Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 446-447: A Couple More Pitts

After exploring Brad Pitt's back catalogue in the early noughties it appears that the Academy's love affair with the movie star is continuing into the next decade. However, as Brad grows up, so does the films he stars in and this post deals with two very different dramas that he had a a hand in.

We commence with Moneyball, in which Pitt plays Billy Beane, the General Manager to the Oakland Athletics Baseball Team. The film follows the fortunes of Beane as he attempts to construct a new team on a small budget after the departure of his three top players. Instead of listening to his more experienced scouts, Billy decides to follow the advice of Peter Brand a young Yale graduate who he meets at one of the other clubs. Peter's philosophy involves looking at the runs that each player has acquired over a season and working out how each game should be played. As a result of Peter's theory, Billy finds a team for a budget he can afford even though each player has some major flaw whether it be a bad attitude, a lack of confidence or that they're just over-the-hill. Though Moneyball does follow the format of sports films I've watched it the past, what makes it work is its fast-paced script. Based on the book of the same name by Michael Lewis, Moneyball has been adapted by the master that is Aaron Sorkin alongside Steve Zaillian. Moneyball does include a lot of dialogue that is pure Sorkin, as Billy and Peter banter back and forth in expert style. Sorkin and Zaillian deftly weave the story of Oakland's 2002 season with Billy's back story in which we learn that he himself was a first draft pick. Unfortunately, Billy suffered from a lack of confidence and later decided that being a scout would be a better role for him than on the pitch. I feel that these flashback scenes make us sympathise more with the character of Billy and we're willing him to succeed as Oakland starts to make a comeback later in the season. If I have one qualm about the script then it's the quite clichéd relationship that Billy has with his twelve-year-old daughter which is basically a set up to the final scene in the film.

Alongside the fabulous script, Moneyball's other ace in the hole is Brad Pitt whose performance in the film is great. I believe that Moneyball ushers in a shift in the tone of Pitt's performances as he adds an extra layer of maturity to the character of Billy. This is best exemplified during the scenes in which Billy is listening to the games being played as he never attends the games mainly due to superstition. Pitt earned his second Best Actor nomination for Moneyball and I have to say that it was a lot more deserved than his previous nod for Benjamin Button. While in that film the make-up did most of the work, Moneyball's realistic feel allows Pitt to be front and centre. Also worthy of praise is Jonah Hill, who left the world of frat boy comedy behind to play the slightly nervous Peter Brand. Hill never played his role for laughs and instead his character formed an awkward relationship both with Billy and the players. Hill's Supporting Actor nomination should have been a turning point in his career but unfortunately he followed this up with the woeful comedy The Sitter. Despite him not having a major role as Oakland's manager Art, Philip Seymour Hoffman still gets to showcase his major skills in a number of scenes. I believe part of the reason Hoffman appears in the film is because it reunites him with Capote director Bennett Miller. Just like in Capote, Miller proves himself to be a solid director as he weaves an easy-to-follow narrative with some brilliant scenes of each individual game. Despite acquiring six nominations at that year's Oscar ceremony, Moneyball ultimately went home empty-handed which I feel is a shame especially for Sorkin and Zaillian. Although I have seen Moneyball before I definitely enjoyed it more this second time around and I feel that it's a solidly enjoyable drama which is bolstered by two fine performances by Hill and Pitt.


Two years later Pitt finally won his first Oscar but it was for his role as producer rather than actor. Pitt does have a small role in Steve McQueen's 12 Years a Slave but his character Samuel Bass only appears in the latter stages of the film. But it was Pitt's Plan B Production Company who financed the project that was first conceived by director McQueen and writer John Ridley. Both had wanted to create a movie about the slave trade and it was only when McQueen's partner read Solomon Northup's book of the same name. When the film begins, Northup is a free man living in proper society and making a living as a violinist. I got the impression that the film would spend more time focusing on Northup's life as a gentleman but instead he was sold into slavery quite early in the film. After being double-crossed by two men, Northup finds himself being sold to plantation owner William Ford. Ford is presented as quite a kindly man who grows fond of Northup, who now goes under the name of Platt, especially when he realises how educated he is. But Northup falls foul of Ford's overseer Tibeats and the two finally come to blows with the former almost being hung to death. The second half of the film is possibly the most memorable as Northup is sold to the tyrannical Edwin Epps, a man who views the slaves as his property. McQueen focuses on the vicious manner in which he punishes the slaves the don't pull their weight at his cotton-picking facility. Meanwhile, cinematographer Sean Bobbitt closes in on the scars that Solomon and his co-workers have following their punishment. Edwin's feelings for female slave Patsey are also described in great detail with his wife taking against her husband's desire for the girl. What follows are more brutal scenes as Edwin's wife takes out her frustrations on Patsey whilst the couple later involve Northup in their torture. It's only when Bass arrives in the final scenes that Solomon finally earns his freedom but McQueen is quick to inform us that the brutality continued for Patsey and her ilk.

In the past I've been a fan of McQueen's work and in particular his second film Shame which was perfectly shot throughout. McQueen's former career as an artist is definitely on show here as there are some brilliant sweeping shots of the New Orleans scenery. As I previously mentioned the cruelties inflicted on the slaves are captured in shocking detail and at times I found 12 Years a Slave hard to watch. The issue I have with a lot of true life tales is that you know how the story will end and that's certainly true of a movie that has the length of Solomon's hardship in its tale. The fact that the audience know that Solomon is a free man makes 12 Years a Slave a frustrating watch as our hero must fight adversity in order to get out of his predicament. As with a lot of 'issue-based' films, 12 Years a Slave occasionally feels overly preachy as McQueen and Ridley's message is a little overbearing. At the same time I think they do their best to avoid sentimentality and instead focus on a man who uses his intelligence to survive his unjust time as a slave. Part of the reason I was involved with the film as I was was due to the fantastic lead performance by Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon. From the first time Solomon finds himself in chains, Ejiofor is fantastic at using facial expressions to convey just how much his character is suffering inside. Due to the fact that Solomon has decided to keep his head down, Ejiofor doesn't have too many lines of dialogue but tells the story via his body language, which I feel is the mark of any true actor. McQueen's regular collaborator Michael Fassbender excels as the despicable Edwin Epps and is particularly great during the film's harshest moments. Although both Ejiofor and Fassbender were nominated for Oscars it was Lupita Nyong'o who triumphed winning Best Supporting Actress for her role as Patsey. However I wasn't blown away by Nyong'o's performance and I feel that the Academy mainly honoured her due to the suffering her character experiences throughout the film. Ultimately 12 Years a Slave was artistically directed and brilliantly shot while Ejiofor gave a fantastic central turn. But at the same time I don't think I was as emotionally invested in the film as I probably should have been and as much as I respected the film I wasn't ever moved by what happened to Solomon and his fellow slaves.

Next up we continue to evaluate the work of a pair of brothers who have made a major impact at the Academy Awards.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 435-436: Some More Scorsese

It's very rare that a director will have films nominated across five decades but in this last section of the blog we have two men who have done just that. We'll deal with one of them later on, but in this post we'll look at a man named Martin Scorsese. From his first nomination back in the 1970s for Taxi Driver, the Academy has had a growing love for Scorsese culminating in his Best Director win for The Departed. This relationship carried into the 2010s with two of Scorsese's films featuring in the Best Picture category and I have to say that these two movies couldn't be any more different.

We start with a film that I would say isn't typical Scorsese partly because it's rated PG. Hugo is Scorsese's tribute to early cinema and was his first film to be screened in 3D. The Hugo of the title is a young boy who lives in a Parisian train station in 1932 and is in charge of making sure the clock runs on time. From the start of the film Hugo is portrayed as a lonely young man who is looking for a connection to his late father. He believes rebuilding the automaton that his father gave him before he died will reveal a message from him. Unfortunately finding the parts means that he has to steal from the stall of Monsieur George, a cantankerous man who runs the station's toy store. George catching Hugo in the act sets off a chain of events which eventually changes the life of both for the better. Whilst the first half of the film plays like a family adventure movie the second half is more of a celebration of silent movies when it's revealed that the toy store holder is in fact legendary director George Méliès. I personally feel as if the film slows down when Scorsese explains the importance of Méliès' films and whilst I enjoyed it I'm not sure how much the younger members of the audience would've appreciated it. Thankfully the film speeds up again in its final third when Hugo finally catches the attention of the station's inspector who is obsessed with sending abandoned children to the local audience. The scene in which Hugo is almost hit with a train is visually splendid and feels like it both belongs in the plot and works with the 3D format; a statement that I couldn't use when describing anything that happened in the lacklustre Avatar.

Talking of Avatar, its director James Cameron admitted that Scorsese's film was the one that had made the best use of 3D up to that point. I'd more than concur with Cameron as, even though I didn't watch Hugo in 3D, I could appreciate how he'd properly decided how to utilise the medium. I felt totally immersed in the world of Hugo from the second that Robert Richardson's camera guides you into the world of the train station. This bustling world is lovingly created by a brilliant production design team who rightfully won an Oscar for their work on the film. Hugo is indeed a visual work with each costume suiting its respective character from the Station Inspector's vivid blue uniform to Hugo's slightly ruffled look. Howard Shore's Oscar-nominated score also gave Hugo the feel of a silent movie as he gave each character their own distinctive tune. Throughout the film I was trying to imagine what it would've been like if there had been no spoken words and I believe that it would've worked quite well. That's not a knock against John Logan who brilliantly adapted Brain Selznick's children's novel for the screen. Of the cast, I thought young Asa Butterfield did an admirable job as Hugo as he was likeable without being too annoying which I find is a rarity for a child actor. Similarly impressive was Ben Kingsley who, as Méliès, kept the audience in the dark to his true identity till the big reveal. Scorsese rounded off the cast with a host of great British performers who included Sacha Baron Cohen as the Station Inspector and the wonderful Helen McRory as Méliès' cautious wife. Hugo went on to win the most Oscars of the night at that year's ceremony picking up honours for cinematography, art direction, visual effects, sound editing and sound mixing. I feel all of these wins were deserved as Hugo was a lovely film that never patronised its young audience and more than anything found a worthwhile use for 3D.


Two years later Scorsese was reverting to type; teaming up with Leonardo DiCaprio for a fifth time and making another film based on people operating outside the law. But rather than making another movie about gangsters, Scorsese turns his attention to the world of stockbrokers in The Wolf of Wall Street. The film is based on the memoir of Jordan Belfort, a man who made plenty of money via a number of nefarious means. The Wolf of Wall Street starts by covering Jordan's early career as a fledgling stockbroker who is forced to work at a lowly company after his prestigious firm collapses on Black Monday. It's not long before Jordan's fast-talking charm gets him his own business and a partner in the form of dorky Donnie who initially lives in the same apartment block as him. Upon setting up their firm, Stratton Oakmoant, Jordan and Donnie set about creating an atmosphere of excess and debauchery. The film also looks at how Donnie leaves his first wife and trades her in for a better model in the form of the gorgeous Naomi. However, Jordan's cheating ways soon mean that his relationship with his wife and children become strained. The last part of the film deals with Jordan's legal problems as he tries to dodge various threats from the FBI. Although all of this content appears to be quite serious, The Wolf of Wall Street primarily plays as a black comedy and I found this to be one of its biggest problems. Plenty of Scorsese's films have blackly comic moments but they are surrounded by plenty of dramatic scenes that balance them out nicely. Here everything was played in a tongue-in-cheek manner and therefore it was hard to take any of the characters particularly seriously. Jordan is a particularly unlikeable character and the fact that he's having his cake and eating too doesn't exactly endear him to the audience. Jordan doesn't even really get the comeuppance he deserves as, even at the end of the film, he's still making a living out of his sales techniques.

Another issue with The Wolf of Wall Street is the amount of scenes that depict the excessive nature of the characters' lives. Almost every other scene featured nudity, drug taking or extreme behaviour of some description and by the end of the film I was fed up. In fact it go to the point where I got bored of seeing topless women, something I never thought would happen. Whereas in his previous films, specifically Goodfellas, Scorsese has always pointed out that this sort of excess comes at a cost but this point really isn't hammered home at any point during The Wolf of Wall Street. Therefore it seems that Scorsese and screenwriter Terrence Winter are almost celebrating Jordan's life rather than using it as a cautionary tale. Sure he does eventually lose his company and his family but there aren't enough of these scenes of heartbreak to counteract the endless partying that has come before. On the positive side, Leonardo DiCaprio gives another outstanding performance as the scheming Belfort. It's Leo's energy and charm that keep the film going at some points and I for one thought he dealt well with some of the more comic set pieces. I am upset to some regard that Scorsese doesn't give Leo the chance to prove himself as the character is possibly the most one-dimensional he's portrayed to date. Jonah Hill's comic sensibilities are employed to great effect here as he brings plenty of humour to the role of Donnie. Hill and DiCaprio have a fine chemistry that makes their character's friendship feel convincing even if some of their scenes are a little bit over-the-top. Australian actress Margot Robbie gives a good accounting of herself as Jordan's wife Naomi and her performance is possibly the film's most serious. Although I did enjoy The Wolf of Wall Street's first hour, by the end I was tired of seeing all of Jordan and Donnie's illegal exploits and wanted more of a light and shade balance from Scorsese. Ultimately I found The Wolf of Wall Street to be a rare misstep for the usually reliable Dicaprio/Scorsese combo and it seems like the director should stick to making beautifully-designed family films in the future.

We hop from an experienced director in this post to a newer director in the next post who found himself in the position of winning an Oscar for what was only his second feature film.