Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 409: Here's to you Mrs. Dalloway

As we've seen throughout the course of this blog, plenty of Oscar nominees and winners been based on well-known pieces of literature. However, the next film on hour list; 2003 nominee The Hours is rather uniquely inspired by Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway. David Hare's adaptation of Michael Cunningham's novel focuses on three women who are all touched by the book in different ways.

The first story concentrates on Woolf herself as she begins to write Mrs. Dalloway in 1923 whilst at the same time dealing with her various emotional issues. The second story is set in suburban Los Angeles during the early 1950s and deals with Laura Brown who is reading Mrs. Dalloway. Finally, in modern day New York, Clarissa Vaughan is planning a party for her dying poet friend Richard who refers to her as Mrs. Dalloway. Despite their disparate time lines and settings; all of the three women who The Hours concentrates on have plenty of similarities. All of three are suffering from mental problems of all kinds; with Virginia struggling with her countryside surroundings, Laura considering suicide and Claudia busying herself with party planning to blot out her insecurities. All three women also have feelings for the same sex whether it be on show, such as Claudia's lesbian relationship with her long term partner, or kept behind closed doors. What I liked about Hare's screenplay was the fact that he kept all three storylines ticking along nicely and made sure that we didn't forget about any one thread. If I'm honest, the least interesting of the three stories was that of Woolf herself who was a little bit too precious to ever care about that much. I enjoyed the subtlety of the Laura storyline and its exploration of the dark underbelly of 1950s suburbia. Meanwhile, Claudia's tale was full of regret and had a rather shocking scene towards the end of it. One element of the final scenes I wasn't particularly keen on was the way that Claudia and Laura's scenes linked together however it did make sense to the overall tale.

Interestingly all three of The Hours' lead actresses were nominated at that year's ceremony however only two of them were representing that film. Despite giving the weakest turn of the three, Nicole Kidman's portrayal of Virginia Woolf netted her that year's Best Actress prize. I would agree with those who theorised that the reason that she was given the award was for putting on a prosthetic nose that made her look only slightly detracted from her overall beauty. Kidman did little to make me care about the Woolf scenes which only perked up with the arrival of Miranda Richardson as her lively sister. Even though she was on screen longer, Julianne Moore was nominated for Best Supporting Actress for her tender portrayal of Laura Brown; a woman who was on the verge of ending it all. Moore was also nominated for Best Actress that year for a similar turn in Far From Heaven however I think her performance in The Hours was slightly better. Oddly the best performance of the trio, which came from Meryl Streep, failed to garner a nomination with the actress instead being recognised for her turn in Adaptation. I think that Streep delivered one of her greatest performances as the bisexual Claudia who was hanging on to the one summer she spent with the love of her life, Richard. As Richard, Ed Harris was a revelation and I feel that he should have won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar that year that ultimately went to Streep's Adaptation co-star Chris Cooper. Aside from the fine performances and well-paced plot, Philip Glass' ever-present score deserves a mention even if it did make some of the scenes feel slightly overblown. This was my first time watching The Hours and I have to admit that I rather liked it even if Kidman's scenes as Woolf bored me a little. It was great to see a female-centric tale garner so much acclaim and I found it to be an easy-to-watch, well-written film.

Next time we return to the work of a director who had somewhat of a resurgence in the early 21st century.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 401-402: A Musical Revival

Back on Day 290 of the Oscar Challenge I looked at the last live action musical that was nominated for an Academy Award, that being All that Jazz. Since then the only musical film to bother the Best Picture category has been the animated Disney classic Beauty and The Beast. However, in the early 21st Century, the musical suddenly became cool again although the first entry into this double bill would hardly be recognisable to fans of the classic movie musical.

That film was Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge which received eight nominations at the 2002 Academy Awards. It's no surprise that Moulin Rouge's two wins were in the production and costume design categories as it's a film that's been styled within an inch of its life. Lurhmann's aim was to recreate what it felt like to be in the titular French venue during the late 1890s. To do so he used a cavalcade of contemporary pop tunes and framed the majority of the film's numbers so they looked like music videos. With a variety of recognisable songs littered throughout Moulin Rouge, Lurhmann spent almost two years securing the rights to the soundtrack which included a tango version of The Police's 'Roxanne' and a high-kicking musical imagining of Madonna's 'Like a Virgin'. As with the majority of the musicals I've covered on this blog, Moulin Rouge's story is very slight indeed. It's told from the point-of-view of penniless writer Christian who is reflecting on his brief romance with the Moulin Rouge's star turn Satine. Satine and Christian fall in love over one night as he convinces her to star in a musical which is very much based around their own story. Standing in the way of the young couple's romance is a pompous duke who wishes to be Satine in order to give the Moulin Rouge's owner Howard Zidler the funding to turn his club into a theatre. Although it features plenty of plush musical scenes, the content of Moulin Rouge is quite dark as it deals with themes of prostitution, rape and terminal illness. The final twenty minutes, all based around the show within a show, are a dazzling treat for both the ears and the eyes and sort of distract from the film's many minor problems.

Moulin Rouge is definitely an enjoyable movie and you can't help but like a film that plays around with the very idea of the musical itself. Every scene, costume and character is well-designed with Donald M. McAlpine's cinematography varying throughout the piece. Nicole Kidman's performance as Satine was the only turn in the film to be nominated for an Oscar and I think it was more than deserved. Kidman's balanced Satine's on-stage persona brilliantly with the more fragile elements of the character's personality and she really made me care about her deteriorating health. As Harold Zidler, I found Jim Broadbent to be utterly magnificent as at times his character was very dark and at other times provided some great comic moments. Similarly great was John Leguizamo as Toulouse-Letrec; the character who the 1950s film version of Moulin Rouge was based upon. On the other hand I didn't think Ewan McGregor had the requisite amount of passion to play Christian and I don't believe he and Kidman sparkled on screen as much as they could. The biggest issue though was the character of The Count who felt like something out of a pantomime whilst actor Richard Roxbrough didn't just chew the scenery but devoured it as a three course meal. However I don't think this ultimately mattered in a film that is so joyous and basically reintroduced the musical for a modern audience. If Moulin Rouge hadn't been as successful as it was I don't believe that recent film musicals would've made such a big impact at the box office. But thankfully Luhrmann's vision struck a chord with movie-going audiences around the world and this montage of music videos strung together by a loose plot became one of the best films of the year.

Even with Moulin Rouge's success I don't think many would've predicted that a musical would win Best Picture the following year. Rather than another film crafted in the same postmodern style of Moulin Rouge, it was a rather traditional musical that ended up claiming the big prize at the 2003 awards. The film in question was a screen adaptation of popular Broadway show Chicago; which was actually the show that Roy Scheider's director was working on in All that Jazz. Though it's structure is very much in the style of an old-fashioned musical, Chicago does share similarities with Moulin Rouge in the way that it lays out it's numbers. Each performance is laid out as if the characters were singing directly to an audience and are strung together by introductions by Taye Diggs' piano player. In fact Diggs' supporting turn put me in mind of Joel Grey's Emcee in Cabaret as both serve a similar purpose. However, each performance in the film is intertwined with characters acting out the plot whether it be a press conference or a murder trial. The basic plot of Chicago revolves around Roxie Hart; a naive Chicago residence who dreams of being a star and who kills her lover after he insults her lack of talent. Roxie's subsequent arrest puts her in Cook County Prison alongside her idol and fellow murderess Velma Kelly. The rest of the film then becomes a power struggle between Roxie and Velma as both try to garner the interest of the press ahead of their respective trials. Playing both women against each other is slick lawyer Billy Flynn, whose titular 'Razzle Dazzle' style is the focus of one of the musical's more famous tunes. Just like Moulin Rouge, Chicago uses its stylish musical numbers to cover up rather dark subject matter in this case infidelity and murder. However, in my opinion, Chicago doesn't really warm the heart in the way that Moulin Rouge does.

I feel part of the reason for this is due to Renee Zellweger's central turn as Roxie as I never really cared about her in the way I did Kidman's Satine. In fact Chicago suffers from a lack of sympathetic characters with the only person who deserved any sort of sympathy being Roxie's cuckolded husband Amos. The ubiquitous John C Reilly was absolutely great as the almost invisible Amos and particularly shone during his character's 'Mr. Cellophane' number. Earning the Best Supporting Actress award for her performance in the film, Catherine Zeta-Jones gave a deliberately over-the-top turn as the pampered Velma. Zeta-Jones at least went for it full throttle though in a way that I don't think Zellweger ever did. Meanwhile Queen Latifah added a bit of musical depth as Cook County's matron Mama Morton and Richard Gere looked like he was enjoying himself as Billy Flynn. Whilst some of the musical numbers most notably 'The Cell Block Tango' and the finale hit the mark others did nothing for me. I did however like the way that each number was introduced and found that director Rob Marshall laid everything out perfectly. But Chicago's ultimate problem was that there wasn't a lot going on beneath the surface and this was a film whose only purpose seemed to be to entertain. I certainly don't think the film has taken on classic status since its release and it never screamed out Best Picture winner to me when I watched it at the cinema the first time round. That's not a knock against a very fun and enjoyable musical but instead against the Academy who felt that this was more deserving of the big prize than some of the better films that were released in the same year.

Next time we look at a film which contains one of the most famous movie twists of all time.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 395-397: Marty & Leo Go for Gold

It's fair to say that Martin Scorsese and Oscar have had a pretty good relationship as he's found one of his films in the Best Picture category in the last three decades. These films; Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas, all starred the great Robert De Niro and propelled the actor to stardom. In the early 21st Century, Scorsese all but ditched De Niro in favour of another star; Leonardo DiCaprio. We first met DiCaprio as a young actor who just happened to be cast in the lead role in one of the biggest films of all time; Titanic. Although the film itself was visually spectacular, I didn't really rate DiCaprio's performance and found him a little immature. However, as the noughties rolled on it appeared as if Scorsese and DiCaprio brought out the best in each other and their partnership finally saw the former pick up his well-deserved Best Director Oscar.

Scorsese's first collaboration with DiCaprio was Gangs of New York a film that the director had been working on for several decades. Based loosely on Herbert Asbury's non-fiction work of the same name Gangs of New York looks at the 19th century conflict between Irish immigrants and American natives as they fought for supremacy over several decades. I found that Scorsese dragged you into the picture kicking and screaming with an opening fight between Irish Priest Vallon's Dead Rabbits and the merciless Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting's Natives. This opening fight scene ultimately sees Vallon murdered by Cutting and his son Amsterdam being shipped off to an orphanage. DiCaprio then appears as the older incarnation of Amsterdam whose set on revenge against the man who killed his father. Instead of waging war against Cutting straight away, Amsterdam instead infiltrates his gang and at one point even saves his life. Cutting eventually begins to look upon Amsterdam as a son and therefore feels even more betrayed when he finally learns the truth. The film's third act sees Amsterdam's recovery from Bill's attack on him and his attempts to gain power in the city. It's in this third act that DiCaprio comes alive as Amsterdam empowers his Irish brethren and in doing so appoints one of his father's old allies as the town's sheriff. The film ends with another incredibly engaging fight sequence as Amsterdam takes the place of his father in the new incarnation of The Dead Rabbits. However, this fight plays out slightly differently as it coincides with the New York City Draft Riots and means that Cutting and Amsterdam have to contend with another conflict going on behind them. I found that this final sequence was a fitting end to a film that was problematic but ultimately satisfying.

It's clear to see that Gangs of New York was a labour of love for Scorsese and it apparently took him several years to complete. Part of the reason for this was his struggle to make the piece as authentic as possible down to making sure that each character's accent was spot on. One of the most impressive elements of Gangs of New York was its production design, which shockingly didn't win the Oscar in that category. Production designer Dante Ferretti recreated over a mile of mid-nineteenth century buildings in Rome where the filming took place. Ferretti's design is eye-catching from the initial scene which focuses on Cutting and The Priest's battle for the Five Points. Everything about Gangs of New York is designed within an inch of its life from the outstanding costumes to the perfectly coiffed moustached of Daniel Day-Lewis, who plays Bill 'The Butcher' with great aplomb. In fact Day-Lewis holds the film together at times and his performance earned Gangs of New York its only acting Oscar. Day-Lewis dominates the screen and showed us glimpses of There Will be Blood's Daniel Plainview; a role that snatched him his second Best Actor Oscar five years after Gangs of New York. The decision to cast Cameron Diaz as Amsterdam's love interest Jenny was an interesting one and I personally felt she fell short of the mark. Meanwhile, I found DiCaprio's acting style to be rather petulant and didn't think he was a match for Day-Lewis' scenery chewing. At the same time there were hints that Scorsese was bringing the best out in DiCaprio as his performance was certainly more assured than when we saw him in Titanic. As a whole I found Gangs of New York to be overly long and there was at least half a dozen scenes that were surplus to requirements. But it's hard to knock a film to which the director has clearly devoted so much time to perfecting. The combination of exquisite production design, a fine supporting cast and Day-Lewis' turn as The Butcher means that Gangs of New York is an enthralling watch even if it isn't the masterpiece that Scorsese intended it to be.

Two years later, Scorsese found himself at the Oscars once again with his Howard Hughes biopic The Aviator being nominated for Best Picture. In contrast to Gangs of New York, The Aviator didn't start of as Scorsese's baby and instead had been an idea floating around Hollywood since the 1970s. The Hughes biopic finally gained legs in the late 1990s with DiCaprio signed on to star whilst Michael Mann was set to direct. However, Mann was later dropped by the studio and replaced by Scorsese; partially due to his prior working relationship with DiCaprio. It was certainly clear that in the two years since Gangs of New York DiCaprio had come on leaps and bounds as an actor. It was also evident that he'd done his research into Howard Hughes' OCD; a condition that made him unable to deal with germs of any kind. If I had a particular issue with The Aviator then it was with John Logan's screenplay which I felt was rather episodic. The first act dealt with Hughes' creation of Hells' Angels before going on to look at his relationship with Katherine Hepburn. It was the Hughes and Hepburn story that really captured my imagination, partially as I'd followed the latter's career throughout the course of this blog. The film then follows Hughes' continued problems with Pan-Am and his eventual trial by the Senate. I thought that this latter half of the film was a lot less interesting with the trial scenes feeling rather clichéd. Additionally, I believe that Ava Gardner wasn't as compelling a female lead as Hepburn had been during the film's earlier moments. However, at least Logan ended the film superbly with a small victory for Hughes being followed by the suggestion that his mental health may be at its worst.

If I remember correctly, The Aviator was the definite favourite to win the Best Picture prize going into the 2005 Oscars. Although it ultimately didn't triumph in that category, it did go on to pick up an impressive five statuettes on the night. Winners included cinematographer Robert Richardson and editor Thelma Schoonmaker both of whom made the aerial scenes absolutely stunning. Dante Farretti was also rewarded with an Oscar for his recreation of Hughes' many aircrafts as well as recreating classic Hollywood landmarks. Most deserving of all was Cate Blanchett who, in my humble opinion, stole the show as the feisty Katherine Hepburn. As somebody who has watched a large amount of Katherine Hepburn films in the last few years, I can say without a doubt that Blanchett captured the actress' key mannerisms to a tea. It's a telling sign of Blanchett's skill that after she leaves the film the quality dips with Kate Beckinsale's Ava Gardner being incredibly inferior in comparison. Alan Alda was given a Best Supporting Actor nod for his role as the corrupt Senator Brewster, who attempted to bring down Hughes in order to help his friend at Pan-Am airways. However, the most impressive turn came from DiCaprio himself who I felt perfectly anchored the film as the troubled Hughes. One of Logan's strengths was to gradually build up the theme of Hughes' OCD which was aided by Schoonmaker's editing of certain situations. DiCaprio was therefore able to hint at his character's downfall before he descended briefly into madness. Although DiCaprio lost that year's Best Actor award to Ray's Jamie Foxx he still demonstrated for the first time that he was capable of leading an epic such as The Aviator. Whilst I wasn't a fan of the film's episodic structure, Scorsese once again put together a classic Hollywood epic that looked fantastic. Unfortunately it was yet another film that failed to net him that elusive Best Director prize.

That prize would finally come his way two years later in yet another film that featured Leonardo DiCaprio in one of the lead roles. This time it was The Departed; an adaptation of the Korean Infernal Affairs series which saw the action transplanted to downtown Boston. As well as teaming up with DiCaprio for the third time, The Departed also saw Scorsese work with blog favourite Jack Nicholson in his most recent Oscar-nominated film to date. The film saw Nicholson play Boston mob boss Frank Costello, who was based on real-life Boston gangster Whitey Bulger. The early scenes of The Departed focus on Costello's mentoring of the impressionable Michael Sullivan who would later go on to become an officer in the Boston PD. Sullivan, played by Matt Damon, uses his new found position to feed information to Costello in order for him to evade detection. At the same time the Boston Police Chief enlists DiCaprio's police cadet Billy Costigan to go undercover in Costello's gang in order to feed them information. The film then follows Sullivan and Costigan's stories as they attempt to evade detection in the organisations that they've found themselves in. Another connection between the pair is police psychologist Madolyn Madden, who begins a relationship with Sullivan and eventually becomes his live-in girlfriend. At the same time Madden treats Costigan as a patient and the two begin an affair behind Sullivan's back. Like Gangs of New York and The Aviator before it, The Departed is a little overlong and like Scorsese's previous two Oscar contenders it clocks in at two and a half hours. However, after a slow start, The Departed finally gets going in its final hour where revelations are thrown out at an alarming speed. The finale is especially breathtaking and I remember being taken aback the first time I watched it over seven years ago.

When Scorsese won his Oscar for The Departed, which itself was that year's Best Picture winner, it was said that it was like him being awarded a Lifetime Achievement award for an inferior film. Although The Departed is far from Scorsese's most accomplished film it's still an interesting crime picture which has a lot to say about identity and what truly defines us. Screenwriter William Monahan's screenplay was definitely the strongest of the three films in this post and all of the major characters' motives are perfectly explained. Though it doesn't look as good as the two prior films, I believe that The Departed is Scorsese at his best as it's a grimy film that explores the underbelly of city life. Boston appears as a character in its own right thanks to Michael Ballhaus' fantastic cinematography. Meanwhile Leonardo DiCaprio shines once again as the conflicted Costigan who is constantly looking over his shoulder just in case he gets rumbled. Costigan is definitely the most interested role that DiCaprio has played up to this point although he wasn't awarded with a Best Actor nomination for this particular film. However DiCaprio did feature in that year's line-up for his turn in another film; Blood Diamond and I think this is possibly due to the fact that he and Matt Damon share equal screen time. I was also impressed by Damon's turn as the quick-witted Sullivan who ultimately destroys the man he work so hard to protect. Elsewhere Nicholson gives a scene-stealing turn as the terrifying Costello and Vera Farmiga held her own as Madolyn; the only woman to really feature strongly in the film. It was odd then that none of these performers earned an Oscar nod with The Departed's only acting nomination being given to Mark Wahlberg as the foul-mouthed Staff Sgt. Dignam. The Departed also utilised popular music well with The Rolling Stone's 'Gimme Shelter' and Dropkick Murphys' 'Shipping Up to Boston' being used several time throughout its run time. Ultimately, though not Scorsese's best work, The Departed deserved the plaudits it garnered thanks to its enthralling final act and a fine ensemble cast. It also proved that DiCaprio and Scorsese were a winning partnership and I think this post proved that they definitely brought out the best in one another.

That's not the end for Scorsese and DiCaprio whose partnership would result in another Oscar-nominated film in the following decade but that's another story. Next time however we look at a little British film that struck a chord with audiences and critics alike.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 321: Terry's All-Stars

I do feel that when a director has achieved particular acclaim he can get away with most things. Terrence Malick is one such director who was well on his way to being a legend after helming Badlands and Days of Heaven in the 1970s. Malick took a twenty year hiatus following Days of Heaven so when it was announced that he'd be returning to the screen plenty of actors wanted a role in his new film. Luckily he was able to accommodate a fair few big names into The Thin Red Line, a film focusing on the Battle of Mount Austin fought in the Pacific between the Americans and the Japanese. Malick's first cut of the film was supposedly five hours long and obviously had to be cut down substantially to half of that original length. Even then I feel that the copy of The Thin Red Line I watched was overlong and confusing in some regards. One of my main issues was that of the duelling narration between Jim Caviezel's Private Witt and Nick Nolte's Lt. Col. Tall. Witt's story is that of a man who is dissatisfied with army life while Tall is trying to prove himself to his superiors who feel that a man of his advancing years shouldn't still be at war. Because of this Tall makes some risky decisions and it's one of his final choices that has an impact on the team. Events become even more complicated when Malick introduces another story later in the film as Ben Chaplin's Private Bell discovers his wife wants a divorce. The fact that both Caviezel and Chaplin are given voiceovers was rather confusing as at times I couldn't really tell the pair apart. It was only after he nobly died to save his comrades was when I realised that Witt was meant to be the hero of the piece. That alone should tell you that Malick's script was confusing and that some of what was cut from the film may have been important.

Spare a thought then for poor Adrien Brody, who prior to the release of The Thin Red Line had told people that he was the main focus of the film. After watching the film Brody's appearance amounted to nothing more than a five minute cameo towards the conclusion. Brody was understandably upset by the decision and he feels that Malick should have at least have informed of the changes that had been made prior to the film's screening. But at least Brody made into the film which is more than can be said for the likes of Martin Sheen, Micky Rourke, Gary Oldman and Billy Bob Thronton who all had their scenes cut entirely. As there are so many big names floating around it's incredibly hard to single out one or two actors to praise their performances in the film. Nick Nolte probably gives the best turn as the weary Tall and both Sean Penn and John Cusack made good impressions during their extended cameos. Like with most Malick films, the strongest aspect of The Thin Red Line is in its visuals. John Toll's cinematography is outstanding, especially when we follow the soldiers inside the long grass where they hide during their attacks. Toll's point-of-view shots really make you feel part of the action and in a way add to our understanding of what war might have been like for these men. But to me there was almost too much of a focus on arty camerawork and not enough done on character development. I personally wasn't a fan of certain characters reminiscing about their families back home and thought these scenes represented Malick's undisciplined approach to film-making. Hans Zimmer's score really helped the film achieve the emotional tone it was looking for especially when it accompanied The Thin Red Line's battle scenes. But that being said, ultimately I found The Thin Red Line to be a beautifully shot war film that really never compelled me to care about specific character. Rather than changing my views about Malick as a film-maker its simply reinforced them and I've still not be able to see what others do in this supposedly great director.

Next time we look at three films from a respected British actor who appeared in two Best Picture winners during the 1990s.