Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 467-468: Tarantino's Waltz

Back in the 1990s we documented the career of Quentin Tarantino when his second feature film Pulp Fiction was nominated for Best Picture. Since then he had an interesting career helming an adaptation of Elmore Leonard's Jackie Brown and his epic martial arts western Kill Bill. Tarantino suffered somewhat of a slump in the mid noughties with his latest offering, Death Proof going down very badly. However, he turned his fortunes around a few years later when he teamed up with a then unknown Austrian actor by the name of Christoph Waltz.

The film was Inglourious Basterds, in which Waltz makes an instant impression as the charismatically brutal Col. Hans Landa. Just like with Pulp Fiction, Tarantino's World War II movie is split into chapters that focus on different characters before bringing them altogether in a memorable finale. The film's first chapter focuses on Landa, dubbed the 'Jew Hunter' by the Nazi party, who attempts to track down a Jewish family who have so far evaded his detection. This opening scene is a testament to Waltz's power as an actor as he initially appears charming but later demonstrates Landa's brutality in all its glory. It's only after meeting the films antagonist that we meet the eponymous heroes of the piece; a Jew-scalping bunch of American soldiers let by Brad Pitt's over-the-top Aldo Raine. Raine's brand of patriotism and Nazi-scalping made him an off-putting character in my eyes and I had little sympathy for him when he found himself in a perilous situation later in the movie. In fact if Inglourious Basterds does have a sympathetic character then its cinema owner Shosanna, whose family were killed by Landa's platoon in the opening sequence. After her cinema is picked to host a Nazi premiere, Shosanna decides it's the perfect opportunity to get revenge for her family by burning her business to the ground. However, Shosanna didn't count on The Basterds also showing up with a plan of their own which involved the detonation of dynamite strapped to their inside legs. As a self-proclaimed cinema aficionado it does seem apt that Tarantino's film's big scene occurs in a movie-house however I did find the finale a little far-fetched even by the director's normal standards.

Inglourious Basterds is one of those films that has individual elements that work however its ultimately not the sum of its parts. Firstly, at almost two and a half hours, it's far too long and every scene feels a little overstretched. I can event pinpoint the moments where needless dialogue is being inserted into a scene that could've had a better rhythm to it had it not been written by Tarantino. The fact that Tarantino likes to break cinematic convention as much as possible also makes Inglorioius Basterds seem a little too full of itself. The use of modern music for example doesn't always work whilst the random wording that flashes up on the screen every so often is another trick that I found a little hard to stomach. It's quite easy for me to pinpoint which scenes that work and which don't primarily because of the chaptered structure of the film. Despite being the film's antagonist, Hans Landa's scenes are Inglourious Basterds' best as I found him to be a man that oozed charisma. The fact that he leaves the film after the first scene meant that we long to see him again which we do in small helpings elsewhere. Shosanna is another great character, a woman who utilises her knowledge of film to get her revenge on the men that had her family killed. On the flipside I found that any scenes involving the Basterds were overblown, needlessly violent and contained a performance from Brad Pitt that was bordering on a pantomime. The film also wastes great actors like Michael Fassbender and Diane Kruger by having them only appear in a handful of scenes despite both of their characters seeming interesting. I did however enjoy Melanie Laurent as the bitter but feisty Shosanna who thankfully got her fair share of screentime before her ultimate demise. But Inglourious Basterds did belong to Christoph Waltz, who won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for portraying Landa. I think that Tarantino owes a debt of gratitude to Waltz who made the film seem a lot better than it actually was. Like it or not, Inglourious Basterds did propel Tarantino back into the mainstream and I feel that that is primarily due to Waltz's fantastic performance.


Three years later Tarantino and Waltz would reunite earning the latter another Best Supporting Actor Oscar and the former his second Best Screenwriting award. The film in question was Django Unchained and was once again a homage to one of Tarantino's favourite genres as he favoured a spaghetti western approach throughout the film. However, with the film being set in America's south, Tarantino has redubbed the film 'A Southern' and has also commented that it his look at the slavery movement. But you know when Tarantino's involved, the film is never going to be straightforward and indeed here he mixes a little social commentary alongside his usual bloody violence and superior soundtrack. The story sees Jamie Foxx's Django being freed from a chain gang by Waltz's bounty hunting Dr. King Schultz who hopes that the former slave will help him track down some wanted men. When Schultz discovers Django's aptitude for the profession of bounty hunting he takes him under his wing whilst also promising to help him locate his lost wife. The pair tracks down Django's wife to the Candyland plantation where the charming yet ruthless Calvin Candie believes that the men are looking for one of his prize fighters. From the point that Schultz and Django enter Candieland the film becomes a dangerous game as our duo face peril not only from Candie himself but also from sneaky servant Stephen. As is usually the way with modern Tarantino films, Django Unchained is about twenty minutes too long and there are some sequences that could easily have been edited down. These sequences including a comedy number including the Klu Klux Klan and a lot of the empty scenes before Django and Schultz arrive at Candieland.

Another issue I had with the final part of the film was the fact that Schultz and Candie had both been killed off in the movie's penultimate shoot-out. This was a shame as they were the two most charismatic characters in the film and without them it was left to the rather bland Django to carry the rest of the movie. Just as he was in Inglourious Basterds, Waltz is a joy to watch here with him playing a considerably more sympathetic role than he did in Tarantino's previous film. Indeed, Schultz is arguably the film's most well-rounded character as we see him go from loner bounty hunter to Django's mentor. Elsewhere it was great to see Leonardo Dicaprio in a role that saw him get to play against type as the film's main antagonist Calvin Candie. Dicaprio appeared to relish playing the role and he certainly gave an enigmatic turn to the extent that I felt he should have been put forward for the Oscar over Waltz. If there's a weak link in the film then it's Jamie Foxx, whose is seemingly outshone by his fellow performers in the lead role of Django. It's telling that when Dicaprio and Waltz aren't on screen the film dips in quality and that final twenty minutes was a chore to get through. It wasn't helped by the fact that Tarantino himself turns up as an Australian miner with his accent being one of the most questionable in cinematic history. In addition I felt that Tarantino let his old mate Samuel L Jackson get away with far too much over-acting as the sadistic Stephen. One thing I do have to applaud Tarantino for is his use of music in the film and particularly the original song written by western movie legend Ennio Morricone. The film is also visually superb with great time taken to get the look of each character right whilst the set of Candieland is similarly memorable. Whilst enjoyable, Django Unchained was far too long for my liking with Tarantino showing even less restraint than he did during Inglourious Basterds. Additionally there was less grit employed in the film with the message being lost beneath a pool of bloody corpses and an out-of-place explosion.

Having watched these two films back-to-back it does seem to me as if Tarantino really needs someone to tell him where he can slash significant portions of his films. But, whilst his films are doing well during the awards ceremonies I can't see this ever happening. I do feel that I'm in the minority when I say this but I don't think Tarantino has been at his best since the first instalment of Kill Bill. While Basterds and Django are both superior to Death Proof they're nowhere near the quality of the likes of Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. I do feel that the main reason that Oscar honours Tarantino in the 2010s is just so they can highlight their recognition of edgier fare alongside the more prestigious period pieces and issue-based movies.

Next time we tone down the violence and look at a quirky indie comedy with two strong female characters taking centre stage.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 433-434: The Return of the Blockbuster

One of the reasons that the Best Picture nominees increased from five to ten in 2010 was so that the films that most people went to see would be included in the list. There had been outcry in the latter half of the noughties when some of the most well-regarded blockbusters had been disregarded for fare such as The Reader and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Indeed, the big-budget blockbuster had rarely featured in the Best Picture category since the likes of Jaws, Star Wars and E.T. In fact the only blockbusters that featured in the last twenty years either were period epics such as Titanic or literary adaptations like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. That all changed though when a sci-fi blockbuster not only broke through into the Best Picture category but also brought back a new craze for 3-D films.

Although the reintroduction of 3-D started in 2009 it was only when James Cameron brought Avatar to the screen that it became a requisite format for all massive blockbusters to be screened in. We last met James Cameron back in the 1990s when he directed the massive Best Picture winner Titanic and also picked up Best Director along the way. Avatar was set on a similarly epic scale albeit one that had no basis in history primarily as it was set in the future. Writing the plot down for Avatar feels a little silly as it involves a planet called Pandora and the mining of a precious energy source known as unobtanium. The only problem is that Pandora is ruled by huge Smurf-like creatures called the Na'vi who don't want the humans encroaching on their lands due to their magic trees or some such nonsense. Our hero of sorts is paraplegic marine Jake Sully who is portrayed as an idiot from the get-go and has been recruited based on the fact that he has the same genetic make-up as his deceased scientist brother. Jake, along with several other scientists, are transported into the bodies of Avatars which look exactly like the Na'vi. Throughout the course of the film the Na'vi take Jake to their bossum although I'm not quite sure why as he seems like a complete dullard. Eventually falling for one of the Na'vi women, Jake changes sides and ends up fighting alongside the blue folk against his former allies. The final battle scenes, which seem to go on forever see Jake go up against the pantomime villain of the piece Colonel Quartich with the result seeing him become a Na'vi for good. Whilst I'm sure Cameron knew what the film was about to me it was Dances with Wolves in space with big blue creatures taking the place of the Native Americans.

I went to see Avatar twice at the cinema, once to satisfy my own curiosity and again when my friend wanted to see the 3-D version. Suffice to say there was very little difference for me and I don't think the 3-D really enhanced my viewing experience, a comment I can replicate for every 3D film I've seen. On the plus side there's no denying that Cameron has an epic vision, creating his own world in the form on Pandora and populating it with his own unique creations. The film's wins in the Art Direction, Cinematography and Visual Effects categories were all more than justified as these were definitely the film's greatest qualities. On the downside, I feel that Cameron's storytelling ability is possibly at its worse here with Avatar feeling even more bloated than Titanic. Even though he should be applauded for his unique vision I don't think it quite translates into the storytelling and at times I was fairly bored. Indeed there were whole sequences where Jake and the other Na'vi were chasing creatures round Pandora which looked like they were just there to justify the 3-D enhancements. As the plot itself is quite convoluted, Cameron has had to insert a bunch of exposition with Jake having to explain the story through way of his video logs. The performances weren't too much better with the wooden Sam Worthington being the wrong choice to lead an epic film such as Avatar. Worthington showed me nothing of worth and as a result never made his character feel particularly endearing. Similarly Stephen Lang as the ludicrous Quartich, yelled all of his lines and Giovanni Ribisi was phoning it in as the evil businessman. Only Sigourney Weaver, as experienced scientist Grace, gave a memorable turn and she at least made you sympathise when her character passed away from her gunshot wounds. Ultimately, Avatar is a feast for the eyes but a let down for all the other senses and I'm so glad that The Hurt Locker triumphed over this Box Office behemoth which I feel is one of the most overrated films of the last decade.

One of the blockbuster films that had been cruelly overlooked at the 2009 ceremony was Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight. Infinitely better than the majority of that year's Best Picture contenders, The Dark Knight was a brilliant take on the Batman story that topped plenty of critics' lists that year. Two years later, and with an extended field, Nolan finally found himself the director of a Best Picture nominee even though he himself didn't receive a nomination. Nolan's Oscar nominated picture was Inception; a brilliantly thoughtful blockbuster which was a lot more intellectual than your average summer action flick. Although Inception did include all the running and shooting that you would expect from a blockbuster it did also have an amazing storyline to do with dreams and dreams within dreams. The inception of the title is a method by which someone could plant an idea in the head of another subject by infiltrating their dreams. At its heart, Inception is essentially a heist film but in place of a bank vault we have a person's inner thoughts. The leader of the gang is Don Cobb; a brilliant man who is on the run after the authorities believed that he'd murdered his wife. The reality was something much darker and the relationship between Don and his wife Mal is where the film gains its emotional edge. When Cobb learns he could be reunited with his children by performing a-near impossible inception mission he gets to it and assembles a crack team in the process. While I'm sure most people have probably seen Inception by now, I'm not going to spoil it needlessly for those who haven't. But suffice to say that, even though it's about my fifth time watching the film, I was still on tenterhooks as Cobb and his team attempted to navigate the various dream layers. Meanwhile, the ambiguous ending makes the film all that more memorable with the spinning top being possibly the most iconic visual from Inception.

As Inception is a film about imagination, it's clear to see that Nolan has utilised his to full effect. In the early stages of the film, we see Cobb instruct his newest team member Ariadne on how best to build a dream. The set piece in which Ariadne makes buildings fold in on themselves is still a marvel to watch and this visual splendour continues throughout the rest of the film. Nolan's production design team, who were awarded with a BAFTA for their work on the film, deserve praise for creating a different atmosphere in each dream level. From the suave hotel interior to the snowbound fortress every single frame of Inception has been designed to fit in with the unique nature of the story. All in all Inception took home four awards for cinematography, visual effects, sound editing and sound effects editing. A dubious omission among that list is Hans Zimmer, whose score for Inception is instantly recognisable and today is played on plenty of adverts. I'm also still a little bit puzzled as to why Nolan himself wasn't nominated for directing a truly personal film that I felt was truly original. The cast also lifted the material of the film, making their characters feel three-dimensional, a rarity for a summer blockbuster. I felt Leonardo DiCaprio was a perfect lead as he perfectly portrayed Cobb as somebody who wasn't quite sure of himself any more but realised he had to complete the mission in order to return home. Tom Hardy was brilliant as Eames, the joker and forger of the pack who transformed himself several times during the dream. But the best performance of all came from Marion Cotillard, who made Mal both the film's key antagonist and a sympathetic character who had been ruined by exploring other people's dreams. If I have one criticism about Inception it is its exposition-filled script which I suppose is a necessary evil when you've got so many rules to explain. However this is a minor quibble in a film that's truly exceptional, incredibly rewatchable and a movie that redefined what a summer blockbuster could be.

Next time we look at the two most recent nominated films from a director who's featured on this blog a fair few times already.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 395-397: Marty & Leo Go for Gold

It's fair to say that Martin Scorsese and Oscar have had a pretty good relationship as he's found one of his films in the Best Picture category in the last three decades. These films; Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas, all starred the great Robert De Niro and propelled the actor to stardom. In the early 21st Century, Scorsese all but ditched De Niro in favour of another star; Leonardo DiCaprio. We first met DiCaprio as a young actor who just happened to be cast in the lead role in one of the biggest films of all time; Titanic. Although the film itself was visually spectacular, I didn't really rate DiCaprio's performance and found him a little immature. However, as the noughties rolled on it appeared as if Scorsese and DiCaprio brought out the best in each other and their partnership finally saw the former pick up his well-deserved Best Director Oscar.

Scorsese's first collaboration with DiCaprio was Gangs of New York a film that the director had been working on for several decades. Based loosely on Herbert Asbury's non-fiction work of the same name Gangs of New York looks at the 19th century conflict between Irish immigrants and American natives as they fought for supremacy over several decades. I found that Scorsese dragged you into the picture kicking and screaming with an opening fight between Irish Priest Vallon's Dead Rabbits and the merciless Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting's Natives. This opening fight scene ultimately sees Vallon murdered by Cutting and his son Amsterdam being shipped off to an orphanage. DiCaprio then appears as the older incarnation of Amsterdam whose set on revenge against the man who killed his father. Instead of waging war against Cutting straight away, Amsterdam instead infiltrates his gang and at one point even saves his life. Cutting eventually begins to look upon Amsterdam as a son and therefore feels even more betrayed when he finally learns the truth. The film's third act sees Amsterdam's recovery from Bill's attack on him and his attempts to gain power in the city. It's in this third act that DiCaprio comes alive as Amsterdam empowers his Irish brethren and in doing so appoints one of his father's old allies as the town's sheriff. The film ends with another incredibly engaging fight sequence as Amsterdam takes the place of his father in the new incarnation of The Dead Rabbits. However, this fight plays out slightly differently as it coincides with the New York City Draft Riots and means that Cutting and Amsterdam have to contend with another conflict going on behind them. I found that this final sequence was a fitting end to a film that was problematic but ultimately satisfying.

It's clear to see that Gangs of New York was a labour of love for Scorsese and it apparently took him several years to complete. Part of the reason for this was his struggle to make the piece as authentic as possible down to making sure that each character's accent was spot on. One of the most impressive elements of Gangs of New York was its production design, which shockingly didn't win the Oscar in that category. Production designer Dante Ferretti recreated over a mile of mid-nineteenth century buildings in Rome where the filming took place. Ferretti's design is eye-catching from the initial scene which focuses on Cutting and The Priest's battle for the Five Points. Everything about Gangs of New York is designed within an inch of its life from the outstanding costumes to the perfectly coiffed moustached of Daniel Day-Lewis, who plays Bill 'The Butcher' with great aplomb. In fact Day-Lewis holds the film together at times and his performance earned Gangs of New York its only acting Oscar. Day-Lewis dominates the screen and showed us glimpses of There Will be Blood's Daniel Plainview; a role that snatched him his second Best Actor Oscar five years after Gangs of New York. The decision to cast Cameron Diaz as Amsterdam's love interest Jenny was an interesting one and I personally felt she fell short of the mark. Meanwhile, I found DiCaprio's acting style to be rather petulant and didn't think he was a match for Day-Lewis' scenery chewing. At the same time there were hints that Scorsese was bringing the best out in DiCaprio as his performance was certainly more assured than when we saw him in Titanic. As a whole I found Gangs of New York to be overly long and there was at least half a dozen scenes that were surplus to requirements. But it's hard to knock a film to which the director has clearly devoted so much time to perfecting. The combination of exquisite production design, a fine supporting cast and Day-Lewis' turn as The Butcher means that Gangs of New York is an enthralling watch even if it isn't the masterpiece that Scorsese intended it to be.

Two years later, Scorsese found himself at the Oscars once again with his Howard Hughes biopic The Aviator being nominated for Best Picture. In contrast to Gangs of New York, The Aviator didn't start of as Scorsese's baby and instead had been an idea floating around Hollywood since the 1970s. The Hughes biopic finally gained legs in the late 1990s with DiCaprio signed on to star whilst Michael Mann was set to direct. However, Mann was later dropped by the studio and replaced by Scorsese; partially due to his prior working relationship with DiCaprio. It was certainly clear that in the two years since Gangs of New York DiCaprio had come on leaps and bounds as an actor. It was also evident that he'd done his research into Howard Hughes' OCD; a condition that made him unable to deal with germs of any kind. If I had a particular issue with The Aviator then it was with John Logan's screenplay which I felt was rather episodic. The first act dealt with Hughes' creation of Hells' Angels before going on to look at his relationship with Katherine Hepburn. It was the Hughes and Hepburn story that really captured my imagination, partially as I'd followed the latter's career throughout the course of this blog. The film then follows Hughes' continued problems with Pan-Am and his eventual trial by the Senate. I thought that this latter half of the film was a lot less interesting with the trial scenes feeling rather clichéd. Additionally, I believe that Ava Gardner wasn't as compelling a female lead as Hepburn had been during the film's earlier moments. However, at least Logan ended the film superbly with a small victory for Hughes being followed by the suggestion that his mental health may be at its worst.

If I remember correctly, The Aviator was the definite favourite to win the Best Picture prize going into the 2005 Oscars. Although it ultimately didn't triumph in that category, it did go on to pick up an impressive five statuettes on the night. Winners included cinematographer Robert Richardson and editor Thelma Schoonmaker both of whom made the aerial scenes absolutely stunning. Dante Farretti was also rewarded with an Oscar for his recreation of Hughes' many aircrafts as well as recreating classic Hollywood landmarks. Most deserving of all was Cate Blanchett who, in my humble opinion, stole the show as the feisty Katherine Hepburn. As somebody who has watched a large amount of Katherine Hepburn films in the last few years, I can say without a doubt that Blanchett captured the actress' key mannerisms to a tea. It's a telling sign of Blanchett's skill that after she leaves the film the quality dips with Kate Beckinsale's Ava Gardner being incredibly inferior in comparison. Alan Alda was given a Best Supporting Actor nod for his role as the corrupt Senator Brewster, who attempted to bring down Hughes in order to help his friend at Pan-Am airways. However, the most impressive turn came from DiCaprio himself who I felt perfectly anchored the film as the troubled Hughes. One of Logan's strengths was to gradually build up the theme of Hughes' OCD which was aided by Schoonmaker's editing of certain situations. DiCaprio was therefore able to hint at his character's downfall before he descended briefly into madness. Although DiCaprio lost that year's Best Actor award to Ray's Jamie Foxx he still demonstrated for the first time that he was capable of leading an epic such as The Aviator. Whilst I wasn't a fan of the film's episodic structure, Scorsese once again put together a classic Hollywood epic that looked fantastic. Unfortunately it was yet another film that failed to net him that elusive Best Director prize.

That prize would finally come his way two years later in yet another film that featured Leonardo DiCaprio in one of the lead roles. This time it was The Departed; an adaptation of the Korean Infernal Affairs series which saw the action transplanted to downtown Boston. As well as teaming up with DiCaprio for the third time, The Departed also saw Scorsese work with blog favourite Jack Nicholson in his most recent Oscar-nominated film to date. The film saw Nicholson play Boston mob boss Frank Costello, who was based on real-life Boston gangster Whitey Bulger. The early scenes of The Departed focus on Costello's mentoring of the impressionable Michael Sullivan who would later go on to become an officer in the Boston PD. Sullivan, played by Matt Damon, uses his new found position to feed information to Costello in order for him to evade detection. At the same time the Boston Police Chief enlists DiCaprio's police cadet Billy Costigan to go undercover in Costello's gang in order to feed them information. The film then follows Sullivan and Costigan's stories as they attempt to evade detection in the organisations that they've found themselves in. Another connection between the pair is police psychologist Madolyn Madden, who begins a relationship with Sullivan and eventually becomes his live-in girlfriend. At the same time Madden treats Costigan as a patient and the two begin an affair behind Sullivan's back. Like Gangs of New York and The Aviator before it, The Departed is a little overlong and like Scorsese's previous two Oscar contenders it clocks in at two and a half hours. However, after a slow start, The Departed finally gets going in its final hour where revelations are thrown out at an alarming speed. The finale is especially breathtaking and I remember being taken aback the first time I watched it over seven years ago.

When Scorsese won his Oscar for The Departed, which itself was that year's Best Picture winner, it was said that it was like him being awarded a Lifetime Achievement award for an inferior film. Although The Departed is far from Scorsese's most accomplished film it's still an interesting crime picture which has a lot to say about identity and what truly defines us. Screenwriter William Monahan's screenplay was definitely the strongest of the three films in this post and all of the major characters' motives are perfectly explained. Though it doesn't look as good as the two prior films, I believe that The Departed is Scorsese at his best as it's a grimy film that explores the underbelly of city life. Boston appears as a character in its own right thanks to Michael Ballhaus' fantastic cinematography. Meanwhile Leonardo DiCaprio shines once again as the conflicted Costigan who is constantly looking over his shoulder just in case he gets rumbled. Costigan is definitely the most interested role that DiCaprio has played up to this point although he wasn't awarded with a Best Actor nomination for this particular film. However DiCaprio did feature in that year's line-up for his turn in another film; Blood Diamond and I think this is possibly due to the fact that he and Matt Damon share equal screen time. I was also impressed by Damon's turn as the quick-witted Sullivan who ultimately destroys the man he work so hard to protect. Elsewhere Nicholson gives a scene-stealing turn as the terrifying Costello and Vera Farmiga held her own as Madolyn; the only woman to really feature strongly in the film. It was odd then that none of these performers earned an Oscar nod with The Departed's only acting nomination being given to Mark Wahlberg as the foul-mouthed Staff Sgt. Dignam. The Departed also utilised popular music well with The Rolling Stone's 'Gimme Shelter' and Dropkick Murphys' 'Shipping Up to Boston' being used several time throughout its run time. Ultimately, though not Scorsese's best work, The Departed deserved the plaudits it garnered thanks to its enthralling final act and a fine ensemble cast. It also proved that DiCaprio and Scorsese were a winning partnership and I think this post proved that they definitely brought out the best in one another.

That's not the end for Scorsese and DiCaprio whose partnership would result in another Oscar-nominated film in the following decade but that's another story. Next time however we look at a little British film that struck a chord with audiences and critics alike.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 332-333: Kate's Greats

In the last post we looked at two of Emma Thompson's performances from Best Picture nominees of the early 1990s but unbeknownst to us she was also busy scribbling off screen. That's because, for the best part of five years, Thompson had been adapting Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility after being hired for the project by producer Lindsay Doran. Thompson had initially wanted Natasha and Joely Richardson to play sisters Elinor and Marianne Dashwood but instead the studio wanted her to play Elinor. This meant having to alter the character's age from nineteen to twenty-seven in order to make Thompson's appearance in the part convincing. Thompson would go on to win her second Academy Award for the screenplay and be nominated for a third Best Actress for her role as Elinor. But it's the actress who played Marianne that we turn our attention to as she forms the basis of this next double bill.

The actress in question is Kate Winslet who was just nineteen when she appeared in Sense and Sensibility and earned a Best Supporting Actress nomination as a result. Winslet's road to the part was a rocky one as she was initially due to audition for the smaller role of Lucy Steele. But when she arrived at the audition she played dumb and read for Marianne, instantly captivating the panel and winning the part. However, her casting in the film was not without criticism primarily from director Ang Lee who felt that her performance in Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures was too over-the-top. In order for her to be convincing in the role, Lee wanted her to act more gracefully so encouraged her to read poetry and learn to play the piano. The result was a scene-stealing performance as the reckless middle Dashwood sister who falls head-over-heels for the dashing John Willoughby. Even in the earlier scenes Winslet excels at conveying quiet disdain for her step-brother's wife Fanny who is basically evicting them from their own home. Winslet easily conveys Marianne's transformation from brash stroppy teenager to a more mature character as she finally falls for the stable Colonel Brandon. Emma Thompson's own performance really tied everything together and I didn't for a minute have a problem with the way that Elinor was substantially aged to suit Thompson. Indeed the fact that Elinor was practically considered a spinster was incorporated into Thompson's script and worked perfectly well in the overall story. As the dreadful Fanny, Harriet Walter gave an incredibly awful turn and triumphed in providing the majority of the film's comedy. Meanwhile Gemma Jones and Emilie François, as Mrs Dashwood and Margaret respectively, shone in their limited screen time. In comparison to their female counterparts, the male actors were a little subdued but that might have something to do with the characters they were playing. Apparently Thompson wrote the role of Edward Ferrars with Hugh Grant in mind but I feel the pair didn't share enough chemistry to convince me of their on screen romance. Similarly, as Col Brandon, Alan Rickman's chemistry with Winslet lacked any spark though he was convincing as an emotionally reserved soldier. Of the male leads, only Greg Wise put in a convincing turn as the dashing Willoughby as he made you understand why Marianne fell for him so much. Interestingly it was actually Thompson who fell for Wise in real life with the pair eventually marrying some years later.

Both Doran and Thompson wanted Sense and Sensibility to have far-reaching appeal and never wanted it to be viewed as just another costume drama. I definitely felt that Sense and Sensibility was more accessible than both Howard's End and The Remains of the Day which at times were a little bit too rigid for their own good. One of the ways the pair achieved their goal was for Thompson to simplify some of the dialogue so the themes would be more relatable for a modern-day audience. Doran's goal was for the film to appeal to lovers of romantic comedy and I feel that Thompson's script for Sense and Sensibility does indeed have those sorts of elements. Another way Doran gained global appeal for the film was in the hiring of South Korean director Ang Lee, who had never heard of Jane Austen prior to his appointment. But, after reading Thompson's script, he realised his previous film The Wedding Banquet had a lot in common with Austen's story. Lee certainly added a lot of elegance to the piece but was able to incorporate some of his own stylistic qualities to the exterior scenes which made Sense and Sensibility feel a lot more open than the stuffier Merchant Ivory pictures. Costume designers, and Merchant Ivory stalwarts, John Bright and Jenny Bevan provided plenty of distinctive outfits for each individual character. Meanwhile composer Patrick Doyle's score provided a suitable accompaniment to a film that felt a lot more contemporary than a lot of other Victorian dramas. Sense and Sensibility was a film I remember watching on VHS both at home and in a Year 9 English Lesson but a the time I don't think I appreciated the quality of the film in the way I do now. Sense and Sensibility ultimately came across as a labour of love for all those involved and was a film that definitely deserved the seven Oscars it was nominated for. Meanwhile Winslet's role in the film saw her become a breakout star and for the first time was a recognisable presence in the film industry.

But Winslet really became a big name after starring in a film that still holds the title of being the largest grossing film of all time and the recipient of eleven Oscars including one for Best Picture. Obviously I'm talking about Titanic and, just like in Sense and Sensibility, Winslet fought hard to get the lead role of Rose. Her tactics included sending several letters and a rose to James Cameron which led to a screen test and an eventual part in this monumental movie. You couldn't grow up in the late 1990s and not know something about Titanic but I have to admit that I've never watched it all the way through. I've caught bits of it on the TV occasionally but I always thought that three hours focusing solely on one movie was too much. I do however remember the commotion that was caused after the BBC revealed that they were going to air Kate Winslet's tame topless scene before the watershed. The scene, in which Rose is painted nude by Leonardo DiCaprio's Jack, is incredibly quick and also is vital to the overall plot. Indeed it is in the discovery of this drawing that the elderly Rose is reunited with the Titanic which is currently being investigated by treasure hunter Brock Lovett. The main story of Titanic is Rose's memories of her time on the ill-fated ship and the brief romance she shared with the commoner Jack Dawson. It was this romance between upper class Rose and lower class Jack that captured the imaginations of the audience. Indeed, I remember some of the girls in my class at school going to see the film two or three times with DiCaprio gaining pin-up status as a result. But I personally never brought into the central romance and as a result the majority of Titanic fell flat for me. Part of the problem for this was the wafer-thin characterisation that was afforded to the central couple but partly both actors were to blame. Winslet showed none of the maturity or discipline of her performance in Sense and Sensibility whilst DiCaprio struggled to hold the film together. Another issue I had was with Cameron's script, particularly the fact that the film shows some of Jack's scenes without Rose even though it's meant to be her narrating it. Thankfully Cameron's script was one of the elements of the film that wasn't included in Titanic's massive haul of nominations.

Despite my reservations about the film's narrative and central performances; there's no denying that Titanic is one of the most ascetically magnificent films of all time. The second half of the film, which focuses on the ship's sinking, was definitely the most compelling and allowed Cameron to demonstrate why the film was the most expensive of all time. Using a combination of scale models, computer imagery and a full-scale replicate of the ship; Cameron's vision for Titanic was more than realised when the project was complete. Every scene of the film looks fantastic from the elegant upper-decks to the rat-infested rooms in which Jack and his friends find themselves. The costumes are realistically recreated and James Horner's haunting score remains one of cinema's most recognisable. While we're on music it would be amiss of me not to mention one of Titanic's most famous attributes, Celine Dion's 'My Heart Will go On'. At the time it was hard to escape the song and there's no denying that it's still one of the most famous film theme tunes. Russell Carpenter's cinematography came alive during the film's second half as he allowed the camera to survey the sinking ship and immersed the audience into the action. The way the camera follows Jack and Rose as they hurtle down the water-logged corridors is simply fantastic as is the manner in which he zooms over the lifeless bodies that have frozen in the cold water. These scenes in particular add to the realism of the film and it was interesting to note that many of the cast members got terribly ill as a result of spending days in the freezing water. Although I wasn't wowed by the central performances some of the supporting cast members brought their characters to life. As the 'unsinkable' Molly Brown, Kathy Bates brought some much needed fun to the film whilst Bernard Hill's facial expressions as the ship's Captain were fantastic. I also enjoyed Victor Garber's turn as the ship's architect and felt his apology to Rose in particular was quite moving. But for me it was Gloria Stuart, as the older version of Rose, who stole the show and I was transfixed by her moving turn at the beginning and end of the film. Ultimately I'm not surprised that Titanic won Best Picture as it is one of the most visually engaging films that you'll ever see. That being said I was never really caught up in the narrative of the film and to me this is a film that's all about the visuals rather than the story itself.

Next time we depart from the fancy costumes of yesteryear and check in on what was going on in Britain during the 1990s.