Occasionally I find that some films are screened at the cinemas specifically for the purpose of being nominated for Oscars and other awards. For example, back when I reviewed The Queen, I noted how it seemed that the production was originally going to air on TV before Mirren's performance started to look Oscar-worthy.
The same could definitely be said for Philomena, which is based on Martin Sixsmith's book about his assistance in the search for the forcibly adopted son of an old Irish lady. Just like The Queen, Philomena is directed by Stephen Frears and to further my suspicions it has been produced by BBC Films. Meanwhile, Sixsmith's book has been adapted here by veteran TV screenwriter Jeff Pope alongside Steve Coogan; who portrays the former journalist in the film. Although Pope and Coogan's script received a nomination at the Oscars, it was Judi Dench's central turn as Philomena herself that was main draw for the Academy. Philomena saw Dench play against type, as her character is a rather vulnerable old lady who is full of regret about an event in her life that she's kept secret for fifty years. Dench so often portrays strong older women, such as M. in James Bond, that it was odd to see her play such a different character. As the film progresses, Philomena and Martin learn that her son was sold to an American couple by the nuns at the Irish convent in which the baby was born. The scenes in America are perfectly written as Philomena learns that her son had died years earlier and that Martin had actually briefly met him. The final discoveries the pair make are that Anthony, who was renamed Michael, was gay and that he'd actually visited Ireland with the purpose of trying to find his birth mother. This heartbreaking revelation leaves Martin feeling angry but at the same time demonstrates the strength of Philomena's character by allowing her the chance to forgive the nuns who wronged her.
I'm actually quite surprised that Philomena did as well in America as it did seeing as it attacks two of its favourite institutions; The Republican Party and The Catholic Church. Indeed, there had been accusations that the film was simply a ninety-minute attack of the Catholic Church but I didn't feel this was true. For example Philomena's faith is completely unwavering and in fact it allows her to forgive those who have wronged her. The trade of journalism doesn't come off too well either especially when Martin's editor forces him to stay in America just after he and Philomena had discovered that Michael had passed away. There were also criticisms of the dramatic license that Pope and Coogan took with their script even though almost every biopic does the same thing. The biggest change between the book and the film is that Philomena never went to America with Martin but I personally don't think the film would've worked if she'd have stayed in the UK. In fact one of Philomena's best qualities was the odd couple relationship between the wise Irish woman and the cynical former spin doctor. Judi Dench is fantastic in the role of a woman who isn't as stupid as everyone believes she is whilst Steve Coogan plays to his strengths utilising a mixture of comedy and drama as the sneering Sixsmith. My biggest shock about Philomena is the amount of controversy that it caused as; at the end of the day it's an enjoyable run-of-the-mill biographical drama that I found to be an easy watch. Though I didn't get as emotional watching Philomena as I did the first time, it's still a thought-provoking film to sit through even if I don't believe it would've made it on to the big screen had it not been for Dench's Oscar-nominated central turn.
Next time we concentrate on the career of an actor we previously looked in on during the first decade of the 21st century.
Showing posts with label Judi Dench. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judi Dench. Show all posts
Monday, 4 May 2015
Saturday, 28 February 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 386-387: The Lasse Hallström Collection
After spending time in the present day we move back to the past with two films from a man who started his career by directing ABBA videos. However, by the turn of the decade, Swedish helmer Lasse Hallström had begun making films in the English language. His first big success was with What's Eating Gilbert Grape? however he would later see two of his films nominated for Best Picture in successive years.
First up was a film version of John Irving's The Cider House Rules; with the author adapting his own work for the screen. Both films in this post were new to me going in, however I did know a little about The Cider House Rules thanks to one of its stars. That star was Michael Caine who won his second Supporting Actor Oscar for playing the patriarchal Dr. Wilbur Larch who cares for the young boys of a Maine orphanage. I personally thought that all of the action would take place at the orphanage but instead the film primarily deals with the story of Homer Wells; a young man born at the institution that Larch takes under his wing. Initially believing that Homer would take over Larch's place as the lead doctor at the orphanage, the film went of course about forty minutes in when our protagonist left his home with a couple who'd come for an abortion. From there on I thought the film meandered too much as Homer became an apple picker and also learnt to catch lobsters. The film mainly concerned itself with exploring Homer's affair with the married Candy as well as his relationship with his fellow apple pickers. Meanwhile, we got regular updates from Dr. Larch who tried to get the board to make Homer his replacement, going as far as to present phony qualifications in his apprentice's name. The film had a rather predictable conclusion as Homer became Larch's replacement and ended the movie by quoting his mentor's iconic line to the current intake of boys at the orphanage.
For a film that deals with the subjects of incest, abortion and infidelity; The Cider House Rules is an incredibly quaint tale. John Irving's ill-paced narrative meant that the film fluctuated in quality depending on what was happening to Homer at the time. I have to say that I didn't much care for Tobey Maguire's wide-eyed performance of Homer and felt he lacked the qualities of a leading man here. Similarly, Charlize Theron gave a lacklustre turn as the one-dimensional Candy; a woman who had supposedly cheated on her husband with the young doctor who was present at her abortion. I think the reason Michael Caine won his Oscar for The Cider House Rules is that he looked better thanks to the flimsy turns given by the rest of the cast. Having not seen The Cider House Rules before I was generally underwhelmed by Caine's overall showing here and it's fair to say that he's been a lot better in films that weren't as well-regarded by the Academy. Additionally, Caine was up against more worthy competition with at least two performers more deserving of the Award than he was. What I feel made The Cider House Rules an Academy favourite was the sumptuous cinematography provided by John Stapleton. Stapleton utilises the Maine scenery well and Hallström certainly realises that the script's main strengths are its exterior locations. I would go as far as to say that the Maine countryside made the biggest impression on me out of everything that happened in the film. Apart from the cinematography, everything else was a little lacklustre and I was ultimately disappointed with what I saw from Hallström here especially seeing as he was nominated for Best Director at that year's ceremony.
One year later Hallström had another film in contention for Best Picture although this time he didn't feature in the director category. The film was Chocolat; another movie based on a popular novel this time one by Joanne Harris. Although sharing The Cider House Rules' cinematographic flair, I thought that Chocolat had more substance than Hallström's previous effort. The film starred Juliette Binoche as Vianne, a lively woman who rocks up in a quiet French village alongside her young daughter Anouk. The village that she arrives in is extremely Catholic and is ruled over by the mayor; Comte De Raymond, an incredibly biased figure who has the majority of the townsfolk under his spell. The Comte and Vianne clash almost immediately when he discovers she is opening a chocolate shop during Lent. The film's main focus is then on the feud between the two as the Comte does everything he can to close down her shop. At the same time we see the effect that Vianne's presence has on the other villagers, including brow-beaten Josephine and eccentric landlady Armande. Though her confectionery awakens passions in others it's not till later in the film that Vianne's own passions are awakened. This happens when she lays eyes on Roux; a river traveller whose presence in the village is more unwelcome than Vianne's. There is an incredibly connection between the pair however Vianne later feels she's put her daughter in trouble as a result of her dalliance with the handsome Roux. The final scenes of the film effortlessly balance comedy and tragedy with some memorable moments being provided before the end credits roll.
I think the reason I enjoyed Chocolat a lot more than I did The Cider House Rules was due to the fact that the former film was a lot more focused than the latter. The film had a clear purpose and looked at a specific time frame; that being the season of Lent as the Comte threatened to put Vianne out of business before Easter. Hallström again focuses on the exterior shots as the French village comes to life in all of its glory thanks in part to cinematographer Roger Pratt. Chocolat's utterly charming nature is enhanced by Rachel Portman's memorable score whilst the quirky characters are made more recognisable by their distinctive costumes. But what makes Chocolat really come alive is its ensemble cast; four of whom gave tremendous performances. Juliette Binoche was an utter delight in the lead role and perfectly conveyed both Vianne's wicked side with her more vulnerable nature. Binoche was nominated for a prize at that year's Oscars, as was Judi Dench who chewed some considerable scenery as diabetic landlady Armande. The fabulous Alfred Molina gave a measured turn as the film's antagonist Comte de Raymond and I thought he particularly excelled during his character's breakdown in the window of Vianne's shop. Similarly impressive was Lena Olin who, as battered wife Josephine, went on the biggest journey from shrewish housewife to independent woman. If there's a weak link in the cast then it's Johnny Depp, however I feel that this is primarily due to the fact that his character is given much to do. However, Depp and Binoche share a fine chemistry which makes Roux and Vianne's relationship all the more believable. Obviously the other plus point to watching Chocolat is the fine selection of confectionery that is on display throughout the movie so my one piece of advice would be not to watch this on an empty stomach. Whilst Chocolat isn't a particularly original film, it's certainly an enjoyable bit of escapism and I felt that Hallström deserved his Best Director nod much more for this film than he did The Cider House Rules.
Next time we turn our attention to a film that explores blood, oil and milkshakes in equal measure.
First up was a film version of John Irving's The Cider House Rules; with the author adapting his own work for the screen. Both films in this post were new to me going in, however I did know a little about The Cider House Rules thanks to one of its stars. That star was Michael Caine who won his second Supporting Actor Oscar for playing the patriarchal Dr. Wilbur Larch who cares for the young boys of a Maine orphanage. I personally thought that all of the action would take place at the orphanage but instead the film primarily deals with the story of Homer Wells; a young man born at the institution that Larch takes under his wing. Initially believing that Homer would take over Larch's place as the lead doctor at the orphanage, the film went of course about forty minutes in when our protagonist left his home with a couple who'd come for an abortion. From there on I thought the film meandered too much as Homer became an apple picker and also learnt to catch lobsters. The film mainly concerned itself with exploring Homer's affair with the married Candy as well as his relationship with his fellow apple pickers. Meanwhile, we got regular updates from Dr. Larch who tried to get the board to make Homer his replacement, going as far as to present phony qualifications in his apprentice's name. The film had a rather predictable conclusion as Homer became Larch's replacement and ended the movie by quoting his mentor's iconic line to the current intake of boys at the orphanage.
For a film that deals with the subjects of incest, abortion and infidelity; The Cider House Rules is an incredibly quaint tale. John Irving's ill-paced narrative meant that the film fluctuated in quality depending on what was happening to Homer at the time. I have to say that I didn't much care for Tobey Maguire's wide-eyed performance of Homer and felt he lacked the qualities of a leading man here. Similarly, Charlize Theron gave a lacklustre turn as the one-dimensional Candy; a woman who had supposedly cheated on her husband with the young doctor who was present at her abortion. I think the reason Michael Caine won his Oscar for The Cider House Rules is that he looked better thanks to the flimsy turns given by the rest of the cast. Having not seen The Cider House Rules before I was generally underwhelmed by Caine's overall showing here and it's fair to say that he's been a lot better in films that weren't as well-regarded by the Academy. Additionally, Caine was up against more worthy competition with at least two performers more deserving of the Award than he was. What I feel made The Cider House Rules an Academy favourite was the sumptuous cinematography provided by John Stapleton. Stapleton utilises the Maine scenery well and Hallström certainly realises that the script's main strengths are its exterior locations. I would go as far as to say that the Maine countryside made the biggest impression on me out of everything that happened in the film. Apart from the cinematography, everything else was a little lacklustre and I was ultimately disappointed with what I saw from Hallström here especially seeing as he was nominated for Best Director at that year's ceremony.
One year later Hallström had another film in contention for Best Picture although this time he didn't feature in the director category. The film was Chocolat; another movie based on a popular novel this time one by Joanne Harris. Although sharing The Cider House Rules' cinematographic flair, I thought that Chocolat had more substance than Hallström's previous effort. The film starred Juliette Binoche as Vianne, a lively woman who rocks up in a quiet French village alongside her young daughter Anouk. The village that she arrives in is extremely Catholic and is ruled over by the mayor; Comte De Raymond, an incredibly biased figure who has the majority of the townsfolk under his spell. The Comte and Vianne clash almost immediately when he discovers she is opening a chocolate shop during Lent. The film's main focus is then on the feud between the two as the Comte does everything he can to close down her shop. At the same time we see the effect that Vianne's presence has on the other villagers, including brow-beaten Josephine and eccentric landlady Armande. Though her confectionery awakens passions in others it's not till later in the film that Vianne's own passions are awakened. This happens when she lays eyes on Roux; a river traveller whose presence in the village is more unwelcome than Vianne's. There is an incredibly connection between the pair however Vianne later feels she's put her daughter in trouble as a result of her dalliance with the handsome Roux. The final scenes of the film effortlessly balance comedy and tragedy with some memorable moments being provided before the end credits roll.
I think the reason I enjoyed Chocolat a lot more than I did The Cider House Rules was due to the fact that the former film was a lot more focused than the latter. The film had a clear purpose and looked at a specific time frame; that being the season of Lent as the Comte threatened to put Vianne out of business before Easter. Hallström again focuses on the exterior shots as the French village comes to life in all of its glory thanks in part to cinematographer Roger Pratt. Chocolat's utterly charming nature is enhanced by Rachel Portman's memorable score whilst the quirky characters are made more recognisable by their distinctive costumes. But what makes Chocolat really come alive is its ensemble cast; four of whom gave tremendous performances. Juliette Binoche was an utter delight in the lead role and perfectly conveyed both Vianne's wicked side with her more vulnerable nature. Binoche was nominated for a prize at that year's Oscars, as was Judi Dench who chewed some considerable scenery as diabetic landlady Armande. The fabulous Alfred Molina gave a measured turn as the film's antagonist Comte de Raymond and I thought he particularly excelled during his character's breakdown in the window of Vianne's shop. Similarly impressive was Lena Olin who, as battered wife Josephine, went on the biggest journey from shrewish housewife to independent woman. If there's a weak link in the cast then it's Johnny Depp, however I feel that this is primarily due to the fact that his character is given much to do. However, Depp and Binoche share a fine chemistry which makes Roux and Vianne's relationship all the more believable. Obviously the other plus point to watching Chocolat is the fine selection of confectionery that is on display throughout the movie so my one piece of advice would be not to watch this on an empty stomach. Whilst Chocolat isn't a particularly original film, it's certainly an enjoyable bit of escapism and I felt that Hallström deserved his Best Director nod much more for this film than he did The Cider House Rules.
Next time we turn our attention to a film that explores blood, oil and milkshakes in equal measure.
Thursday, 19 June 2014
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.
Sunday, 13 April 2014
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 294-295: Forster's Flicks
Recently, when reviewing Tess, I talked about how a lot of the Best Picture nominees have been adaptations of classic works of English literature. That is the theme that ties the next two films on the list as both have been adapted from novels by EM Forster.
The first film, A Passage to India, is also the list picture to be directed by the legendary David Lean whose films had previously featured in four different posts. By this time in his career Lean had become synonymous with the audacious epic and, from a visual standpoint, A Passage to India. But, unlike some of his other films, I feel that A Passage to India was as concerned with its characters as it was with its stunning scenery and incredibly filmed set pieces. Set in during the 1920s, it tells that tale of Adela Quested who journeys to India to visit her fiancée Ronny who has become a magistrate in the country. Adela is joined by Ronny's mother Mrs Moore who is a lot less stuffy than a lot of the English folk they encounter in India. During one of her first nights in India, Mrs Moore meets the widowed Dr Aziz and the two strike up a friendship of sorts as they talk about their lives. Adela quickly discovers that Ronny's friends in India have quite a bigoted view on the natives and try to keep themselves to themselves as much as they can. After asking Aziz to help them find the real India, Adela and Mrs Moore quickly find themselves on an expedition to the Marabar Caves. When Mrs Moore becomes claustrophobic, Adela and Aziz go along with only a guide for company. However, Adela later emerges from the cave with her clothes torn and it's later insinuated that she's been raped by Aziz. Although the hysterical English folk rally round Adela and Ronny, Mrs Moore fails to believe her friend would act in such a way while Aziz's ally Richard Fielding feels the same. The court case soon brings out everybody's true feelings and results in a couple of tragic events along the way. I also found that everything that came after the court case went on far too long and A Passage to India could've ended about ten minutes before it did.
When I see a film is over two and half hours long I often approach it with some trepidation however A Passage to India just flew by. Part of the reason for this was the combination of Lean's sumptuous direction and is adaptation of Forster's compelling novel. Ernest Day's cinematography transported you to 1920s India allowing us to experience the sights and sounds of what the country offered at the time. Lean's long-time collaborator Maurice Jarre won another Oscar for his original score which once again perfectly suited the tone of the film. But possibly the biggest reason for A Passage to India's success was in its casting of actors who brilliantly brought the characters to life. I'm not alone in thinking that the stand out performance in the film belonged to Peggy Ashcroft as Mrs Moore. In fact Ashcroft won the Best Supporting Actress prize for her portrayal of an elderly woman who is still a lot more open-minded than her younger counterparts. Ashcroft's performance is both tender and strong as she makes you really believe in the courage of Mrs Moore's convictions. I do feel that Judy Davis' performance as Adela should have also earned her an Oscar as the Australian actress superbly portrayed a rather naive English rose. Davis lit up the screen as the damaged yet principled young woman who struggled to know where her loyalties should lie. Similarly excellent was Victor Banerjee as the wronged Dr. Aziz as he is able to switch his character from eternal optimist to jaded realist. Fantastic support is lent from a cavalcade of memorable British actors including Nigel Havers, Richard Wilson, James Fox and Art Malik. In fact the only questionable piece of casting comes in the form of Alec Guinness as Indian Professor Godbole. It just seemed a little odd that an incredibly famous Brit was playing a role that could've easily been taken by a talented Indian actor. But that's just a minor criticism in a costume drama that I enjoyed a lot more than I thought I would. Though overlong, I was swept up by the performances and Lean's superb direction. It's odd to think that the master of the epic will no longer feature on this list and I feel that A Passage to India was a perfect way to end his marvellous career.
Picking up the baton from Lean in a way were director James Ivory and producer Ismail Merchant who became synonymous with costume drama during the 1980s and 1990s. Merchant Ivory productions' first entry into this blog comes in the form of another Forster adaptation - A Room with A View. In addition to being the first Merchant Ivory film to feature during the challenge, A Room with A View was also one of the first movies to be co-produced by the then-fledgling Film 4 company. Although a lot lighter in tone, A Room with A View shares many similarities with A Passage to India including the fact that it focuses on a foreign holiday taken by a young woman and an older companion. In this case the country is Italy, the young woman is Miss Lucy Honeychurch and her older companion is her cousin and chaperone Charlotte Bartlett. The first half of the film looks at their stay in Italy which is initially plagued by the fact that they haven't got the room with the view they ordered. Their holiday is partly influenced by the people they meet including their local vicar, a pair of gentlewomen and a worldly novelist who is currently researching her next book. However Lucy's head is turned by the free-thinking George Emerson, who is staying at her hotel along with his father. Their time in Italy is cut short by a kiss that George steals from Lucy, an act that Charlotte is later appalled by. The second half of the film then takes place in Lucy's small Surrey town where her somewhat foppish family is criticised by the local snobs. One such snob, Cecil Vyse, is intrigued by Lucy and eventually asks her to marry him, a proposition she accepts. But when George, and later Charlotte, arrive in town things chance for Cecil and Lucy all together.
The third part of the Merchant Ivory family was screenwriter Ruth Prawer Jhabvala who often proved adept at providing accessible adaptations of English literature. I certainly think she did a great job with A Room with a View as I found the film to be well-paced and delightfully comic throughout. The majority of the characters within the film, with the possible exception of Lucy, were utter eccentrics but I have to say I didn't mind this too much. Jhabvala also broke down the story beautifully by interspersing various sections with the original titles of the book's chapters and was rewarded for her work here with an Oscar. Tony Pierce-Roberts' perfectly captured both the Italian scenery and the English countryside giving both unique identities and making sure they were the ideal backdrop for the story to take place. Richard Robbins' score provided great accompaniment for each scene and really enhanced the joy of the film. The art direction and costume design was equally fantastic and both areas were similarly honoured by Oscar. In another similarity with A Passage to India, A Room With a View is bolstered by a cast of reliable English actors. Maggie Smith is excellent as the reserved Charlotte as she excels at playing the woman who has never really lived life. A fresh-faced Helena Bonham Carter excels as the innocent Lucy who grows over the course of the film as do her feelings for Julian Sands' George. Plenty of reliable support is provided by Rupert Graves as Lucy's idiot brother, Judi Dench as the aforementioned novelist and Simon Callow who goes full-frontal as the local vicar. Interestingly, Daniel Day-Lewis also makes his debut on the blog as the incredibly insensitive Cecil whose incompatibility with Lucy didn't seem to affect his desire to propose to her. Even at this early stage in his career, Day-Lewis proved that he could become the character he was tasked with playing and indeed he is able to portray Cecil as the fool of the piece. Whilst not an outstanding film, A Room with a View was an enjoyably light period drama with plenty of eccentrics played by reliable actors. It perfectly demonstrated why Merchant Ivory were successful for so many years and why they would go on to garner a number of Oscar nominations in the next decade.
Next time we remain in British period drama territory as we focus on a war film with a difference.
The first film, A Passage to India, is also the list picture to be directed by the legendary David Lean whose films had previously featured in four different posts. By this time in his career Lean had become synonymous with the audacious epic and, from a visual standpoint, A Passage to India. But, unlike some of his other films, I feel that A Passage to India was as concerned with its characters as it was with its stunning scenery and incredibly filmed set pieces. Set in during the 1920s, it tells that tale of Adela Quested who journeys to India to visit her fiancée Ronny who has become a magistrate in the country. Adela is joined by Ronny's mother Mrs Moore who is a lot less stuffy than a lot of the English folk they encounter in India. During one of her first nights in India, Mrs Moore meets the widowed Dr Aziz and the two strike up a friendship of sorts as they talk about their lives. Adela quickly discovers that Ronny's friends in India have quite a bigoted view on the natives and try to keep themselves to themselves as much as they can. After asking Aziz to help them find the real India, Adela and Mrs Moore quickly find themselves on an expedition to the Marabar Caves. When Mrs Moore becomes claustrophobic, Adela and Aziz go along with only a guide for company. However, Adela later emerges from the cave with her clothes torn and it's later insinuated that she's been raped by Aziz. Although the hysterical English folk rally round Adela and Ronny, Mrs Moore fails to believe her friend would act in such a way while Aziz's ally Richard Fielding feels the same. The court case soon brings out everybody's true feelings and results in a couple of tragic events along the way. I also found that everything that came after the court case went on far too long and A Passage to India could've ended about ten minutes before it did.
When I see a film is over two and half hours long I often approach it with some trepidation however A Passage to India just flew by. Part of the reason for this was the combination of Lean's sumptuous direction and is adaptation of Forster's compelling novel. Ernest Day's cinematography transported you to 1920s India allowing us to experience the sights and sounds of what the country offered at the time. Lean's long-time collaborator Maurice Jarre won another Oscar for his original score which once again perfectly suited the tone of the film. But possibly the biggest reason for A Passage to India's success was in its casting of actors who brilliantly brought the characters to life. I'm not alone in thinking that the stand out performance in the film belonged to Peggy Ashcroft as Mrs Moore. In fact Ashcroft won the Best Supporting Actress prize for her portrayal of an elderly woman who is still a lot more open-minded than her younger counterparts. Ashcroft's performance is both tender and strong as she makes you really believe in the courage of Mrs Moore's convictions. I do feel that Judy Davis' performance as Adela should have also earned her an Oscar as the Australian actress superbly portrayed a rather naive English rose. Davis lit up the screen as the damaged yet principled young woman who struggled to know where her loyalties should lie. Similarly excellent was Victor Banerjee as the wronged Dr. Aziz as he is able to switch his character from eternal optimist to jaded realist. Fantastic support is lent from a cavalcade of memorable British actors including Nigel Havers, Richard Wilson, James Fox and Art Malik. In fact the only questionable piece of casting comes in the form of Alec Guinness as Indian Professor Godbole. It just seemed a little odd that an incredibly famous Brit was playing a role that could've easily been taken by a talented Indian actor. But that's just a minor criticism in a costume drama that I enjoyed a lot more than I thought I would. Though overlong, I was swept up by the performances and Lean's superb direction. It's odd to think that the master of the epic will no longer feature on this list and I feel that A Passage to India was a perfect way to end his marvellous career.
Picking up the baton from Lean in a way were director James Ivory and producer Ismail Merchant who became synonymous with costume drama during the 1980s and 1990s. Merchant Ivory productions' first entry into this blog comes in the form of another Forster adaptation - A Room with A View. In addition to being the first Merchant Ivory film to feature during the challenge, A Room with A View was also one of the first movies to be co-produced by the then-fledgling Film 4 company. Although a lot lighter in tone, A Room with A View shares many similarities with A Passage to India including the fact that it focuses on a foreign holiday taken by a young woman and an older companion. In this case the country is Italy, the young woman is Miss Lucy Honeychurch and her older companion is her cousin and chaperone Charlotte Bartlett. The first half of the film looks at their stay in Italy which is initially plagued by the fact that they haven't got the room with the view they ordered. Their holiday is partly influenced by the people they meet including their local vicar, a pair of gentlewomen and a worldly novelist who is currently researching her next book. However Lucy's head is turned by the free-thinking George Emerson, who is staying at her hotel along with his father. Their time in Italy is cut short by a kiss that George steals from Lucy, an act that Charlotte is later appalled by. The second half of the film then takes place in Lucy's small Surrey town where her somewhat foppish family is criticised by the local snobs. One such snob, Cecil Vyse, is intrigued by Lucy and eventually asks her to marry him, a proposition she accepts. But when George, and later Charlotte, arrive in town things chance for Cecil and Lucy all together.
The third part of the Merchant Ivory family was screenwriter Ruth Prawer Jhabvala who often proved adept at providing accessible adaptations of English literature. I certainly think she did a great job with A Room with a View as I found the film to be well-paced and delightfully comic throughout. The majority of the characters within the film, with the possible exception of Lucy, were utter eccentrics but I have to say I didn't mind this too much. Jhabvala also broke down the story beautifully by interspersing various sections with the original titles of the book's chapters and was rewarded for her work here with an Oscar. Tony Pierce-Roberts' perfectly captured both the Italian scenery and the English countryside giving both unique identities and making sure they were the ideal backdrop for the story to take place. Richard Robbins' score provided great accompaniment for each scene and really enhanced the joy of the film. The art direction and costume design was equally fantastic and both areas were similarly honoured by Oscar. In another similarity with A Passage to India, A Room With a View is bolstered by a cast of reliable English actors. Maggie Smith is excellent as the reserved Charlotte as she excels at playing the woman who has never really lived life. A fresh-faced Helena Bonham Carter excels as the innocent Lucy who grows over the course of the film as do her feelings for Julian Sands' George. Plenty of reliable support is provided by Rupert Graves as Lucy's idiot brother, Judi Dench as the aforementioned novelist and Simon Callow who goes full-frontal as the local vicar. Interestingly, Daniel Day-Lewis also makes his debut on the blog as the incredibly insensitive Cecil whose incompatibility with Lucy didn't seem to affect his desire to propose to her. Even at this early stage in his career, Day-Lewis proved that he could become the character he was tasked with playing and indeed he is able to portray Cecil as the fool of the piece. Whilst not an outstanding film, A Room with a View was an enjoyably light period drama with plenty of eccentrics played by reliable actors. It perfectly demonstrated why Merchant Ivory were successful for so many years and why they would go on to garner a number of Oscar nominations in the next decade.
Next time we remain in British period drama territory as we focus on a war film with a difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)