Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 448-449: The Coen Continuation

Oscar's relationship with Joel and Ethan Coen has been an odd one to say the least. The past two decades have seen the brothers garner one Best Picture nod for Fargo and a win for No Country for Old Men. However, with the Best Picture category opening up to ten, the Coens found themselves with back to back nominations in the first two ceremonies of the 2010s.
I've talked recently about how changing the number of nominations from five meant the Academy made some questionable choices and I would say one of those picks applied to the first film in this post. A Serious Man was the Coens' second film after No Country For Old Men, the first being the overtly comic Burn After Reading. While those two films fit neatly into specific genres, I couldn't quite tell you what A Serious Man wanted to be. At times I found it was too clever for its own good especially seeing as it contained an opening sequence that bore no relevance to the rest of the film. The movie's protagonist is Larry Gopnik, a physics professor who leaves what he believes to be a quiet life. The film sees Larry's life fall apart firstly when his wife reveals she's leaving him and then when she kicks him out of the house in favour of her new lover. Additionally Larry is having to support his brother, who participates in several illegal gambling endeavours, and deal with the fact that a student is attempting to bribe him in order to get a passing grade on his course. Aside from the story of Larry, the Coens appear to be filling time by including a subplot involving Larry's son Danny's addiction to pot and how it effects his upcoming bar mitzvah. I have to say that Danny's story is especially weak and only partially plays into the ambiguous ending. I feel the point of the film is to feel sorry for Larry as he experiences problem after problem even owing money to a record club that he never joined in the first place. However it's very hard to sympathise with a man who's attempts to let life pass him buy have finally caught up with him.

More than anything else I found A Serious Man to be a rather annoying film and there wasn't one character that I particularly warmed to. Although Larry seemed like a nice enough fellow, I think the Coens repeated the same formula too many times especially in reference to the character's constant outburst of 'I didn't do anything'. At times it feels as if A Serious Man is attempting to be a comedy and I will admit that I did laugh twice during the film. However, A Serious Man elicited little emotion in me as it progressed and it just left me cold. On the plus side, I do feel the casting of unrecognisable faces helped to add a realistic tone to the film. Particular praise must go to Michael Stuhlbarg for his portrayal of the intelligent but not wholly perceptive Larry. To his credit, Stuhlbarg tries to make the audience root for his character, but I couldn't help but think that a lot of his problems were caused by his apathy. Possibly the most recognisable member of A Serious Man's ensemble is Richard Kind as Larry's needy brother Arthur. As I know Kind primarily as a comedy actor his larger-than-life persona was too much for the downbeat tone of the film. Of all the performances I felt that Fred Melamed probably did best as the slightly sleazy Si Ableman, who's attempts to plot Larry's downfall were quite transparent. Overall I really didn't know what to make of A Serious Man, a film that doesn't really show its hand and one that I never felt I could properly relax into. I was surprised to learn that the film came from the usually reliable Coens who obviously felt like they could deliver a movie which worked for them if not for a wider audience. I can't explain why exactly A Serious Man received an Oscar nomination but I do feel that, had there been less than ten nominees, then it wouldn't have featured in the Best Picture race at all.
Thankfully the Coens were back to their best a year later with their adaptation of True Grit, a novel that had previously been turned into a film back in 1969. That film was most famous for John Wayne's performance as Rooster Cogburn, a part for which he won his only Oscar. Here Cogburn is played by Jeff Bridges, who puts in a suitably gruff turn as the self-serving US Marshall. However I think the film's main strength is the then thirteen-year-old Hailee Steinfeld's performance as the formidable Mattie Ross. For those unfamiliar with the story, it concerns Mattie's quest to track down Tom Chaney, a former employee of her family's who had shot and killed her father. After much persuasion, Mattie convinces Rooster to lead a manhunt for Chaney promising him a handsome reward if he was successful in his mission. Joining Mattie and Rooster on their hunt is Texas Ranger LaBouef; a man who is presented as the opposite to the Marshall in almost every way. It's clear that, unlike the 1969 film, the Coens wanted to put Mattie front and centre as she appears in almost every scene. The odd couple trio of Mattie, Rooster and LaBouef is what makes the film work for me as we see the teenager lose her innocence as she witnesses several murders during the trek. Unlike with A Serious Man, the Coens make you engage with all three of the lead characters meaning that you care about them in the final third of the film when they find themselves in deadly peril. The scene in which Mattie was attacked by a snake was a particular edge-of-your-seat moment for yours truly and I think that demonstrated just how much I'd grown to care about the youngster throughout the course of the film. One issue I did have is that the Coens didn't seem to know how to finish the film and the epilogue involving the older incarnation of Mattie felt a little flat after what had come before.

However, that's a minor niggle in a film which I found to be an utter treat from beginning to end. Although I'm not a massive fan of the western, I do have certain favourites from the genre and this remake of True Grit is the latest addition to that list. The film was primarily shot in New Mexico and the Coens utilise their vast scenery to full effect. True Grit saw the Coens' latest collaboration with Roger Deakins who was unsuccessful yet again in his quest to win the Best Cinematography Oscar. I do feel that Deakins should have won the award for a film in which his shots of the landscape really helped enhance the story of the film. Another worthy winner would've been Hailee Steinfeld who I found utterly captivating from the first moment she appeared on screen. For a first time performance, Steinfeld's turn as Mattie was an absolute joy to watch and she more than held her own against more experienced stars. Steinfeld is able to convey both Mattie's headstrong nature and the fact that at heart she is a simply a teenage girl. Not only did Oscar make one mistake in not giving her an award in made another in putting her in the Supporting rather than Leading Actress category. Why a young woman who appears in almost every scene in the film should be considered a supporting artist boggles the mind but I've long stopped trying to figure out the Academy's logic. Jeff Bridges also deserved the Best Actor award for his performance as Cogburn than he did the previous year as the washed-up singer in Crazy Heart. True Grit was nominated for ten Oscars altogether but ultimately won none thanks to the success of both The King's Speech and Inception. However I think the Coens can be proud of a film that betters the original True Grit in almost every aspect and especially in the casting of Steinfeld who was simply dazzling as Mattie Ross.

From the Wild West we turn to the mystical east for a CGI-heavy fantasy film.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 416: Coen Country

Although they've only featured once on the blog up to now, when their big Oscar moment came Joel and Ethan Cohen had already been making critically acclaimed movies for twenty years. Whilst Fargo was their biggest hit on the awards scene they'd also made big noise with such hits as O Brother Where Art Thou, The Big Lebowski and Barton Fink. However, their biggest success would come at the 2008 ceremony where they would go on to win three awards for screenwriting, directing and producing that year's Best Picture winner. 

The film was No Country for Old Men, which the Coens adapted from the book by Cormac McCarthy. The book's primary focus is on grizzled but kindly Texas sheriff Ed Tom Bell who isn't happy about the fact that his quaint town is used for big money drug deals. Although Bell's words start and the film the focus is instead on one of those aforementioned deals that went awry. Local welder Llewelyn Moss gets himself tangled up in the deal when he finds a bag of money and decides to keep it for himself. However, although he'd know that there'd be people after him, he didn't quite reckon on the ferocity of the film's antagonists. The antagonist in question is Anton Chigurh a fearsome, humourless man who uses a captive bolt pistol as his weapon of choice. Anton has been hired to recover the money and realising what Llewelyn has done tracks him across Texas in attempt to get the cash back. At times No Country for Old Men plays like a silent movie as there are five minute chunks of the film that have no dialogue at all. I feel that this makes the cat-and-mouse game between Llewelyn and Anton all the more interesting especially after both suffer serious injuries. However, even though I've watched the film a handful of times, the ending featuring Bell recounting his dreams to his wife doesn't sit quite right with me. After a shocking scene involving Anton and Llewelyn's wife, there's no denying that an old man relaying memories of his father is going to be at least a little anticlimactic. 

I think it's this ending that made some people gravitate towards No Country as they praised it for its subtle tone and character development. Whilst the ending doesn't sit well with me, I agree that No Country for Old Men is a masterclass is subtle film-making. The Coen brothers make sure that the audience has to fully concentrate on the screen in order to immerse themselves in the world of Llewelyn and Anton. For what was their eighth collaboration at the time, The Coens enlisted brilliant cinematographer Roger Deakins to capture the Texas exteriors. Deakins' style for the piece gives it the tone of a classic western, which is certainly odd for a film set in 1980. That being said there's more than a touch of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly when you think about the characters of Bell, Anton and Llewelyn. Tommy Lee Jones is perfectly cast as the laconic Sheriff Bell and he particularly comes to life every time he has to deliver one of his character's monologues. Josh Brolin brings an intensity to the role of out-of-his-depth everyman Llewelyn Moss. Despite his character being quite selfish at times, Brolin is still a brooding screen presence and therefore makes the audience care about Llewelyn's fate. Woody Harrelson livens thinks up briefly as an associate of Anton's who tries to cut a bargain with the hapless Llewelyn. However, the film does belong to Javier Bardem who makes Anton the most memorable element of the film. From the opening scene in which he chokes a cop to death with his handcuffs to how he deals with Llewelyn's wife, Bardem completely owns the screen. Bardem's performance as the intense hitman won him the Best Supporting Actor award that year and I can't say that it wasn't deserved. While this wasn't the Coen Brothers' best film it was certainly an excellent achievement as they combined the old west with a more contemporary thriller element. I think it's also good to see a Best Picture winner that presents its story in a subtle way and doesn't have to rely on special effects or big budget sets to woo the Academy. 

And with that we're done with the noughties, next time I review the ten Oscar ceremonies that comprised the decade. 

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 377-378: More Real Life Tales

As we saw in the last post, and indeed throughout this whole blog, Oscar loves a biopic. Whilst films such as Ray document the whole life of their subject most of these best picture nominees focus on a specific time in that person's life. That's certainly true of the next two films on the list both of which won their leading man the Best Actor Oscar at their respective ceremonies.

It's with a tinge of sadness that I settled down to watch the first part of this double bill, Capote; one of the few 21st century Best Picture nominees I'd not seen before. Obviously this is due to the fact that last year we lost the man who played the lead role of Truman Capote, the excellent Philip Seymour Hoffman. The film concentrates on Capote's life after he became a household name thanks to Breakfast at Tiffany's and follows him during the creation of his famous non-fiction work In Cold Blood. From the start of the film, director Bennett Miller and screenwriter Dan Futterman present the difference between Truman's life of alcohol-fuelled parties and the stark brutal world of the murder of four members of the Clutter family. Fascinated by the murders, Truman and friend Harper Lee journey to Kansas as he attempts to craft an article about the incident for The New Yorker. However, Futterman's real focus is on Truman's fascination with Perry Smith who, along with Dick Hickock, is found guilty of the crime. Whilst occasionally Truman's obsession with Perry is presented as somewhat of a romantic leaning, it appeared to me as if the film was suggesting that the author's fascination was with the criminal's conflicting character. Although charged with four murders, Perry appeared ever so sensitive, was a brilliant artist and appeared to be incredibly eloquent when compared to Dick. As the film progresses, so does Truman's book however more problems arise when the convicted duo are given a stay of execution. Truman's desperation for an ending of sorts conflicts with his feelings for Perry and in the end he surmises that there can be only one conclusion.

Having never seen Capote before I didn't really know what to expect and I was pleasantly surprised by what I found. Obviously part of my enjoyment stemmed from Philip Seymour Hoffman's Oscar-winning turn as the eponymous writer. Hoffman's skill is in not simply doing an impression of Capote but instead playing him as a fully-fledged character. It's fair to say that Hoffman became Capote to the extent that I forgot at times that I was watching the actor playing the part. Hoffman brilliantly conveyed Capote's feelings for Perry and how his writing of 'In Cold Blood' started to affect him emotionally. For her role as Nelle Harper Lee, Catherine Keener was nominated for a Best Supporting Actress prize, however I didn't feel that she made that big an impact. If I were to give another acting award for the film then it would go to Clifton Collins Jr. as the charismatic killer Perry Smith. Collins Jr. gave an enigmatic turn as the sensitive murderer whose reluctance to tell his full story was the driving point of the film. Futterman's screenplay was well-paced and presented the facts in an entertaining manner, ensuring that the audience was never bored. Meanwhile Miller proved himself to be a fine director; transposing Truman's booze-soaked party life with the cold, harsh reality of the Kansas murders. At just under two hours, Capote was a very easy film to watch and I found myself being wrapped up in the story. At the same time there was nothing particularly remarkable about it outside of Hoffman's fine central turn. So, while I can understand why the film appeared in the Best Picture category, I never particularly felt that it should've won the big prize.

The same can be said for the other film in this double bill; Gus Van Sant's Milk - a biopic of the first openly gay man to hold office in the U.S.; Harvey Milk. Just like Capote, Milk looks at a specific point in Harvey's life as he moves to San Francisco and later decides to run for office. The film is presented as a tape recording our hero makes as he believes he'll soon be assassinated and it starts on the eve of Harvey's fortieth birthday when he meets arguably the love of his life Scott Smith. Together Scott and Harvey open a camera shop in the heart of a burgeoning gay community in San Francisco known as 'The Castro'. Milk's frustration with the way the gay community is being persecuted leads him to run for city supervisor, however his first two campaigns are unsuccessful. Meanwhile the campaigning puts a strain on his relationship with Scott, who eventually leaves him, reappearing every now and again in the film to praise his former lover's success. After finally getting into office in 1976, Harvey constantly clashes with the boorish Dan White; another supervisor who takes offence at his colleague's way of life. Dan's jealousy appears to stem from the fact that he isn't nearly as charismatic as Harvey and therefore finds it hard getting his voice heard. The other story is Harvey's need to get the controversial Proposition 6, which states that all gay teachers be sacked, overturned in the state of California. This story provided it's fair share of uplifting moments as Milk went head-to-head in debates with the bigoted John Briggs, who felt that all homosexuals were perverted. Even if you didn't know the story going in, it was quite obvious that Harvey wasn't going to make it till the end of the film and is eventual assassination at the hands of Dan White was well-handled. The candlelight vigil at the end of the film provided a heart-warming ending to what was another enjoyable and thought-provoking watch.

Of the four Best Actor-winning performances I've watched recently, Sean Penn's is possibly the least-deserving of the prize. I personally feel he's the one who is visibly acting while the other three performers deliver effortless turns. Although Penn's performance isn't as clichéd as it could've been I didn't really feel that he was as at ease with Dustin Lance Black's dialogue as he should have been. Maybe I'm a little biased, as I wanted Mickey Rourke to win Best Actor for The Wrestler, but I believe that Penn didn't convey the full extent of Milk's charisma. Reading around on the film it appears that, when the idea of a film about Milk was first conceived, Robin Williams was attached to play the role and I ultimately think that he would've suited the role much better. Penn was lucky that he was surrounded by such a fine ensemble of actors who beautifully portrayed the friendship between the men and women who became a family on The Castro. I really thought James Franco gave a grounded performance as the put-upon Scott who'd finally had enough of play second fiddle to the great Harvey Milk. Meanwhile Emile Hirsch and Allison Pill were similarly great as Milk's supporters Cleve Jones and Anne Kronenberg. However, the performance of the film came from Josh Brolin as the rather old-fashioned Dan White, a man who couldn't understand just why Harvey was as popular as he was. Brolin received a Best Supporting Actor nod for his role in the film but I believe he should have won the awards but unfortunately that year saw him come up against Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight. Harris Savides' cinematography is another of Milk's positive elements as he gets in amongst the film's many protests and makes the audience understand just how intense the gay protests were during the 1970s. Gus Van Sant appears to have devoted a lot of time into getting the area of The Castro as authentic as possible and transformed the area into looking like it would in the 1970s. I personally feel that Milk works as a study of the gay movement of the 1970s and the strength in numbers that the community experienced during the time. However, I'm in the minority of people who weren't won over by Penn's performance and don't think he was as deserving of the prize as his predecessors.

Next time we leave real life behind as we explore one of the most successful film franchises of all time.