Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 328-329: The Two Faces of Elizabeth I

Even in the early days of Oscar, the academy loved British films that focused on the Tudor Monarchy. In fact the first ever British film to be nominated for an Oscar was The Private Life of Henry VIII for which Charles Laughton won a Best Actor statuette. At the 1999 Oscars, Henry's daughter Elizabeth featured in two films which focused on different stages of her reign. Although Elizabeth was played by different actors the pair of movies did share a pair of actors who featured prominently throughout. 

The imaginatively named Elizabeth was the first of these two films and saw Cate Blanchett take on the role of the titular Queen. Shekhar Kapur's film was based around Elizabeth's ascent to the throne following her sister Mary's death and her struggles to gain the respect she needed. It didn't help matters that everybody around her was trying to marry her off every five minutes or get her to declare a war on some country or other. It really seemed to me as if Elizabeth would've been better off continuing to dance round that field with Joseph Fiennes' Dudley rather than committing herself to running the country. Obviously things got a bit more complicated when it turned out when Dudley was married and plotting to have her removed from the throne. But the only other alternative was Vincent Cassel's hilariously campy cross-dressing French King who was flanked by an intimidating Eric Cantona. On the performances front, Elizabeth really belonged to Cate Blanchett who became an overnight sensation after appearing in the film. Elizabeth's transformation is the key aspect of Michael Hirst's script and Blanchett deals with this perfectly. She is convincing as the naive exile in the aforementioned dancing scenes but is equally great commanding rooms full of sceptical men. I feel the turning point in the film is Elizabeth's appearance in front of the bishops which Blanchett plays incredibly well, initially seeming nervous before becoming the strong-willed woman we know she will be. Geoffrey Rush puts in a supporting turn as Elizabeth's devious supporter Walsingham who ends up being her biggest ally. Rush is brilliant as he utilises a number of inquisitive facial expressions and tries to get the audience to second guess his actions. Christopher Eccleston's Norfolk is an incredibly brooding villain as he uses his cunning rather than any sort of brutality to get what he wants. The film is give an air of legitimacy via the inclusion of veteran performers such as Richard Attenborough and John Gielgud whilst at the same time introducing some new faces like Daniel Craig and Emily Mortimer. 

It's this use of new faces and exciting visuals that sets Elizabeth out from the standard costume drama. I was personally won over straight away when the incredibly modern title card sequence flashed across the screen. The intrusive camera work in some scenes helped make the audience part of the action and livened up an occasionally dull story. I was surprised that, among the seven Oscar nominations the film received, the innovative editing wasn't even recognised. I felt that several of the film's key sequences relied on some great editing to make them feel important and give Elizabeth the modern twist it deserved. Additionally, the film was unflinching in its depiction of violence, which I feel was another positive attribute to Elizabeth's overall success. From the burning of the protestants at the beginning of the film right up to Norfolk's beheading, Elizabeth set out to show us that life in the Tudor court wasn't all bonnets and balls. Up to this point I feel most of the period dramas have kept the violence and bloodshed behind closed doors but Elizabeth swung those doors wide open. The narrative of the film was well-paced and the two hour runtime perfectly suited the story of a Queen struggling to rule her nation. My main disappointment was that the film didn't pick up as many Oscars as it should have done, only winning the award for Best Make-up. Whilst I felt that the Tudor faces were well realised, Elizabeth was much more than just your standard costume drama. But the reason for its failure at the awards can be attributed to the next film on my list. 

The film was Shakespeare in Love, which won that year's Best Picture and a further six Oscars including one for Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth I. Dench's role in the film was minimal and therefore some sniped at her Oscar win. I have to admit at the time I was one of them but after seeing the likes of Beatrice Straight and Maureen Stapleton win Best Supporting Actress with minimal screen time I changed my mind. Dench's Elizabeth was definitely a scene-stealer and she portrayed the Queen as somebody who was frustrated by those who stood on ceremony. Dench dealt well with the comic nature of the screenplay and was convincing as the legendary virgin queen. The link between the two performances is the line in which Elizabeth talks about being a woman in a man's profession, something she's had to cope with since her reign began. Dench wasn't the only actress to win an award for the film as Gwynth Paltrow triumphed, playing theatre-fan Viola De Lessops. Viola's romance with Shakespeare during the rehearsals for Romeo and Juliet is the basis of the film which is odd seeing as she poses as a man for large portions of the movie. Gwyenth does put in a lively turn but does nothing to convince me that she should've beaten Blanchett at that year's Oscar ceremony. Geoffrey Rush and Joseph Fiennes do double duty in this entry as they play theatre owner Henslowe and the titular playwright respectively. Fiennes is a perfectly serviceable leading man and shares fine chemistry with Paltrow which helps to make their on-screen romance convincing. Rush meanwhile is the perfect comic foil for the rest of the cast and his harassed Henslowe is the stand-out turn of a great supporting cast. One of my favourite performances in the film came from Tom Wilkinson as Hugh Fennyman, a loan shark who gets enraptured by the theatre after bankrolling Romeo and Juliet. 

I don't personally feel that there's that much wrong with Shakespeare in Love and it's not particularly offensive. Instead it just feels a little unremarkable and too whimsical to ever be taken seriously as a Best Picture contender. Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman's script is a little knowing and overly comic for a film that I feel should be a little bit more serious. That being said I did enjoy some of the little touches; most notably the fact that the rowers are presented like modern-day taxi drivers. I have to admit that I did enjoy the film's final act as the performance of Romeo and Juliet itself was the highlight of the film. But it was the journey to the theatre that was the problem and I found plenty of the film's characters uninteresting or unlikeable. Stoppard and Norman don't appear to have put in a lot of work into making Colin Firth's Wessex a serious enough threat to Viola and Shakespeare's relationship. Even though she ultimately travels to America with him her heart will always be with the romantic playwright. I do feel it's a little mean to constantly cast Firth as the cuckold as he played a similar third wheel as Kristin Scott Thomas' husband in The English Patient. So how did a lightweight comedy costume drama come to be the last film to win Best Picture in the twentieth century? Well that's down to its involvement with Harvey Weinstein's Miramax studios which are notorious for aggressively campaigning for their films to win awards. Weinstein's campaign for Shakespeare in Love's win including holding a party for director John Madden and inviting several of the academy's key voters. He put millions of dollars into securing the film won in as many categories as possible and he was ultimately successful. However, after watching these two films back-to-back, its clear that Shakespeare in Love wasn't even the best Elizabethan film to be released that year. It's just a shame that politics and campaigning can get in the way of the right film winning the Best Picture and I feel that the 1999 ceremony exemplifies that point perfectly. 

Next time we stay with costume drama as we focus on the continued success of Merchant Ivory. 

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 315-316: Hitting all the Right Notes

Welcome to another post with two films that similarly have little in common but are linked by a number of factors. The most obvious common theme running throughout Shine and The Piano are that both of its protagonists play the titular instrument. However the themes run deeper as both films are set in Australasia, both feature central characters with a disability and both saw their lead performers collect awards at that year's Oscars.
The Piano takes us to New Zealand of the mid-19th century as we see Scottish Ada McGrath and her young daughter Flora travel from Scotland. Ada has been mute since she was a child but has been promised in marriage to frontierman Alisdair Stewart. Early on in Jane Campion's film its established that Ada's piano is the most important thing to her and she uses it to let out her emotions. So it's a bitter blow to Ada when Alisdair decides that the instrument is too heavy to carry and too big for his small house. Eventually Ada's piano is bought by Baines, a man who is sometime in Aisdair's employ and who is seemingly torn between the area's white population and the Maori natives. Baines claims he wants piano lessons but this is later revealed a simple rouse to bribe Ada into giving her piano back. It's made clear that Baines is sexually frustrated and often walks round nude in front of Ada or gets her to pitch her skirt up. Somehow Baines' presence in her life has a positive effect on Ada and she misses him watching her when she finally gets the piano back. The stage is then set for somewhat of a love triangle as Alisdair soon learns of the relationship tht has started between Baines and his wife. Alisdair later takes some very bloody revenge against Ada which I found to be a very shocking yet memorable moment. Eventually Ada is able to decide who she truly wants to be with even though she is forced to loose her piano in the process.

Other than being a film that won a few Oscars, I knew very little about The Piano prior to watching it. I did find it hard to get into the film partly due to the fact that the main character didn't speak however this later became one of The Piano's most positive features. My previous experiences with Jane Campion's work had been incredibly poor as I didn't warm to her 2009 biopic Bright Star or the TV miniseries Top of the Lake. However the artistic direction added to the overall feel of the film with Stuart Dryburgh's cinematography perfectly capturing the Kiwi exteriors and adding to The Piano's period feel. Although we're into the mid-1990s by this point, Jane Campion's nomination for Best Director was the only second time that a woman had received recognition in that category something I find hard to believe. The Piano was a film that featured strong female characters both behind and in front of the camera so I'm glad that Campion won an award for her original screenplay. Holly Hunter's performance as Ada was truly captivating and she managed to communicate her character's feelings beautifully without ever opening her mouth. Although I felt that Hunter should have won Best Actress for her turn in Broadcast News her win for The Piano was more than deserved. The film's third Oscar went to young Anna Paquin who, in her debut performance, more than held her own opposite much more experienced co-stars. Paquin shared great chemistry with Hunter and you could really believe that the pair were mother and daughter. For a child star, Paquin was never annoying and at times was my favourite thing about the film. I was less keen on the male performances with Sam Neill being lumbered with the thankless part of Alisdair and Harvey Keitel struggling to settle on an accent for Baines. One of the film's most memorable attributes was Michael Nyman's haunting score, which was stuck in my head for days after watching The Piano, so I was shocked to learn that he didn't win an Oscar for it. Overall, The Piano was beautifully filmed and included two fantastic performances but still felt a little uneven for me to truly enjoy every minute of it.
As we know by now Oscar loves a biopic and therefore Shine's inclusion in the Best Picture category was a given. Shine is a very straightforward retelling of the life of pianist David Helfgott whose incredible talent was almost wasted due to his mental issues. Part of David's issues were due to his strict upbringing by a father who always felt he knew best and was very sceptical about outside interference. The first example of this is when a music teacher spots David at a competition and offers to train him on the piano. A teenage David is later offered the chance to study music in America but the dream is snatched away by his father. Thanks to his friendship with a local novelist, David soon picks up the courage to confront his father and take a scholarship in London. It's while in London that David's mental state starts to deteriorate as he attempts to learn a difficult piece of music for an upcoming competition. Although David wins the competition the practise drives him insane forcing him into an institution. Shunned by his father, David spends years in an asylum before being rescued by a volunteer who recognises his talents. But she eventually abandons him and leaves him in a hotel where his destructive tendencies appear once again. It's only through his friendship with a restaurant owner, who lets David play the piano there, does he start to rejoin society. David even finds love and makes a comeback at the end of the film.

Interestingly Shine met with controversy over two of the film's main plot points. The first was David's mother's claims that her husband was never abusive towards his children. Shine's director Scott Hicks denies these allegations claiming that he'd had contact with David's siblings who corroborate the film's version of events. Secondly there have been claims that David's comeback performances weren't as brilliant as the film was suggest and that he definitely lost some of his early talent during his later years. Even after learning about these issues, neither really bothered me although I did have other reservations about Shine. Coming into the film, the only thing I really knew about it was the fact that Geoffrey Rush won a Best Actor Oscar for his role in Shine. Because of this I had high expectations about Rush's turn in the film and I'm sad to say they weren't met. Part of the reason for this is that Rush only plays David in the latter stages of Shine and the character is first portrayed by Alex Rafalowicz and then by Noah Taylor. Rush's performance put me in mind of Dustin Hoffman's portrayal in Rain Man as both played characters who have mental health problems. Just like Hoffman, I felt that Rush overdid that aspect of his character a little bit and his performance was a little over-the-top. It did almost seem as if the Academy had honoured the three actors playing the character but given the award to Rush who started and finished the film as David. In fact I personally preferred Taylor's interpretation of the character as a teenager and felt he particularly excelled in showcasing David's descent into madness. Armin Mueller-Stahl was similarly strong as David's overbearing father whilst the scenes depicting David's piano playing were well-shot and choreographed. Ultimately, I was a little disappointed with the film as a whole as it petered out towards the end. While individual elements of it should be applauded, Shine really wasn't as excellent as I thought it would be and I think that's a real shame.

Next time we catch up with a familiar screen star as he reunites with one of his favourite directors

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 307: Give Peace a Chance

So we're finally here, and a lot quicker than I thought we would be, as I've finished in the 1980s in just over two months. As always the decade is ending and with, you guessed it, yet another historical epic. Although not directed by David Lean, Gandhi almost feels like a tribute to Lean by its director Richard Attenborough. I suppose I feel this way because of the film's spectacular exterior scenes and the way ii which India is shot throughout the film. In fact Lean was on board at one point to direct Gandhi but due to different circumstances it was Attenborough who ultimately helmed the project. Like a lot of the epics I've looked at in this decade, Gandhi takes place over a number of years beginning in 1893 and ending in 1948. The opening scene depicts the young Mohandas Gandhi being thrown off a train after he refused to move classes. From there Gandhi begins to fight injustice, firstly in South Africa when a new rule comes in which essentially makes Indians feel like second class citizens. Throughout the movie, we learn that Gandhi is only interested in peaceful protests and doesn't get angry when he's thrown in prison for his beliefs. As well as making a number of enemies, Gandhi builds up a following and he has a few loyal friends who he's able to count on. Much of the film depicts Gandhi's attempt to end the British Empire's control of India and his participation in the country's eventual independence. But Gandhi soon realises that he still cannot fully bring about peace due to the fact that India's different religious groups begin to squabble amongst one another. To attempt to counteract this, Gandhi goes on a hunger strike and eventually convinces his countrymen to throw down their weapons. Although he's ultimately murdered, Gandhi's message of an eye for an eye leaves all of us blind is one that resonates long after the film has ended.

I was interested to learn that novelisation of Gandhi's screenplay starts with an introduction from the film-makers explaining that no man's life can be encompassed in one telling. That's certainly evident throughout Gandhi, which at times feels like a potted history of the man rather than a cinematic version of his life story. It was clear that this was a passion project for Attenborough, who had attempted to get the project off the ground for almost thirty years. I do feel his need to tell as much of Gandhi's story as possible has meant that the film was a lot longer than it should've been and contained many superfluous scenes that were full of expositional speeches. Like most epics, Gandhi was at least great to look at with the film's cinematography capturing the brilliant scenery that India had to offer. Though it needed to be cut down, the film's editing was great nonetheless especially when newsreel from the time was intercut into the main body of the picture. Period detail appears to be another element that Attenborough was keen on getting right and he accomplished that thanks to some superb art direction and costume design. On top of the film's technical achievements, Gandhi's other saving grace was the fantastic central performance from Ben Kingsley. Kingsley was cast due to his Indian heritage and through his performance he really explained why so many people wanted to follow Gandhi. Kingsley's performance is one of the most captivating I've seen over the course of this project and he was rightfully rewarded with a Best Actor Oscar. There were plenty of familiar faces among the supporting cast with Martin Sheen, Candice Bergen and Geraldine James all giving impressive turns. But, aside from Kingsley, the best performance in the film came from Rohini Hattangadi as Gandhi's wife and I personally feel that she should have least received a nomination for her part in the movie. Ultimately Gandi combines a brilliant central term with some fairly outstanding set pieces but is let down by a baggy script and an overly long run time.

But did Gandhi deserve to win the Best Picture prize? Find out next time as I review every Oscar ceremony from the 1980s.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 298: The Lynch Mob

The name of director David Lynch is certainly synonymous with surreal films that have bizarre plots and often don't make a lot of sense. As a result Lynch's films don't really feature heavily at any of the Oscar ceremonies and he's only ever had one film which made it on to the Best Picture nominee list. The film in question, and Lynch's second feature, is The Elephant Man which is based on two biographies chronicling the story of John Merrick. The deformed Merrick is initially seen in a Victorian Freak Show where he's rescued by Frederick Treves, a surgeon at the London Hospital. Treves believes that Merrick's treatment is the reason that he's treated like a freak and attempts to get him to talk. Treves' colleagues at the hospital are initially sceptical of his treatment of Merrick with many feeling that he's brought him in as a patient simply to further his own career. But, when Merrick is finally able to speak of his own volition, the hospital's governor decides to allow Treves to continue to treat 'The Elephant Man' at the London. Soon publicity for Merrick grows and respected actress Madge Kendal comes to visit him partly out of curiosity. The kindly but stern hospital matron Mrs Mothershead believes that Merrick is still being treated like a fairground attraction even if Treves thinks otherwise. Meanwhile the hospital's night porter begins to profit out of Merrick's presence at the institution as he takes money for people to come and stare at the Elephant Man. During one of these trips Merrick's former owner, brutish freak show proprietor Bytes, kidnaps him and smuggles him to Europe. In the end it's up to his fellow freaks to show that they are in fact the only people to show some sort of compassion. The film ends with one of Lynch's trademark surreal sequences as Merrick is coaxed from this world into the next by his loving mother.

There's no denying that The Elephant Man is a fantastic film. Freddie Francis' black and white photography really adds to the legitimacy of the story and the period setting. Lynch builds up perfectly to the first unveiling of John Merrick and therefore his deformity is all the more shocking. The make-up department deserves credit for their work on making John Hurt completely indistinguishable and it's a shame that the film was released a year before the make-up Oscar was reintroduced. Hurt himself puts in a fabulous performance as we see Merrick go from hopeless freak show act to well-respected member of society. Anthony Hopkins is equally strong as Treves and he essentially has to play the straight man against all of the wonderfully colourful supporting characters. Chief among these characters is Bytes, played with rigour by Freddie Jones, who is a perfect villain as is Michael Elphick's sinister night porter. Now appearing in her sixth decade on the list, Wendy Hiller puts in a memorable term as Matron Mothershead whilst Anne Bancroft is well-utilised as Madge Kendal. It was interesting for me to see a few familiar faces with smaller roles whether it be Pauline Quirke in a blink-or-you'll-miss-it turn or Dexter Fletcher a Bytes' young assistant. The script, co-written by Lynch, looks at human nature and in particular if Merrick or those that profit from him are in fact the real freaks. Despite all these positives, I couldn't really ever connect with The Elephant Man on a personal level and therefore I found myself emotionally detached from it for the most part. Whilst I found Hurt's performance as Merrick sympathetic I never truly care about his fate and instead simply appreciated the film as a whole. Ultimately I would say that The Elephant Man was definitely a film that I felt was well-made but not one that I was ever entertained by.

Next time we take our final look at a featured star from the 1970s who starred in two Best Picture nominees during the 1980s.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 183-185: The O'Toole Box

Poor old Peter O'Toole holds one of the more dubious records when it comes to the Oscars. At present O'Toole has received a total of eight acting nominations but is yet to win an award. His first Oscar nomination came for what is arguably his most famous role as the title character in Lawrence of Arabia. The 1960s also saw him get two nominations for playing Henry II in both Becket and The Lion in Winter. Of the films he received acting nominations for only those three films have also been nominated for Best Picture so this post will look at each of those pictures in turn.

O'Toole was much more famous as a stage actor before Lawrence and had only appeared in three films up to that point. Other names such as Albert Finney and Marlon Brando had been tossed around before O'Toole was finally given the role. For those unaware of the story, O'Toole stars as TE Lawrence who starts the film as an odd lieutenant who is sent to assess Arab Prince Faisal's attack on the Turks. Though Lawrence is told to agree with his colonel he later suggests to Faisal that they try to attack Aqba and create a passage for the Brits. During the trip across the desert, Lawrence manages to ingratiate himself with the Arab group after he goes back for one of their party who falls off his camel. It is at this point that Lawrence's army clothes are burnt and he becomes and Arab. When he returns to the British officer's quarters they are shocked to see that Lawrence has changed significantly and now thinks of himself as an Arab. The second half of the film then looks at Lawrence the conqueror as he listens less and less to his British superiors. Meanwhile American war correspondent Jackson Bentley starts to document Lawrence's story and is fascinated by the man himself. However Lawrence almost gets too big for his own boots and so both the Arabs and Brits plot to bring him down for different reasons.

Lawrence of Arabia won the Best Picture at the 1963 ceremony and you can definitely see why. As we've seen in the past the academy loves an epic and David Lean's film gave them quite the epic. The sweeping cinematography of F.A. Young is quite iconic especially in the scenes in which Lawrence and his company traverse across the desert. Maurice Jarre's iconic score has also lasted the test of the time and to me perfectly captures the essence of Lawrence's journey. O'Toole himself excels in his breakthrough role as he is able to portray Lawrence's change in attitude with ease. Though comment was passed about how much more attractive O'Toole was than the actual Lawrence I don't think this hampered his performance at all. Of the other cast members Omar Sharif was absolutely captivating as the sheriff who warms to Lawrence throughout the film. The realism of the piece is also enhanced via the costumes and sets which are all incredibly well-designed while the Jordanian and Moroccan scenery perfectly doubled for Cairo. I know it may be a little sacrilegious but I felt the film dragged a little bit certainly in its first third. I personally believe that the scenes before Lawrence got to the desert could have been a little less baggy which would've improved the pace. Thankfully the second half of the film was great as Lawrence almost gets a little bit too big for his boots and you can see his downfall coming a mile off. The film itself won seven awards including one for Lean and one for Young's cinematography. Meanwhile O'Toole shot to stardom however he failed to win the Best Actor Award an accolade that would evade him throughout his career.

Two years later and O'Toole was nominated for Best Actor once again for playing Henry II in Becket. The film explores the relationship between Henry II and Thomas Beckett who here was played by Richard Burton. At the start of the film Beckett is presented as Henry II's dogsbody who often sets up extra-marital one night stands for his king. A lot of Henry's noblemen distrust the Saxon Becket's intentions towards their Norman king. However Henry almost falls in love with Becket and feels that he is his most trusted confident so for that reason he appoints him as Archbishop of Canterbury. Henry feels that he can easily manipulate Becket however this turns out not to be the case. Instead Becket begins to take his job awfully seriously and decides to favour God over his King. Henry becomes increasingly jealous of Becket's relationship with God and decides to frame him for embezzlement. The rest of the film sees Becket's attempt to flee Henry's attempts to arrest him and Henry's continued obsession with Becket.

Throughout Becket it is easy to spot O'Toole's diversity as an actor because here he plays quite a petulant and immature character. His King Henry is easily the most interesting thing about Becket as he captures a man who has never really had to grow up. As we learn Henry as locked his wife up in the dungeon, more on that later, and relies now on meaningless hook-ups. In fact his most fulfilling relationship is the one he shares with Becket and therefore his betrayal hurts Henry even more. Richard Burton is the perfect straight man to O'Toole's immature cad and the two bounce off each other perfectly. It is the Burton/O'Toole chemistry that really drives Becket and both of them really made me believe in Henry's motivation for causing Becket's downfall. Both Burton and O'Toole lost the Best Actor award this year but Becket did win one Oscar for its tightly-written script. While Burton would later feature in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, O'Toole would return to the role of Henry II four years later.

This time his Henry II was a lot more forceful as he had to decide which one of his sons was most deserving of being his successor. The film was The Lion in Winter which is set around the succession conflict in which Henry couldn't decide between his aggressive eldest son Richard or his much dumber son John. The film also explores Henry's relationship with Eleanor of Aquitaine who he releases from the dungeon for the Christmas celebrations. Henry champions John as his son, seeing him as easy to manipulate, therefore Eleanor wants Richard to be Henry's successor mainly to get one over on his husband. It appears as if Richard doesn't get on with either of his parents so attempts to form an alliance with his uncle King Philip II. John meanwhile is manipulated by his brother Geoffrey who himself wonders why he hasn't been chosen as successor. Over the course of the Christmas period more devious plotting is afoot as Henry suggests that his mistress Alais marries Richard. However this wedding doesn't go through mainly because of arguments breaking out in the family. The film ends with Eleanor's return to the dungeons and Britain still finding itself without a future king.

I have to say I really enjoyed The Lion in Winter thanks in part to Anthony Harvey's assured direction and the performances provided by the ensemble cast. Peter O'Toole was on fine form here as the swaggering Henry who really enjoyed throwing his weight around. The Henry of The Lion in Winter was much more mature and worldly-wise than the one O'Toole portrayed in Becket. As Eleanor, Katharine Hepburn is utterly brilliant as she manipulates her sons and plots to make Henry's life as miserable as possible. To me the best scenes of The Lion in Winter were those in which Hepburn and O'Toole were on screen together as their interplay was absolutely electric. The Lion in Winter also saw the film debuts of both Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton who played Richard and Philip respectively. Hopkins made a good impression here as the war-hungry yet frustrated Richard who felt that he would make a much better king than John. Meanwhile Dalton, John Castle, Nigel Terry and Jane Merrow all made their characters distinctive and intriguing whenever they were on screen. The French exterior shots were also fabulously captured by Douglas Slocombe whose camera-work was outstanding throughout. John Barry's score was equally iconic and went on to win one of The Lion in Winter's three Oscars alongside the very intelligent script. The third award went to Katharine Hepburn's amazing turn as Eleanor however here she had to share the prize with Barbara Streisand's performance in Funny Girl. Peter O'Toole meanwhile had to cope with a third Best Actor loss however at the time I'm guessing he thought he'd win one eventually.

Having watched these Peter O'Toole films back-to-back I discovered that he was a versatile actor even during his first years as a film actor. His tour de force performance as Lawrence alone should've shown people that he would go on to be one of the nation's best actors. I was also surprised at how convincing he was at playing the older Henry II in The Lion Winter only four years after playing a much younger version of the king. Despite Lawrence of Arabia winning Best Picture, my personal favourite of these three films had to be The Lion in Winter mainly due to the verbal sparring between O'Toole and Hepburn. Seeing as O'Toole is still around there's still may be a hope of him winning that elusive Best Actor Award however it does seem as likely as it did back in 1963.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 135-136: Mostly Marlon

So after my Elizabeth Taylor retrospective we have four films from Marlon Brando an actor who was considered to have changed the way actors were perceived on films. Once upon a time you had the classic 'film star' such as Fred Astaire, Mickey Rooney or Cary Grant but then Brando was a new breed of actor who really got into the character and developed the phrase method acting. Here is part one of two blogs looking at the four Brando films nominated for the Best Picture prize.

We finished the last instalment of the Oscar blog with a Tennessee Williams adaptation and we start our Marlon Brando retrospective with another Williams story - A Streetcar Named Desire. For those of you unaware with the story it sees the demure but emotionally fragile Blanche Dubouis journey to New Orleans to stay with her sister Stella and Stella's husband the brutish Stanley played by Brando. As time goes on Brando continues to resent Blanche's domination of Stella's time and her relationship with his friend Mitch so he starts to dig dirt on why she had to leave her old home. The final confrontation with ends in Stanley raping Blanche before she is carted off to a mental institution is very well done by director Elia Kazan by taking the camera around the expressions of all the characters and using the strong score to play the emotions of the two sisters with Stella finally seeing the light and leaving her husband with their new baby. As someone who read the play as part of my English literature A-Level I have to say that everybody involved did their best to recreate what this story should be. The set direction was rightfully given an Oscar for providing the claustrophobic atmosphere of both Stanley and Stella's apartment to the small area in which the characters inhabit. Vivien Leigh had previously played Blanche on the stage in London and bought both star power and incredible timing as a character who slowly loses her mind throughout the film. Kim Hunter is great as the tortured Stella while Karl Malden also stole the show in his couple of scenes as the hapless Mitch who wants to tame Blanche but realises that is impossible. Leigh, Malden and Hunter all won Oscars for their performances indeed the only person who didn't win an acting Oscar was Marlon Brando. However Brando won something else a new found fame for his great turn as Stanley he plays a man who was raised to behave a certain way and is almost tortured every time he hurts Stella and she leaves him briefly. He is brutish but at the same time doesn't go over-the-top and most importantly he becomes the character this isn't Marlon Brando as Stanley this is Stanley and you can really believe it. One more thing about the film is Alex North's great score who went against type composing short pieces of music to reflect the trauma of the characters but unfortunately he didn't win the Oscar but he did set a precedent in terms of film music as maybe Brando did with character development.

After his Oscar nomination for Streetcar, Brando was nominated for Viva Zapata at the next Oscar ceremony and then again at the Oscar ceremony held in 1954. However nobody quite expected that role to be in an adaptation of William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. The film saw a lot of Shakespeare pros take the parts that they'd already taken on stage for example British theatrical legend John Gielgud played Cassius and James Mason who also had Shakespearian experience was Brutus here. Even producer John Houseman had Caesar experience having been involved in the classic Orson Welles Mercury Theatre production but by this time Welles and Houseman had fallen out and Welles wanted nothing to do with this production. However Brando's casting as Marc Anthony was met with scepticism to the point of Paul Scofield being on standby if Brando's screen test bombed however Brando was so good that Gielgud offered him the lead in the production of Hamlet he was directing, Brando turned this offer down. I'm really not going to retype the plot of Caesar as we all know the first half sees many of his followers conspire his demise and the second half sees Anthony's rise. While we're on Anthony Brando was brilliant even though he had very little to do in the first half of the film from the 'Friends, Romans, Countrymen' speech onwards he captures the imagination being able to deliver Shakespeare's lines with all the precision of a pro and the doubts that the 'mumbler' wouldn't be able to perform were cast aside here. I'm not sure if it was good enough to be Oscar nominated but maybe the Academy were so surprised by Brando's performance that he got the nod just for doing something different. Aside from Brando the ensemble cast are all terrific especially Mason's Brutus and Louis Calhern's Caesar. I also have to applaud the set design for giving us something grandiose and recreating ancient Rome brilliantly and also for handling the crowd scenes very well.