Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 342-343: Calling the Shots

An actor directing themselves on screen has become an increasingly common occurrence in recent years. This blog has seen this trend develop over time and in the past few posts alone we've had Kevin Costner starring and directing in Dances With Wolves as well as Quentin Tarantino featuring in his own Pulp Fiction. This post looks at two more such examples of movie stars directing themselves in Best Picture nominated films.

Barbara Streisand is a star we haven't seen in this project since Hello Dolly! but that doesn't mean she's been hiding in the shadows. Throughout the 1970s, Streisand became one of the biggest Box Office stars and in 1983 directed herself in Yentl. Her second film as director was released in the early 1990s and Streisand herself starred as a Jewish psychologist who finds love in the most unlikely of places. The Prince of Tides saw Streisand star alongside Nick Nolte who played emotionally damaged football coach Tom Wingo. The pair collide when Tom journeys from South Carolina to New York to be by the side of his sister who has just committed suicide. Streisand's Dr. Lowenstein is her psychiatrist who takes Tom on as almost a surrogate patient so he can reveal some of his family's deep dark secrets. Lowenstein takes a shine to Tom and enlists him as a football coach to her son who secretly enjoys the sport. Inevitably Lowenstein and Tom take a shine to each other and their union is made easier when its revealed that both of their spouses have been involved with other people. Pat Conroy adapted his own book for the screenplay but several of the elements were changed drastically, primarily so Streisand had more to do. Apparently the book focuses much more on the Wingo family history and its effects on Tom and his sister Savannah whilst the Lowenstein/Tom romance is more of a subplot. But the film's flashback scenes are few and far between meaning that The Prince of Tide feels more like a melodramatic romance than anything else. But at the end of the day I suppose that Streisand was the big name attached to the film and audiences wouldn't have flocked to see it if she were in a supporting role.

The Prince of Tides was nominated for seven Oscars but Streisand was neither nominated for her role as Lead Actress nor that of Director. Streisand's directorial style was hardly striking or particularly memorable with the only scenes that felt different being the Wingo family flashbacks. The way these flashbacks were shot and framed distinguished them from the rest of the film's narrative and meant that they had a suitably eerie tone. Meanwhile Streisand's performance wasn't exactly spellbinding and didn't match the turns we've seen her give previously in two other nominated films. The Prince of Tides is definitely more Nick Nolte's film than it is Streisand's as this is definitely Tom's story. Nolte gave a solid turn as a man trying to come to terms with his past and simultaneously learning what the future held. He was comfortable with both Tom's humorous side and was also compelling in the film's more dramatic moments. For his performance he got a Best Actor nomination with his fellow cast member Kate Nelligan being give a Supporting Actress nod for playing Tom's highly strung mother Lila. Nolte shared great chemistry with both Streisand and Blythe Danner as his philandering wife who was nonetheless a lot better suited for him than Lowenstein was. My personal favourite turn among the supporting cast was comedian George Carlin who put in a memorable showing as Savannah's gay neighbour Eddie. I knew very little about The Prince of Tides before I started watching and therefore everything that happened on screen was new to me. That being said nothing particularly surprising happened over the two hours and I believe the film's story trailed off once Tom and Lowenstein gave into their attraction for one another. That's not to say The Prince of Tides was a particularly bad film as it flowed quite nicely and was easy-to-follow but I just wasn't bowled over by it. Meanwhile Streisand would go on to direct one more film, The Mirror Has Two Faces, which itself was nominated for several Oscars.

Whilst Streisand did take on one of the leading roles in The Prince of Tides I don't think she ever dominated the screen but the same can't be said for our next actor/director. By the mid-1990s Mel Gibson was already a big name having starred in both the Mad Max series and the Lethal Weapon franchise. Known primarily as a star of big budget action films, Gibson changed tack with his second film as director; Braveheart. Set during the Scottish War of Independence of the late 1200s, Gibson played William Wallace a warrior who featured prominently in an epic poem by Blind Harry. Gibson's initial portrayal of Wallace is that of a free-love spouting Scot and its only when he loses that he's ready to fight against the dreaded English. With a non-Brit behind the camera, the English are inevitably presented as either despicable, sex-mad, weak or devious. The film's main villain is Edward Longshanks, who spends most of the film badmouthing Scotland or loudly coughing which indicates that he's not long for the world. Wallace's intelligence makes him a match for the bloodthirsty English army and he's able to win some early battles. But his lack of political awareness means that he's soon double-crossed by several nobles who are planning to put Robert the Bruce on the throne. Although Gibson was inspired by historical epics of the 1950s and 1960s, the final third of the film is much more like a revenge film in the style of Death Wish. Most of the aforementioned epics would conclude with a large battle scene but in Braveheart's case the last ten minutes are devoted to Wallace's execution. I found this quite troubling as it presented Gibson's character as a God-like figure, something I'm sure the actor/director was more than happy to go along with.

A few years ago, Braveheart topped an Empire list of the worst Best Picture winners but I don't for one minute agree with that assertion. I've definitely watched plenty of Best Picture winners that have been worse than Braveheart, which I found to be an interestingly shot historical epic. Aside from the gratuitous closing scenes, Gibson provided plenty of action but also some character development along the way. He certainly excelled more as a director than an actor here which suggests that he may have been overstretched somewhat. The two key battle scenes were particularly well-shot with each major incident being well-captured by John Toll's excellent cinematography. There's no denying that Braveheart is too long but I still thought that Randall Wallace did a satisfactory job with the screenplay. Many have complained that Braveheart is one of the most factually inaccurate films of modern times, but that didn't bother me too much. Wallace appears to have sacrificed facts in order to create an entertaining film and I feel that he succeeded to a large extent. By the end of the film I felt like I knew all of the characters and their individual motives, which is more than I can say for a lot of the previous Best Picture winners. The exterior locations, which were filmed in both Scotland and Ireland, are exquisite and really add a historical perspective to the film. Meanwhile James Horner's haunting score conjures up images of a vast highland which is exactly what the film needed. Where I think the film falls down is in the hammy performances that are given by the majority of the cast. The only things I really knew about Braveheart going in were Mel Gibson's iconic line about freedom and his blue and white facepaint. Gibson's performance of Wallace is a little over-the-top for my liking and at times I think he went too far in his portrayal. Patrick McGoohan made Longshanks feel like a pantomime villain whilst Sophie Marceau's French princess could've been a character from 'Allo 'Allo. The performance of the film came from Angus Macfayden as the morally conflicted Robert the Bruce. Macfayden's turn was so good I found Bruce's story to be a lot more compelling than Wallace's.

Ultimately I think a lot of people have given Bravheart a bad rap and I reckon that's got something to do with Gibson's personal problems in recent years. Whilst it's not a masterpiece, and may not have deserved to win Best Picture, it's certainly not as bad as I was led to believe. Though hammy performances and a tortuous final ten minutes let it down, Braveheart is a historical epic that has a few contemporary action sequences thrown in. After winning both Best Picture and Best Director at the Oscars, Gibson would jump in front and behind the camera with increasing frequency. Directing such diverse films as The Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto, Gibson found more success behind the scenes as he did as a star. But I think the Braveheart will be the film that he's best remembered for but I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or not.

Next time we look at a film that has its origins on the small screen.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 321: Terry's All-Stars

I do feel that when a director has achieved particular acclaim he can get away with most things. Terrence Malick is one such director who was well on his way to being a legend after helming Badlands and Days of Heaven in the 1970s. Malick took a twenty year hiatus following Days of Heaven so when it was announced that he'd be returning to the screen plenty of actors wanted a role in his new film. Luckily he was able to accommodate a fair few big names into The Thin Red Line, a film focusing on the Battle of Mount Austin fought in the Pacific between the Americans and the Japanese. Malick's first cut of the film was supposedly five hours long and obviously had to be cut down substantially to half of that original length. Even then I feel that the copy of The Thin Red Line I watched was overlong and confusing in some regards. One of my main issues was that of the duelling narration between Jim Caviezel's Private Witt and Nick Nolte's Lt. Col. Tall. Witt's story is that of a man who is dissatisfied with army life while Tall is trying to prove himself to his superiors who feel that a man of his advancing years shouldn't still be at war. Because of this Tall makes some risky decisions and it's one of his final choices that has an impact on the team. Events become even more complicated when Malick introduces another story later in the film as Ben Chaplin's Private Bell discovers his wife wants a divorce. The fact that both Caviezel and Chaplin are given voiceovers was rather confusing as at times I couldn't really tell the pair apart. It was only after he nobly died to save his comrades was when I realised that Witt was meant to be the hero of the piece. That alone should tell you that Malick's script was confusing and that some of what was cut from the film may have been important.

Spare a thought then for poor Adrien Brody, who prior to the release of The Thin Red Line had told people that he was the main focus of the film. After watching the film Brody's appearance amounted to nothing more than a five minute cameo towards the conclusion. Brody was understandably upset by the decision and he feels that Malick should have at least have informed of the changes that had been made prior to the film's screening. But at least Brody made into the film which is more than can be said for the likes of Martin Sheen, Micky Rourke, Gary Oldman and Billy Bob Thronton who all had their scenes cut entirely. As there are so many big names floating around it's incredibly hard to single out one or two actors to praise their performances in the film. Nick Nolte probably gives the best turn as the weary Tall and both Sean Penn and John Cusack made good impressions during their extended cameos. Like with most Malick films, the strongest aspect of The Thin Red Line is in its visuals. John Toll's cinematography is outstanding, especially when we follow the soldiers inside the long grass where they hide during their attacks. Toll's point-of-view shots really make you feel part of the action and in a way add to our understanding of what war might have been like for these men. But to me there was almost too much of a focus on arty camerawork and not enough done on character development. I personally wasn't a fan of certain characters reminiscing about their families back home and thought these scenes represented Malick's undisciplined approach to film-making. Hans Zimmer's score really helped the film achieve the emotional tone it was looking for especially when it accompanied The Thin Red Line's battle scenes. But that being said, ultimately I found The Thin Red Line to be a beautifully shot war film that really never compelled me to care about specific character. Rather than changing my views about Malick as a film-maker its simply reinforced them and I've still not be able to see what others do in this supposedly great director.

Next time we look at three films from a respected British actor who appeared in two Best Picture winners during the 1990s.