Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 410-411: A Couple of Clint's

Back on Day 309, I mentioned how Clint Eastwood had gone unrecognised by Oscar until winning the Best Picture prize in 1993 for Unforgiven. Oscar's love affair with Eastwood carried into the next decade with three of his films being nominated for Best Picture during the ten year stretch. This post will look at two of those three movies with the third to be covered at a later date.

We kick off with a film that Clint directed but never appeared however fact fans may want to know that Mystic River was the first movie that Eastwood scored himself. Eastwood's score is just one of the many positive elements of Mystic River; a film that I enjoyed immensely on this second viewing. This Boston-set crime thriller revolves around three childhood friends; Jimmy, Sean and Dave all of whom are effected by an event from their past. The event itself is played out in the film's first three minutes in which Dave is abducted by two men that three boys believe to be cops. Flash forward twenty-eight years later and Dave's abduction and subsequent abuse have caused him to become quite a slow-witted man. Although it's clear he loves his son and wife, he's prone to moments of absence and comes home one night covered in blood. That night happens to be the same one on which Jimmy's nineteen-year-old daughter goes missing and is eventually found murdered. Jimmy, who is now one of the town's most respected citizens, uses underhanded tactics to try and discover who the perpetrator was. This annoys Sean who just happens to be the investigating officer on the case and who isn't willing to believe his partner when he suggests Dave might be the killer. Screenwriter Brian Helgeland's adaptation of Dennis Lehane's novel perfectly ups the tension as the audience have to wait till the end of the film to learn who the murderer actually is. Therefore Eastwood and Helgeland create a sense of unease which I believe help to make us sympathise with the characters who aren't quite sure who to trust. This also means that Mystic River's final twenty minutes are incredibly emotional as revelation after revelation pours out and by the end I was personally left with my heart broken.

As I previously mentioned this is my second time watching Mystic River but, just like a lot of films in this decade, it's not one that I particularly remember. I'm not quite sure why that is as everything about Mystic River is perfectly delivered from Eastwood's aforementioned score to Tom Stern's cinematography which allows the small town to become a character itself. Helegland does a good job of getting through the history between the three characters quite quickly to the extent that we understand why they are how they are. The more sympathetic character is definitely Dave, who has remained almost in a childlike state since his trauma at a young age. Tim Robbins is absolutely great as Dave, capturing the essence of the character beautifully and delivering a particularly stunning turn towards the end of the film. Sean Penn meanwhile gives Jimmy a terrifying demeanour but couples this with a softer side which is on view in the scene where his character learns of the death of his daughter. This scene is particularly iconic thanks to Stern's framing of the piece and the image of Penn being held back by numerous cops. Both Penn and Robbins won Oscars for their roles in the film but I feel a little sorry for Kevin Bacon who had the job of playing the less flashy role of Sean. I felt that Bacon deserved to at least be recognised for playing an intelligent police officer who occasionally let his heart get in the way of doing his job. Also nominated at the ceremony was Marcia Gay Harden who delivered a memorable supporting performance as Dave's frightened wife. I also personally liked Laura Linney as Jimmy's wife who becomes almost like a Lady Macbeth figure in the film's final ten minutes. Absorbing from beginning to end; Mystic River works as a thriller, a character study and a mystery all at the same time.

One year later Eastwood found himself in the same position as he did twelve years earlier as he picked up Best Director and Best Picture for his boxing movie Million Dollar Baby. Here Clint was back in front of the camera as grizzled boxing trainer Frankie Dunn, a man who was living with many regrets. Frankie was presented as the kind of man who put in all the work on a fighter only to be left behind when the boxer wanted to go for the title. His only true friends were the local pastor and Eddie 'Scrap-Iron' Dupris; a former fighter who now lives and works at Frankie's gym. In an Unforgiven reunion, Eddie is played by Morgan Freeman who seems to have been hired purely to give a Shawshank Redemption-like voiceover to the film. However, if you're going to get somebody to provide a thoughtful voiceover to a film then Freeman's your man and I felt he gave Million Dollar Baby that special quality. The bulk of the film is devoted to Frankie's training of Hilary Swank's Maggie Fitzgerald; an older female boxer that he was reluctant to take on as he doesn't coach girls. However, as the film goes on the pair develop an interesting working relationship which allows Maggie to thrive in the ring. I found that Paul Haggis' script made Million Dollar Baby feel classier than your average sporting film and Maggie's fights were split up with plenty of emotional scenes between Frankie and Maggie. One brilliant set piece sees Maggie return home to surprise her mother with a new house only to find her lovely gesture spat back in her face. The element of Million Dollar Baby that I remember the most is the film's final act in which Maggie finds herself paralysed after an accident in a title match. Here I felt that Haggis over-egged the pudding a little bit as Million Dollar Baby became a different film altogether especially after Maggie asks Frankie to help her end her own life. Although I knew the ending was coming, I still found it shocking to watch and I think this sensitive storyline helped Million Dollar Baby to win Best Picture.

Alongside Eastwood's awards for Directing and Best Picture both Swank and Freeman picked up awards for their performances. Swank gave a good portrayal of an every woman who was fighting to achieve her goal however for the most part I found it to be rather unremarkable. I think that the reason she was given the award was due to the final act as Maggie finds herself unable to fight the inevitable. Freeman's wise narration was coupled with a number of fine scenes in which he finally got to have the one fight that had been eluding him all these years. Whilst Freeman did a good job in this film I feel he's been better elsewhere especially in The Shawshank Redemption and Seven. If anybody should have won an Oscar for acting in the film I believe it should have been Eastwood himself as he perfectly conveyed the evolution in the character of Frankie. Clint played to his strengths for the most part but he still conveyed Frankie's growing fatherly feelings towards Maggie. As he had done in Mystic River, Clint also provided a suitable score for Million Dollar Baby which again enhanced the overall mood of the film. I personally felt that Million Dollar Baby took a while to get going and it was only when Frankie took Maggie under his wing that the pace of the film picked up. A subplot involving the simple fighter Danger didn't do anything for me and instead proved that Paul Haggis sometimes adds too many elements to his story as he did the year later with his script for Crash. Although a solid drama, I think it's Million Dollar Baby's mawkish third act that lets it down, although I'm sure this is why the academy ultimately gave it the Best Picture award. Ultimately there's a lot to like about Million Dollar Baby, especially the performances and Eastwood's assured direction, but it just doesn't have that extra special something that a Best Picture winner truly needs.

Next time I take a magical trip down death row.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 402-403: Michael and Peter's True-Life Tales

In 2003; actor Michael Sheen, director Stephen Frears and screenwriter Peter Morgan all worked together on a TV film called The Deal. Sheen starred as Tony Blair in the story of the future Prime Minister's infamous deal with his eventual deputy Gordon Brown. Three years later Sheen reprised his role as Blair for another film, this time on the big screen, which again was directed by Frears and written by Morgan.

That film was The Queen; a dramatic account of the royal family's reaction to the death of Princess Diana on the 31st August 1997. Although a lot of films I've watched so far have touched on modern history I can't really relate to them as I have no recollection of the events. This isn't true of most of what happened in The Queen as at the time I had a paper round and had to deliver the updated papers that carried the news of Diana's death. Morgan's script looks specifically at how the Royals wanted a private funeral whilst the general public instead wanted to mourn the woman that they'd taken to their hearts. In the middle was the newly elected Tony Blair who appreciated The Queen's wishes but at the same time was keen to offer a sympathetic message himself. The famous 'People's Princess' line is one of the many moments in the film that I remember seeing on TV at the time. Although at the same time I can't remember the reaction to the royal silence being so bad that there were calls to abolish the monarchy all together. What I liked about Morgan's script was the fact that neither Blair nor The Queen were portrayed as the villain of the piece. Both were doing what they thought was best and Blair in particular was eager to stick up for a woman who he had great respect for. Instead the evil forces were instead the members of the press who used the public grief to stir up outrage among the general public. The film's finale is the hint that one day the same thing that happened to Queen Elizabeth in this film would happen to Blair himself. This was obviously a knowing line as Blair was suffering press scrutiny at the time of the film's release and stepping down as Prime Minister soon after The Queen was released.

The fact that The Queen was co-produced by ITV studios suggests to me that the original plan was for it to be screened on the TV. There is in fact very little about The Queen that is particularly cinematic save a couple of nice shots of the Scottish countryside and an iconic shot of the monarch and a deer. My theory about why the film was eventually put on the big screen can be summed up in two words; Helen Mirren. Mirren's performance as Queen Elizabeth was so fantastic that I'm sure someone quickly noticed that it would garner a multitude of awards if it was screened in cinemas. This notion is completely understandable as Mirren's turn is one of the best Best Actress performances of all time and one that was destined to earn the star as many gongs as possible. Mirren's skill is to totally convince us the audience that she is Queen Elizabeth and I think she pulls it off expertly. Not for one moment did I feel like I was watching Mirren on screen and felt she delivered a brave portrayal of a woman during a week in which she'd felt she'd lost everything. I wasn't so convinced by the actors who were playing her other family members, most notably American star James Cromwell who appeared to be an odd casting choice as Prince Philip. Luckily Michael Sheen was on hand to deliver a similarly stellar performance as the ambitious yet thoughtful Prime Minister who was forced to make his first monumental decision. Just like Mirren, Sheen never lets his performance as Blair slip into caricature and as a result turns the Prime Minister into a three-dimensional character. The combination of Mirren and Sheen's performances, Morgan's measured script and Frears' assured direction turns The Queen into an enjoyable factual drama. At the same time there was nothing particularly remarkable about it perhaps aside from the tour de force performance given by its lead actress.

Four years later, Sheen and Morgan would team up again for the final part in the informal Blair trilogy, 'The Special Relationship' which explored the Prime Minister's friendship with Bill Clinton. However, Morgan and Sheen would also team up for Frost/Nixon; initially a play exploring David Frost's infamous set of interviews with disgraced President Richard Nixon. The play was so successful on both sides of the Atlantic that it was eventually made into a film which starred Sheen and the play's other lead actor Frank Langella. Unlike with the events in The Queen, I knew little about the basis of Frost/Nixon so had to take Morgan's words as fact. The way Morgan presented the interviews they seemed more like a set of sporting fixtures or boxing matches that would be the breaking point for one of their participants. Having funded the interviews almost single-handedly, Frost would lose his reputation and go bankrupt if the broadcasts didn't go his way. Meanwhile Nixon, who never formally apologised for his actions during the Watergate Scandal, was conscious that Frost would try to go for the jugular. Both surrounded themselves with crack teams however Frost's big mistake was in underestimating Nixon who run rings round him in the first couple of interviews. The film's turning point is a very odd late night call about cheeseburgers which is quite evidently a work of fiction but is a nice narrative move by Morgan as it changes the whole tone of the film. Obviously with a film that has quite a dry subject matter, Morgan has had to be quite liberal with the facts and reading round the subject it appears that he has done just that. It's certainly clear to see that, aside from Frost and Nixon; all of the other characters are quite broadly drawn and wear their political leanings firmly on their sleeve. Thankfully Morgan's crafting of the titular characters and the performances by the leading actors save the film being too clichéd.

I found Sheen to be even better as David Frost than he was as Tony Blair as he delivered another barnstorming performance. He played Frost as a jovial sort of chap who didn't take anything at all seriously but was secretly harbouring a fair amount of insecurities. Sheen conveyed Frost's fears perfectly as for the most part he let his character be as animated as possible but every now and then the smile slipped. However, just like with The Queen, it was his co-star that was given all the plaudits whereas Sheen was left without a nomination. I think in terms of both films the Academy struggled to know where to place Sheen especially with Frost/Nixon where he shared equal billing with Langella. I personally wouldn't have minded if both men had been nominated for Best Actor as they deserved it more than Brad Pitt for his make-up aided turn in Benjamin Button. However it was Langella who gave the flashier turn albeit one that showed a more sensitive side to the once great president. It was quite easy to tell that Frost/Nixon had started life as a stage play as at times it did feel as if Howard had just brought a camera to the theatre. The majority of the film, especially the portion of it that focuses specifically on the interviews, was very dry and was only slightly spiced up by the actors. Therein lies my major problem with Frost/Nixon as I don't believe that it should ever have been turned into a film in the first place as the story really doesn't suit the cinema screen. Whilst I feel it's an interesting story, it doesn't make for a particularly entertaining film and Howard certainly doesn't utilise the cinema screen to its fullest potential. However, due to the fact that it covers a major event in U.S. history, it's still easy to see why the Academy heaped five nominations upon Frost/Nixon. While it's not necessarily a bad film it's not one that ever drew me into its story and the only really compelling elements of it were the performances given by both Langella and the sadly overlooked Sheen.

Next time we travel back to Britain where an array of famous faces are suspected of murder.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 351-353: Hanks for the Memories

We continue our look at some of the biggest stars of the decade with somebody who has maintained their star presence over time. Initially a sitcom star, Tom Hanks moved to the big screen with hits such as Splash!, Dragnet and Punchline. Hanks was nominated for his first of five Best Actor awards for his role in the mostly comedic Big but it was his progression into drama that really saw him thrive. He won his first Best Actor award for his role as an AIDs-sufferer in Philadelphia and followed this up with appearances in three more Oscar nominated pictures.

In fact Hanks' first appearance in an Oscar-nominated film went on to win both Best Picture and the star's second Best Actor award. The film in question was Forrest Gump, a movie in which Hanks plays the titular simpleton who becomes part of some of the twentieth century's most important events. As this was my first time watching Forrest Gump I was in two-minds as I'd heard differing things about the quality of the film. Whilst some cite it as their favourite film, others view it as far too saccharine for their tastes but I sat somewhere in the middle. I wasn't a fan of the narrative device of having Gump tell his life story to other people whilst they wait for various buses. However this may be due to the fact that I'm a regular user of public transport and hate it whenever a stranger starts a conversation with me. Although the exploration of Forrest's childhood was necessary, especially in regards to his relationship with Jenny, I felt the pace lagged significantly at the start. It was only during his time in Vietnam and the introduction of Bubba and Lieutenant Dan that I warmed to both the character and the film as a whole. Though I wasn't overly charmed by all of Forrest's accomplishments I thought that the film was well-paced and that no segment really outstayed its welcome. Personally I felt the film was its best in the sequences featuring Jenny as they featured some of Forrest Gump's darkest moments. It was this balance of light and shade that Forrest Gump lacked and this is partly because the lead character doesn't always understand social situations. I don't think the final scenes of Forrest Gump tugged on my heartstrings as much as they probably should have done but I still think that this is an accomplished bit of film-making.

I do think that Forrest Gump would have fared better in an earlier decade as Robert Zemeckis' film has more than an air of Frank Capra about it. Most of the film's success is due to Hanks' central turn as he never turns Forrest into a caricature and instead makes the audience believe in his character's naivety. One of Hanks' best attributes is charm and he utilises this to great effect in order to make Forrest seem as likeable as possible. Hanks deals well with Eric Roth's screenplay and makes you really care about the character as the film progresses. I personally felt that Robin Wright's turn as Jenny was equally impressive and she deserved to be Oscar-nominated for her role in the film. She plays Jenny as somebody who has never really found her place in the world and experiments with various activities during the episode. One of the film's most memorable scenes was Jenny's attempted suicide and Wright brilliantly executed this uneasy moment. Wright and Hanks bounced well off one another, with the latter able to demonstrate another side to Forrest namely the anger that he produced every time that Jenny was in trouble. Gary Sinise added a little bit of comedy to the film as the self-hating Lieutenant Dan, who isn't given the death he wants due to Forrest's intervention. Sinise's brilliant turn in the film earned him a Supporting Actor nomination and I for one felt that was well-deserved. One of Forrest Gump's most groundbreaking elements was its use of CGI to successfully implant Forrest in a number of historical settings. Forrest's interaction with many of America's presidents was almost seamlessly executed and the visual effects team won an Oscar for their excellent work. I also loved the film's soundtrack which brought together the best musical aspects from each year in which the movie is set. Ultimately I can see why Forrest Gump's nostalgia appealed to the elderly members of the Academy and I was rather charmed by certain elements of the film. But I feel that there were better films released in the same year and therefore I think that Forrest Gump's shouldn't have received that year's Best Picture award.

Alongside his charm, one of Hanks' other great qualities his ability to make many of the characters he play feel down-to-Earth. For example, in Apollo 13, Hanks makes you care about Astronaut Jim Lovell almost instantly as the opening scene follows him interacting with friends and family at a moon landing party. Here Hanks shows that Jim is a likeable guy, who really cares about his wife and is also incredibly passionate about his job. Ron Howard's film feels almost like a drama documentary as it recounts in detail the ill-fated trip that Lovell, Jack Swigert and Fred Haise took in the titular vessel. What makes the film special is the way in which William Broyles, Jr. and Al Reinert's screenplay allows us to get to know the characters before they embark on their mission. Particular time is taken in establishing the relationship between Jim and his wife Marilyn, who becomes the emotional centre of the film following her husband's perils in space. We also learn about Swigert's playboy lifestyle and are made to care about original Apollo 13 crew-member Ken Mattingly who is let go after fears that he may infect the rest of the team. After getting to know the characters, Howard and the writers then propel us right into the spacecraft as we feel every inch of the fear that the astronauts experience. I personally was gripped right from the infamous 'Houston we have a problem' line to the trio's landing safely on Earth. The cramped confines of the lunar module were brilliantly recreated by the film's excellent production design team and were effectively utilised to make us experience the claustrophobic nature of the voyage. Similarly well-produced was the mission control centre, which was constructed at Universal Studios, and felt very convincing from the first time we saw it on screen. Along the way the film comments on the meanings of family, friendship and survival as well as looking at how the media are only interested in the seedier aspects of life.

The characters in Apollo 13 were splendidly brought to life by the film's ensemble cast all of whom injected plenty of personality into their roles. Hanks made you understand just why people were so ready to follow Jim's word and just how much of a family man he was. Hanks brought a likeability to the role and demonstrated how Lovell's fame hadn't made him either arrogant or selfish. Oddly, Hanks wasn't Oscar-nominated for his role here although two fellow cast members ranked up nods in the Supporting categories. As Lovell's wife Marilyn, Kathleen Quinlan was superb at tugging on the audience's heartstrings and conveying just how worried any woman would be in her situation. Even the real Marilyn praised Quinlan's turn and commented on how she made he remember the feelings that she experienced at the time. Ed Harris was also nominated for his role as the mission's Flight Director Gene Krantz, a part in which he undertook a lot of training in order to understand every piece of technical dialogue. I personally enjoyed Gary Sinise's turn here more than I did in Forrest Gump as he was able to employ more emotion as dejected astronaut Ken Matitngly. Sinise did a good job at portraying Mattingly's loyalty to his fellow astronauts as he returned to mission control to help ease the voyage home. Bill Paxton and Kevin Bacon were similarly on form as the other two crew members with the latter being particularly impressive as the inexperienced playboy Swigert. The film's art direction and costume design were superb throughout whilst Dean Cundey's cinematography was incredibly involving and helped to capture the mood of the crew. Surprisingly Cundey's work on the film was one of the only categories in which Apollo 13 wasn't nominated. The film did win two awards, in the Sound and Editing categories, however I feel that it was deserving of more accolades. Although this was another Oscar nominee that harked back to the past, I felt that Apollo 13's honouring of recent history was well-executed. Indeed I feel that its combination of visual effects, character development and superb direction made it one of the best films of the decade and therefore a fitting Best Picture winner. Unfortunately this wasn't to be the case as another historical film would triumph at that year's ceremony.

Three years later, Hanks would star in another film set in the past in which he once again proved how he was a master at portraying normal men in extreme situations. His character in Saving Private Ryan, Captain John Miller, is revealed to be a smalltown teacher who wants to get back home to his loving wife. But, as we see throughout the film, Miller is reluctant to be seen as anything else than a Captain to a group of men who appear to thoroughly respect him. As the title would suggest, the film deals with the search for a Private Ryan, a young soldier who is due to return home after all of his brothers were killed in action. The film follows Miller's squad of men on a quest that some of them are sceptical about and question why they're putting their lives at risk to save one man. Joining Miller's squad is nervous cartographer Upham who is drafted in as an interpreter having previously never been in the field. As the film progresses, tensions fray as two members of the group are killed in very different circumstances. What I like about Robert Rodat's script is the way in which each of the squad members are given very different characteristics which in turn allows the audience to get to know them individually. I think this is especially rare for a war film as I've previously found that a lot of the supporting players are given very little development throughout. Whether it be the loyal Hovarth, the realist Reiben, the practical Wade or the wise-cracking 'Fish' everybody has their own unique style. When Ryan is finally tracked down he doesn't want to abandon his team and this sets up a truly memorable final battle scene as the American soldiers do their best to defend a bridge. What spoiled the film slightly for me was the opening and closing scenes in the military graveyard in which the elderly Ryan visits Miller's grave. These scenes felt a little out of place as they were a lot cornier than anything that had happened previously and put a blemish on the face of what was otherwise a masterful piece of film-making.

I first saw Saving Private Ryan at the cinema when I was fifteen and it completely blew me away. From the opening half-an-hour reconstruction of the D-Day Landings to the aforementioned final battle; Saving Private Ryan draws its audience in to the horrors of World War II. I found it to be incredibly realistic in is depiction of the soldiers all of whom were just doing what they could to survive. Their reactions to risking their lives to save one man made sense as did Reiben's later attempt to leave the mission altogether. Saving Private Ryan was also a stylish war film due to its use of saturated colours and the fact that some of it was shot using handheld cameras. Janusz Kamiński's excellent cinematography was rewarded with an Oscar and it's fair to say he earned it for the opening and closing scenes alone. The film's editing, sound editing and sound effects editing were similarly honoured and it's fair to say that Saving Private Ryan was a technical triumph. Meanwhile Steven Spielberg won his second Best Director Oscar for what I consider to be one of  his best ever films. If I was to give one criticism then it would be that it was a little too focused on the American efforts in the war and almost left out the other allied forces entirely. This criticism puts me in mind of the first ever Best Picture winner Wings, which similarly focused on how the Americans were the heroes in the First World War. As I previously mentioned, all of the members of Miller's troop were given distinctive personalities and they were brought to life by a brilliant group of character actors. Tom Sizemore and Edward Burns were captivating as Horvath and Reiben respectively whilst Adam Goldberg was perfect as the wise-cracking 'Fish'. I really enjoyed Jeremy Davies' performance as the rookie Upham, who was often astounded by the brutality of war. Matt Damon made the audience really care about Ryan's wellbeing in the final battle and his appearance really bolstered the latter part of the film. But ultimately this was all about Tom Hanks and I feel it's an outrage that he didn't win his third Oscar for the film. From the first time he arrives on screen, Hanks is utterly believable as a man who is forced into a leadership role and who is currently trying to cope with an uncertain future. Along with Hanks' snub, the film itself missed out on a rightful Best Picture win as Private Ryan is ultimately a modern-day masterpiece which should have won every award going.

Next time we stay in the past with a murder mystery set in 1950s California.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 345-347: Cruise Control

In the last couple of posts I've concentrated on actors who were some of the biggest box office stars of the decade. That trend continues with our focus on three films from Tom Cruise, who had already proved to be a hit at the box office during the late 1980s. Cruise started off in action films such as Top Gun but later expanded his repertoire to feature in more serious roles. We first saw Cruise in the final Best Picture winner of the 1980s; Rain Man and he went on to wow the academy by starring in three Oscar-nominated movies throughout the decade.

A year after Rain Man won the Best Picture, Cruise found himself nominated for his first of three acting nominations for his role in Oliver Stone's Born on the Fourth of July. Cruise's matinee idol good looks were well-utilised as Ron Kovic an All-American boy who lives in a small New York town. Stone presents Ron as a good-looking, popular student who excels at sports and who is a member of a highly religious family. Ron is soon won over by a rousing speech given by the Marines and soon signs up himself eventually being deployed to Vietnam. Unlike Stone's previous work, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July doesn't spend long in Vietnam itself and instead looks at the after-effects on Ron's time during the war. During his second tour, Ron is deeply affected by his accidental killing of a fellow platoon member and later finds himself paralysed from the chest down after being critically wounded. Most of the rest of the film deals with Ron's struggle to deal with his condition and struggles to deal with the fact that his efforts in Vietnam aren't being appreciated. Where once being a military veteran was a mark of respect, the war is now being seen in a new light with a lot of protests springing up all over the place. The film takes some interesting detours, including a trip to Mexico, before Ron finally realises that being a Marine has done him no good. His work as a war protester ultimately saw him become a notable figure especially after writing a compelling book. It is that book that Stone adapted for the film itself but, as I've noticed with other Stone films, the message he gives throughout is pretty heavy-handed.

Just like with JFK and Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July really demonstrates Stone's liberal viewpoints and his message that war is bad is hammered home throughout the film's two and a half hour runtime. The picture postcard world of Ron's adolescence is soon replaced by plenty of heartbreak as we see his problems adjusting back into a community who no longer accepts him. The scenes I enjoyed the most were those in the veterans hospital in which Ron tried his best to prove he could walk again. Stone presents the hospital as a dirty and dilapidated place in which the patients have been forgotten by those in the outside world.  The Mexican scenes are also interestingly portrayed as a place in which the paraplegic former soldiers can escape to a world in which they're treated well. Born on the Fourth of July evokes memories of many war films I've watched throughout the course of this journey including All Quiet on the Western Front, Coming Home and Stone's own Platoon. But the film it has the most in common with is Best Picture winner The Best Years of Our Lives which also deals with the struggles of former soldiers in a small town community. Whilst it occasionally feels as if Stone is spoon-feeding the audience, there's no denying that he constructs a brilliant final chapter to the film which presents Ron as the hero he wants to be. Part of the reason that Ron is seen as such a compelling character is down to Cruise who brilliantly portrays the character's transformation throughout the course of the film. There's a depth to Cruise's performance in the latter scenes which proves that the actor isn't just a one trick pony and can thrive in drama as well as action. One of the other problems I had with the film is that there weren't any supporting characters to identify with primarily as none of the B-players seemed to stick around for very long. This is a shame as both Kyra Sedgwick and Willem Dafoe gave memorable turns but really weren't around long enough to make a lasting impression. Technically Born on the Fourth of July was a triumph as Robert Richardson's cinematography keeps the audience thoroughly gripped during all of the film's various scenes. Stone won his second Best Director award for the film and I can see why although I would argue that Born on the Fourth of July isn't as much of a masterpiece as Platoon. In fact the best element of the film was Cruise's lead performance as I found him utterly captivating and more than deserving of his Best Actor nomination.

Three years later Cruise would once again find himself being the top star at the Box Office and featuring in another Best Picture nominee. This time the film was A Few Good Men, directed by Rob Reiner and adapted by Aaron Sorkin from his own stage play. As a big fan of Sorkin's work I could tell almost immediately that he had written the screenplay as it was both fast-paced and witty. The film is based around the court case of two marines; Privates Dawson and Downey, who are accused of poisoning and murdering their colleague Private William Santiago. Cruise plays Lt. Daniel Kaffee, a military lawyer who is notorious for making plea bargains before cases go to court. Cruise excels as the smooth-talking lawyer and easily deals with Sorkin's unique brand of dialogue. Although Kaffee feels like it will be an open-and-shut case he didn't figure on the involvement of Commander Joanne Galloway, who thinks that the two privates deserve a proper trial. After getting herself involved in the case, Galloway convinces Kaffee to take the case to court after seeing that he believes that the men are innocent. Reiner and Sorkin let the audience in on the fact that the real men to blame are Dawson and Downey's commanding officers Col. Jessop and Lt. Kendrick who both gave them orders to scare Santiago after he criticised their leadership. Both men though are eager to cover up their orders and Dawson and Downey are seen as the sacrificial lambs who will go down due to Kaffee's inexperience in the courtroom. Although I've never seen A Few Good Men before I was aware of the film's big line delivered by Jessop in which he tells Kaffee 'You Can't Handle the Truth'. This line is brilliantly delivered by Jack Nicholson who was the only cast member to be nominated for his role in the film despite only appearing in a small amount of scenes.

The fact that Nicholson's performance in the film is so memorable is a testament to Sorkin as much as it is to the actor's brilliant screen presence. One of Sorkin's biggest strengths is to flesh out his supporting characters so the audience is able to understand their motivations and care about them. This is true here as the violent Kendrick, charming government prosecutor Cpt. Ross and Kaffee's assistant Sam are all given their chances to shine. Cruise is great at portraying Kaffee's growing care of the case as we saw him become more passionate as the film progresses. Kafee's understanding of what it truly means to be a military man is a plot point that is never over-emphasised but also provides one of the film's memorable final scenes. Cruise also has great chemistry with Demi Moore and they bounce off each other perfectly as they deliver Sorkin's screwball comedy-esque dialogue. Since we last saw her in Ghost, Moore has definitely improved as an actress and she's great playing a straight-laced Lt Commander who remains buttoned up throughout. One of the things I liked so much about A Few Good Men was the fact that Galloway and Kaffee never were romantically involved and instead remained colleagues. I'm sure other writers would've had these characters embark on a romance during the film and it's a testament to Sorkin that this didn't happen. Reiner's direction is equally impressive and he is able to make the courtroom scenes as tense as possible. The way the camera pounces back between Kaffee and Jessop during the film's most infamous scene makes it almost feel like a tennis match albeit one based on power. Although not a truly great film, A Few Good Men is a great piece of entertainment and I found it easy to digest in one sitting. Reiner, Sorkin and a fine ensemble cast are able to provide two hours of compelling well-written drama which doesn't hammer home its central message. Meanwhile, Cruise proved that he could handle snappy dialogue and shine in a lighter role to the ones he played in both Born on the Fourth of July and Rain Man.

Four years later, Cruise appeared in his final Best Picture nominee where he once again starred in a dialogue-heavy feature. This time he played the titular sports agent in Jerry Maguire a film that was both written and directed by Cameron Crowe. Initially portrayed as a cynical sports agent, Maguire develops a conscience and writes a mission statement condemning a lot of the immoral means that agents go through to secure clients. His words eventually get him fired from his agency and he later breaks up with his fiancée leaving him with few people to count on. The film focuses on Jerry's two major relationships after his firing the first being with his only client, Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Rod Tidwell. I personally think that Jerry's friendship with Rod is the more compelling of the two relationships as it is their mutual respect that ultimately changes the protagonist's view of his job. Jerry's fear over Rod's potential injury at a game was the film's most emotional moment and it was followed by a moving embrace between the two men. I was therefore less interested in Jerry's relationship with single mother Dorothy Boyd, the only person from his old firm who agrees to join his new agency. I found Crowe's presentation of Jerry and Dorothy's romance to be quite clichéd and I felt that the former's marriage proposal came out of the blue. Additionally I wasn't a fan of Dorothy's cutesy son Ray, who felt out of place in what was otherwise an adult romantic comedy. What I did like was the fact that Jerry and Dorothy briefly separated due to the fact that he couldn't retain a romantic relationship with her. But, in one of the film's most famous moments, Jerry wins his wife over with the now classic line 'you complete me' which was followed up with Dorothy's own ' you had me at hello.' But in my opinion a couple of lines doesn't make up for quite a sickly sweet romance which I didn't feel particularly invested with at any time during the film.

I'm personally a big fan of Crowe's and even though he's been involved with a  few misfires over the years, namely Elizabethtown, he has a likeable style and is a great writer and director. Although Jerry Maguire earned him his only Best Director nomination to date, I don't feel that it stacks up with his best films. Instead I feel that it's a pleasant enough romantic comedy which contains a few memorable moments that have gone down in film history. The film is at its best when concentrating on Jerry's job as a sports agent as it lets Crowe's ear for brilliant dialogue shine through. It also allows Cruise to demonstrate how great he not only is as a fast-talking businessman but also as somebody who learns the true meaning of friendship. Cruise has great chemistry with Cuba Gooding Jr who, as Rod, won that year's Best Supporting Actor Oscar. I initially wasn't won over by Cuba's performance and it was only in the second half of the film that he really shone. Although the film marked her big break, I thought that Renée Zellweger gave a rather weak performance as the single mother looking to embark on a new romance. Zellweger later proved that she was a great romantic comedy lead but here I found that there was no spark between her and Cruise. The casting of Jonathan Lipnicki as Ray was another misstep for the film as I found him annoying rather than endearing. Crowe has proved that he is able to write memorable supporting characters, but the quirky turns in Jerry Maguire leave a lot to be desired. The film was definitely a relaxing watch but I don't think it's a film that would ever be described as a classic in the romantic genre nor is it particularly memorable. In fact, although I've watched the film before, I remembered very little of it aside from its much-quoted lines of dialogue. Jerry Maguire also demonstrated how former music journalist Crowe could use a pop soundtrack to enhance the mood of a film. It was his love of music that would later produce his best work, and one of my favourite films; Almost Famous which saw him pick up an Oscar for his screenplay.

Meanwhile Cruise would go on to win his final acting nomination for his supporting turn in Magnolia which I still consider to be one of his best roles. But in the 2000s he concentrated more on action films most notably the Mission Impossible franchise whose four instalments all dominated the Box Office. Unfortunately Cruise became another actor who became better known for his personal life than his acting and that's a shame as this post has proved that he can really excel in the right role.

Next time we focus on an actor/director combination which triumphed at two 1990s Oscar ceremonies.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 338-340: The Costner Collection

In my previous post I commented on how Patrick Swayze was one of the top box office draws in 1990 which made Ghost one of the highest-grossing movies of the year. But the man who remained a large draw over four consecutive years in the 1990s was Kevin Costner. Costner had gained most people's attention after appearing as Elliot Ness in The Untouchables before following it up with a starring role in Bull Durham. But it was another baseball film, and Best Picture nominee, that would cement his place as one of cinema's most recognisable stars.

That film was Field of Dreams in which Costner played Ray Kinsella, a farmer with a quirky family who begins to hear voices emanating from his cornfield. The film wasn't one I'd seen before but had heard various things about it namely that it was a feelgood film that appealed to male sports fans in particular. As somebody who's never particularly been a sports fan I was sceptical to the feelings this film provoked and it seems I was right to do this. The other famous attribute of the film is the line 'if you build it he will come' which convinces Ray to erect a baseball pitch next to his cornfield. Thanks to the fact that neither he nor his wife are particularly rational people they build the pitch to see what will happen. The film called for plenty of disbelief suspension as the ghost of disgraced baseball player 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson and various others started to play on the field. However director Phil Alden Robertson insinuated that the ghosts were only visible to open-minded folks due to the fact that Ray's brother-in-law couldn't see them when they were in plain sight. Despite risking financial ruin, Ray listneed to the voice once again as this time he was told to 'Heal his Pain'. The pain he had to heal was that of author Terrence Mann, a voice of the 1960s who had since disappeared from popular culture. Mann was possibly the most interesting character in Field of Dreams as he had become an antisocial recluse refusing to see anybody who'd been inspired by his works. Mann and Ray's road trip soon went into an entirely different direction as we learnt the story of player turned doctor 'Moonlight' Graham. I found the whole Graham subplot to be a bizarre diversion in the film's narrative which then picked up when Ray returned home. Despite not enjoying a lot of what had gone before, I have to admit that I rather enjoyed the final scenes of the film in which Ray was reunited with his father for a game of catch. However I didn't find this to be a particularly heartwarming scene and it didn't bring a tear to my eye in the way that scenes similar to this have done.

Throughout Field of Dreams I tried to work out why Costner would become such a big Box Office draw over the next four years. The answer I came up with was that he had the clean cut looks of a classic movie star and chose projects that would suit his style. The role of Ray Kinsella sees Costner play to his strengths as a likeable man who is following his heart rather than his head. Costner admirably anchored the film but at the same time I didn't think his performance was ever that enigmatic. Personally I thought the film's best performance came courtesy of James Earl Jones who breathed life into the character of Terrence Mann. Jones portrayed Mann as a belligerent character who was once full of ideals but has since fallen into obscurity while also ably conveying the author's change over the course of the film. The inclusion of Burt Lancaster as Doc Graham was an odd one as I don't think a star of his calibre should have appeared in such a small role. As much as I love Lancaster I think he was misused here and I think he should've stuck with his instincts which initially led him to turn down the role. Although I wasn't completely taken in by Field of Dreams' narrative I did think it had a particularly distinctive style. The use of a real farm in Iowa added some realism to the piece and John Lindley's stunning cinematography perfectly captured the exterior scenes. Furthermore Lindley tried his best to shoot the ghostly baseball players in a convincing way and was aided by James Horner's enchanting score. In fact it was Horner's score that stuck with me the most once I'd watched the film and that really says something about both the script and the performances. Whilst Field of Dreams wasn't a bad little film I just wasn't blown away by anything that happened in it and so don't understand the impact that it has had on a lot of people.

Following Field of Dreams, Costner's next project was his first film as a director and one that he'd been personally involved in for over five years. Costner first read Michael Blake's script for Dances with Wolves in the early 1980s and convinced him to turn into a novel. When the novel was finally released, Costner won the film rights and went over budget as well as over schedule to complete the western. There were plenty of sceptics who felt that Dances with Wolves would be a failure based on the fact that Costner broken the unwritten rule of first time directors; never film outdoors. Costner broke this rule in the biggest way possible, setting the majority of the film in the South Dakota countryside. Part of the reason for the delay was due to the area's unpredictable weather which held up filming for days at a time. But Costner wanted to use the area to add realism to the story about a Union Officer who integrates with a Sioux Indian tribe during the American Civil War. Costner's John Dunbar is the officer in question who ventures into the tribal camp when he finds one of their number, Stands with a Fist, wounded and on her own. Dunbar starts to impress the Sioux with his abilities but his failure to speak their language means that he has trouble communicating with them. Thankfully Stands with a Fist, who was adopted by the community after being born into an English-speaking family, remembers how to converse in her native tongue and eventually falls in love with Dunbar. Due to his relationship with a certain mammal, Dunbar later changes his name to 'Dances with Wolves' and helps his new family defeat the vicious Pawnee Tribe. However, Dunbar is later captured by his own people who believe he is a traitor to their cause and place him under arrest. The film's final scenes bring up the themes of family and finding somewhere to belong but deliver this message in an incredibly brutal way.

With the delays on the film, Dances with Wolves was expecting to be a flop especially considering it was a three hour western from a debut director. However critics and audiences flocked to see the film and it was later named Best Picture with Costner winning a further award for Best Director. Watching the film more than twenty years later I can't really see what both the critics and the academy members saw to make them hold the film in such high acclaim. A lot of the positives can be attributed to Dean Semler's cinematography which perfectly captured the imagery of the American west. Semler led me into Costner's world of the Sioux tribe and on a visual level I felt like I was part of the action. The story was another matter altogether as Blake's script was overlong and seemed to tread over the same points many times. In my opinion it took far too long for Dunbar to encounter the Sioux tribe as his integration into their society was the main story of the film. I was equally disinterested in Dunbar's relationship with Stands with a Fist partly because of Mary McDonnell's subdued performance. Whilst the character of Stands with a Fist was an interesting one I don't think McDonnell was really captivating and I don't feel that she shared a lot of chemistry with Costner. Of the three films in this post, I feel Dances with Wolves features Costner's weakest performance as he plays an unconvincing military hero. In my opinion Costner is at his best when he's on screen with other actors but as Dunbar faces plenty of solitary days during the film he's forced to lead the film single-handedly. I do feel that Costner should have stayed behind the scenes and given somebody else the role of Dunbar as it seems to me as if he was a little over-stretched. Although visually stunning, Dances with Wolves was a struggle for me to get through and I found the two central performances to be incredibly mediocre. But, as we've learnt by now, the academy loves a historical epic and Costner definitely delivered that with Dances with Wolves.

Costner won his two Oscars in 1991 before going on to play Robin Hood and as a result was subsequently named the biggest Box Office draw of the year. 1991 also saw Costner star in his third and final Best Picture nominated film as he starred as district attorney Jim Garrison in Oliver Stone's JFK. Costner resurrects the everyman persona he had in Field of Dreams to play the New Orleans DA who is desperate to point out the inaccuracies carried out in the Warren Report into President Kennedy's assassination. The film itself almost acts as a drama documentary with a long prologue, narrated by Martin Sheen, talking about the good Kennedy did for the country and what happened following the assassination. Garrison's main claim is that other people were involved in the assassination and that the original suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald, may not have been part of the plan. Stone's script, co-written with Zachary Sklar, sees Garrison conduct a number of interviews with witnesses and his staff. These dialogue-heavy scenes are interspersed with flashbacks of the events themselves which are all presented in black and white. I found this to be an interesting narrative device that stopped the film dragging and gives the audience a visual aid to enhance the characters' dialogue. Garrison finally finds enough evidence to charge New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw with conspiracy to murder but discovers that several forces are acting against him bringing the case to trial. Stone uses his film to criticise the media's ability to tarnish the reputation of an individual to the extent that people start to distrust every word Garrison says. Although it was a little clichéd, the affect that Garrison's investigation had on his family was a well-executed subplot and one that felt realistic. The final court case in which Garrison struggled against the full force of the government was perfectly executed and was up there with some of cinema's finest courtroom scenes. However I personally felt that Garrison's final speech was a little bit overblown and it almost felt like Stone was writing at testimony against everything that was wrong with the US government.

Unsurprisingly the film was met with mass controversy on its release as many critics accused Stone of rewriting history. As somebody who has very little knowledge of this time in American history I felt that JFK was an interesting exploration of a potential cover-up. But even I felt Stone's approach was a little heavy-handed and some of his suggestions seemed completely over-the-top. Though not as over-stretched as Dances with Wolves, JFK was still a bit overlong for my liking with a few scenes being surplus to requirements. But those are just minor niggles in a film that is stylish, well-written and that includes a fantastic ensemble cast all of whom play their parts brilliantly. As Shaw, Tommy Lee Jones is convincing as both a Louisiana slimeball and a closeted homosexual who is ashamed of certain parts of his life. Jones' performance earned JFK its only acting nomination but this doesn't do justice to some of the fine turns put in by Joe Pesci, Kevin Bacon and Laurie Metcalf. But to me the best performance came from Gary Oldman as Harvey Oswald as he's able to bring some sympathy to one of history's most famous killers. Oswald's story is told almost entirely in flashbacks but Oldman's charisma is enough to make all aspect of his character appear realistic. Robert Richardson's cinematography brilliantly captures the hectic nature of the day of Kennedy's assassination and the various elements that help back-up Garrison's case. Stone was committed to recreating the assassination almost frame-for-frame and used the real Dealey Plaza to do so. The film's editing was one of its biggest strengths as Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia seamlessly cut between the characters' speaking and the black and white flashbacks. As you would expect, John Williams' musical sequences enhance the film even more and feel incredibly presidential. Overall I enjoyed the majority of JFK with only Stone's heavy-handedness letting the film down slightly.

Meanwhile Costner continued to be a star following his roles in JFK and the romantic drama The Bodyguard. But Costner fell from favour following such flops as The Postman and Waterworld and as a result he lost his headliner status. Having watched these three films it was clear that audiences were drawn to Costner's likeable presence and he often played reliable heroes who did little wrong. But at the same time I can see why he hasn't had the long-lasting appeal of some other headliners and instead is now playing supporting roles in films such as the recent Jack Ryan instalment.

Next time we see the rise of a director who burst onto the scene in the 1990s with a whole new approach to film-making.