he failed to portray some of his vulnerability instead going for all out thespian-mode. The other nominated member of the cast, Jean Simmons as Ophelia, also didn't do a lot for me and I was rather glad when she drowned herself. There were some good supporting performances mainly from Basil Sydney as Claudius, Eileen Herlie as Gertrude and Felix Alymer as Polonius. At the end of the day I think the academy wanted to seem a little cultured that year and that's maybe why Olivier's Hamlet won the big one. I'm not saying it's a bad film but for me Olivier failed to make a film instead this felt more like a filmed version of a Hamlet performance.