Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 250-251: Franklin in Reverse

Sometimes I plan these double bill posts in advance, but occasionally they happen by accident such as when I realised my next two films were directed by the same man. The man in question is Franklin J Schaffner, who helmed two historical epics both of which went on to be bombarded with Oscar nominations. However, due to the fact that I only found out about this connection after watching the first film, I've presented this brief retrospective of his career in reverse.

We start with 1972 nominee Nicholas and Alexandra, an audaciously filmed account of the Romanov family and in particular the marriage of Tsar Nicholas to Princess Alexandra. Problems start to arise from the very beginning of the film when the couple's newborn son is diagnosed with hemophilia. Distraught at this news, Alexandra looks for answers which she finds from Russian peasant Grigori Rasputin, who claims to be a holy man. Rasputin's words of faith calm Alexandra who believes that he alone can heal her ill son, but his presence in court has a negative impact on the monarchy due to his lewd behaviour. When Nicholas is forced to cast Rasputin aside, Alexandra is upset and their son's condition worsens. It's only upon his return that Alexi begins to get well again and Nicholas is forced to find some other way to get rid of him. In the meantime Russia is really going through social upheaval, and Nicholas turns a blind eye when he hears of the Bloody Sunday Massacre. The second half of the film deals with World War I and how the Russians struggled to cope with leaders that were odds with one another. As the conflict continues, the Romanovs lose power and are shipped around Russia while their fate is decided elsewhere. Ultimately, this film has a rather grizzly ending but one that is somewhat left to the imagination.

While watching it, I felt like Nicholas and Alexandra would work as a great companion piece to Doctor Zhivao, due to both focusing on major events in Russian history. So I wasn't surprised to learn that producer Sam Spiegel decided to work on the film after being shut out by David Lean on Doctor Zhivago. The choice of Schaffner as director came after a number of men had already walked out on the project due to the length of time it took to construct a script. To Shaffner's credit he managed to construct the film well with Freddie Young's cinematography bringing to life some of the big historical events on show here. Due to budget restraints, Spiegel was forced to cast relative unknowns in the lead roles and have the big stars in smaller roles, such as Laurence Olivier as royal advisor Count Witte. But I feel the casting of lesser known actors was ultimately a positive for the film and there was much to like about the two leading performances. As Nicholas, Michael Jayston plays the flawed leader to perfection and even makes us sympathise with him in the later scenes. But he is acted off the screen by the brilliant Janet Suzman, who is absolutely compelling as Alexandra as she showcases the entire spectrum of emotions throughout the course of the film. Suzman was rewarded with the film's only acting nomination with the piece ultimately going on to win two awards for its sumptuous production design and brilliant costumes. One performance that I did feel was deserving of a nod was that of Tom Baker as the hedonistic Rasputin, who stole the first half of the film for me. It's odd watching Baker and not thinking of Doctor Who, but his Rasputin was one of the things about the film that get me going when the rest of it was dragging. Having watched film-making grow in the 1970s, Nicholas and Alexandra definitely felt a little old-fashioned, especially due to the fact that it had an interval. But there's no denying the visual spectacle of the piece coupled with a number of memorable performances.

Schaffner actually took on the direction of the film after scriptwriter James Goldman saw Patton, the film that had won the Oscar the year before. Just like with Nicholas and Alexandra, Patton is an incredibly well-shot story about a flawed leader who didn't really ever have his priorities in check. That leader was General George S Patton and the film follows his exploits over World War II from his work in North Africa to his final arrival into Germany. Patton opens with arguably its most memorable moment, the General's address to his troops in front of a massive American flag. From there we see him ruffle the feathers of a number of American officers in Africa who he believes aren't taking the campaign seriously. Though he's portrayed as a brilliant man, his inability to follow orders often makes him appear pig-headed and that's certainly true of the scenes involving the invasion of Sicily. Patton's views also get him in trouble when he accuses a shell-shocked soldier of cowardice and tells him to get back to the front line. Though Patton eventually weasels his way back into being part of the Battle of the Bulge, his words continue to get him in trouble. He insults the Russians on several occasions and finally loses command of his troops completely after comparing the major US political parties to the Nazis. In the end Patton isn't the stereotypical flag-waving war film that the opening suggested it would be, which made me enjoy it even more.

One thing I would say about both of the films in this post was that they were extra-long and could've probably done with trimming down at least twenty minutes from the overall running time. I did get the impression here that Schaffner and the screenwriters felt that every part of Patton's history was important and took almost three hours to tell a story that could've probably be done in two. That being said Patton the character is a lot more compelling that Patton the film thanks to the brilliant performance given by George C Scott. In fact it's Scott's performance that carries Patton from beginning to end and definitely why it won the Oscar for Best Picture. Patton is a flawed character and somebody who always speaks his mind even he should probably keep his mouth shut. Though we've seen Scott in supporting roles in the past, his role as Patton was his defining moment and resulted in a well-earned Best Actor Oscar that he ultimately declined. The problem with having such a memorable screen performance like Scott's is that every other cast member suffers as a result and not even the brilliant Karl Malden made an impression in one of the many supporting roles. Just like with Nicholas and Alexandra, Schaffner excels at presenting the historical set pieces and makes all the major battles feel important. Jerry Goldsmith's brilliant score adds almost an unsettling tone to the film with the brass instruments making me uneasy whenever I head them. Though I did find Patton compelling at times, I struggled to maintain my interest in the film over the three hour running time. Thankfully Scott kept me going throughout and I do feel that without his performance Patton wouldn't be as well-regarded as it is today.

Next time we have something completely different from the audacious historical dramas that I've just written about.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 137-138: Mostly Marlon Part 2

And without further ado here is the second part of the Marlon Brando season.



After three years of striking out in the Best Actor category Brando finally came up trumps at the 1955 ceremony with the film that also won the Best Picture award that year - On the Waterfront. For this picture Brando reteamed with both Streetcar writer Elia Kazan and co-star Karl Malden to make a story based on real experiences that long shoremen had dealing with their mob-run environment. As the film starts Brando's Terry Malloy is instrumental in the death of long shoreman Joey Doyle who's death is interlinked with him testifying against gangster Johnny Friendly who runs the docks and trades illegally. Malloy's brother Charley works as Friendly's accountant and gets Terry to do some of the easier jobs through his guilt of making Terry throwing fights when he was a prize fighter. Events get complicated when Terry falls for Doyle's sister Evie who, along with Malden's priest Father Barry, tries to convince Terry to testify against Friendly. Worried that Terry is being swayed Friendly sends Charley out to set Terry straight where Terry delivers the still famous 'I Coulda Been a Contender' speech. Eventually Terry testifies and Friendly turns the rest of the dockworkers against him and has him beaten up but Friendly is then discredited with all the longshoremen turning their backs on him. There's so much to praise about On The Waterfront and thankfully for once a great film gets recognised by the Academy winning Best Picture, Actor, Director, Screenplay and Supporting Actress for Eva Marie Saint as Evie. Saint is great in the film so much so I think this was almost a Lead performance which would've seen the film scoop the much-touted 'Big Five'. If Streetcar was Brando's breakout then this was definitely his star-making turn playing a conflicting character wanting to do what's right but not wanting to test his loyalty against his brother and the men who have been giving him the job. There are also so many great filmic moments from the already mentioned speech, to the ending where a beaten Malloy makes his way to work despite being light on his feet and having blurred sight but my favourite scene is probably Terry telling Evie about his involvement in Joey's death which we don't hear as a big steamship comes past making their conversation inaudible. Of the supporting performances Karl Malden is probably my favourite as the priest, but Lee J Cobb also makes a convincing gangster and Rod Steiger as Charley also is strong in a couple of scenes all were nominated as Supporting Actors but to Edmond O'Brien in The Barefoot Contessa both a role and film that aren't best remembered. I also feel that the score is brilliant it stuck in my head afterwards and added to the atmospheric tone. The Oscar winning set direction and cinematography were both brilliantly handled with the shoot taking place over 36 days in Hoboken, New Jersey making all the shore scenes seem very real and the workers' silence over how badly their work is run and even some of Friendly's goons are played by real-life prize fighters. Just a brilliant film and a worthy Best Picture winner and definitely the film that made Marlon Brando.

The final Best Picture nominee that Brando starred in during the 1950s, and again he got a Best Actor nomination, was Sayonara which I feel was a bit of a departure from the roles he played in contemporary American dramas in this particular blog post. The film sees Brando play Air Force Major Ace Gruver who moves from Korea to Japan where one of his troop - Joe Kelly is about to marry a Japanese woman. A lot of people in the Air Force and the military in general aren't happy with Kelly's choice to marry a Japanese woman but despite his reluctance Gruver agrees to be Kelly's best man. Also in Japan, Gruver's superior General Webster has bought along his daughter Eileen, played by Patricia Owens, who for a long time Ace has been in a relationship with. However during the time in Japan neither feel the relationship is pretty solid with Eileen's feelings being a lot stronger than Ace's. As time goes on Gruver starts to accept Kelly's relationship with his wife Katsumi and himself becomes entranced by a Japanese dancer Hana-ogi. Things come to a head when Kelly is to be shipped back to America and his wife isn't allowed to come with him despite the fact she is pregnant. Ace is also to be sent back after his relationship with Hana-ogi is revealed but the day that Kelly is to be taken away he runs back to Katsumi and they both commit suicide deciding to be together in the next life. Ace then discovers that General Webster has made a law possible for men like Kelly to bring their Japanese wives back to America so he announces to the media that he is marrying Hana-ogi and people best get used to it. The biggest surprise in this film is probably seeing Brando in a kimono despite that this film is a little long-winded in its message of equality and that these soldiers are in love with these women rather than just wanting to be with the first woman they touch as Webster so eloquently puts it in once scene. Brando's Southern drawl adds an extra dimension to this character who is portrayed as being a natural leader but at the same time very simple in his views and he is one round by the differences that Japan and Japanese women have to offer. However the two standout performances come from Oscar winners Red Buttons and Miyoshi Umeki as Joe and Katsumi both giving spectacular performances as the doomed couple Buttons in particular is a revelation as he was much better known as a comedian than a dramatic actor but this film more than showed that he could do both. I have to say I felt the film needed to be about 20 minutes less and I didn't need to see as many of the Japanese sequences as I did and I felt James Garner was wasted in a worthless role as the military man showing Ace a different side of Japan. Overall though a film with a strong message and another great performance from Brando again displaying his range.

As I watched this quartet of films I really felt that Brando was improving as an actor as the decade went on from rough and ready in Streetcar he honed his skills for On the Waterfront before playing an almost naive character in Sayonara. Like with Elizabeth Taylor I'm looking forward to seeing more of Brando as we trek on through the decades but I guess its Sayonara for now

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.