Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 409: Here's to you Mrs. Dalloway

As we've seen throughout the course of this blog, plenty of Oscar nominees and winners been based on well-known pieces of literature. However, the next film on hour list; 2003 nominee The Hours is rather uniquely inspired by Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway. David Hare's adaptation of Michael Cunningham's novel focuses on three women who are all touched by the book in different ways.

The first story concentrates on Woolf herself as she begins to write Mrs. Dalloway in 1923 whilst at the same time dealing with her various emotional issues. The second story is set in suburban Los Angeles during the early 1950s and deals with Laura Brown who is reading Mrs. Dalloway. Finally, in modern day New York, Clarissa Vaughan is planning a party for her dying poet friend Richard who refers to her as Mrs. Dalloway. Despite their disparate time lines and settings; all of the three women who The Hours concentrates on have plenty of similarities. All of three are suffering from mental problems of all kinds; with Virginia struggling with her countryside surroundings, Laura considering suicide and Claudia busying herself with party planning to blot out her insecurities. All three women also have feelings for the same sex whether it be on show, such as Claudia's lesbian relationship with her long term partner, or kept behind closed doors. What I liked about Hare's screenplay was the fact that he kept all three storylines ticking along nicely and made sure that we didn't forget about any one thread. If I'm honest, the least interesting of the three stories was that of Woolf herself who was a little bit too precious to ever care about that much. I enjoyed the subtlety of the Laura storyline and its exploration of the dark underbelly of 1950s suburbia. Meanwhile, Claudia's tale was full of regret and had a rather shocking scene towards the end of it. One element of the final scenes I wasn't particularly keen on was the way that Claudia and Laura's scenes linked together however it did make sense to the overall tale.

Interestingly all three of The Hours' lead actresses were nominated at that year's ceremony however only two of them were representing that film. Despite giving the weakest turn of the three, Nicole Kidman's portrayal of Virginia Woolf netted her that year's Best Actress prize. I would agree with those who theorised that the reason that she was given the award was for putting on a prosthetic nose that made her look only slightly detracted from her overall beauty. Kidman did little to make me care about the Woolf scenes which only perked up with the arrival of Miranda Richardson as her lively sister. Even though she was on screen longer, Julianne Moore was nominated for Best Supporting Actress for her tender portrayal of Laura Brown; a woman who was on the verge of ending it all. Moore was also nominated for Best Actress that year for a similar turn in Far From Heaven however I think her performance in The Hours was slightly better. Oddly the best performance of the trio, which came from Meryl Streep, failed to garner a nomination with the actress instead being recognised for her turn in Adaptation. I think that Streep delivered one of her greatest performances as the bisexual Claudia who was hanging on to the one summer she spent with the love of her life, Richard. As Richard, Ed Harris was a revelation and I feel that he should have won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar that year that ultimately went to Streep's Adaptation co-star Chris Cooper. Aside from the fine performances and well-paced plot, Philip Glass' ever-present score deserves a mention even if it did make some of the scenes feel slightly overblown. This was my first time watching The Hours and I have to admit that I rather liked it even if Kidman's scenes as Woolf bored me a little. It was great to see a female-centric tale garner so much acclaim and I found it to be an easy-to-watch, well-written film.

Next time we return to the work of a director who had somewhat of a resurgence in the early 21st century.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 401-402: A Musical Revival

Back on Day 290 of the Oscar Challenge I looked at the last live action musical that was nominated for an Academy Award, that being All that Jazz. Since then the only musical film to bother the Best Picture category has been the animated Disney classic Beauty and The Beast. However, in the early 21st Century, the musical suddenly became cool again although the first entry into this double bill would hardly be recognisable to fans of the classic movie musical.

That film was Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge which received eight nominations at the 2002 Academy Awards. It's no surprise that Moulin Rouge's two wins were in the production and costume design categories as it's a film that's been styled within an inch of its life. Lurhmann's aim was to recreate what it felt like to be in the titular French venue during the late 1890s. To do so he used a cavalcade of contemporary pop tunes and framed the majority of the film's numbers so they looked like music videos. With a variety of recognisable songs littered throughout Moulin Rouge, Lurhmann spent almost two years securing the rights to the soundtrack which included a tango version of The Police's 'Roxanne' and a high-kicking musical imagining of Madonna's 'Like a Virgin'. As with the majority of the musicals I've covered on this blog, Moulin Rouge's story is very slight indeed. It's told from the point-of-view of penniless writer Christian who is reflecting on his brief romance with the Moulin Rouge's star turn Satine. Satine and Christian fall in love over one night as he convinces her to star in a musical which is very much based around their own story. Standing in the way of the young couple's romance is a pompous duke who wishes to be Satine in order to give the Moulin Rouge's owner Howard Zidler the funding to turn his club into a theatre. Although it features plenty of plush musical scenes, the content of Moulin Rouge is quite dark as it deals with themes of prostitution, rape and terminal illness. The final twenty minutes, all based around the show within a show, are a dazzling treat for both the ears and the eyes and sort of distract from the film's many minor problems.

Moulin Rouge is definitely an enjoyable movie and you can't help but like a film that plays around with the very idea of the musical itself. Every scene, costume and character is well-designed with Donald M. McAlpine's cinematography varying throughout the piece. Nicole Kidman's performance as Satine was the only turn in the film to be nominated for an Oscar and I think it was more than deserved. Kidman's balanced Satine's on-stage persona brilliantly with the more fragile elements of the character's personality and she really made me care about her deteriorating health. As Harold Zidler, I found Jim Broadbent to be utterly magnificent as at times his character was very dark and at other times provided some great comic moments. Similarly great was John Leguizamo as Toulouse-Letrec; the character who the 1950s film version of Moulin Rouge was based upon. On the other hand I didn't think Ewan McGregor had the requisite amount of passion to play Christian and I don't believe he and Kidman sparkled on screen as much as they could. The biggest issue though was the character of The Count who felt like something out of a pantomime whilst actor Richard Roxbrough didn't just chew the scenery but devoured it as a three course meal. However I don't think this ultimately mattered in a film that is so joyous and basically reintroduced the musical for a modern audience. If Moulin Rouge hadn't been as successful as it was I don't believe that recent film musicals would've made such a big impact at the box office. But thankfully Luhrmann's vision struck a chord with movie-going audiences around the world and this montage of music videos strung together by a loose plot became one of the best films of the year.

Even with Moulin Rouge's success I don't think many would've predicted that a musical would win Best Picture the following year. Rather than another film crafted in the same postmodern style of Moulin Rouge, it was a rather traditional musical that ended up claiming the big prize at the 2003 awards. The film in question was a screen adaptation of popular Broadway show Chicago; which was actually the show that Roy Scheider's director was working on in All that Jazz. Though it's structure is very much in the style of an old-fashioned musical, Chicago does share similarities with Moulin Rouge in the way that it lays out it's numbers. Each performance is laid out as if the characters were singing directly to an audience and are strung together by introductions by Taye Diggs' piano player. In fact Diggs' supporting turn put me in mind of Joel Grey's Emcee in Cabaret as both serve a similar purpose. However, each performance in the film is intertwined with characters acting out the plot whether it be a press conference or a murder trial. The basic plot of Chicago revolves around Roxie Hart; a naive Chicago residence who dreams of being a star and who kills her lover after he insults her lack of talent. Roxie's subsequent arrest puts her in Cook County Prison alongside her idol and fellow murderess Velma Kelly. The rest of the film then becomes a power struggle between Roxie and Velma as both try to garner the interest of the press ahead of their respective trials. Playing both women against each other is slick lawyer Billy Flynn, whose titular 'Razzle Dazzle' style is the focus of one of the musical's more famous tunes. Just like Moulin Rouge, Chicago uses its stylish musical numbers to cover up rather dark subject matter in this case infidelity and murder. However, in my opinion, Chicago doesn't really warm the heart in the way that Moulin Rouge does.

I feel part of the reason for this is due to Renee Zellweger's central turn as Roxie as I never really cared about her in the way I did Kidman's Satine. In fact Chicago suffers from a lack of sympathetic characters with the only person who deserved any sort of sympathy being Roxie's cuckolded husband Amos. The ubiquitous John C Reilly was absolutely great as the almost invisible Amos and particularly shone during his character's 'Mr. Cellophane' number. Earning the Best Supporting Actress award for her performance in the film, Catherine Zeta-Jones gave a deliberately over-the-top turn as the pampered Velma. Zeta-Jones at least went for it full throttle though in a way that I don't think Zellweger ever did. Meanwhile Queen Latifah added a bit of musical depth as Cook County's matron Mama Morton and Richard Gere looked like he was enjoying himself as Billy Flynn. Whilst some of the musical numbers most notably 'The Cell Block Tango' and the finale hit the mark others did nothing for me. I did however like the way that each number was introduced and found that director Rob Marshall laid everything out perfectly. But Chicago's ultimate problem was that there wasn't a lot going on beneath the surface and this was a film whose only purpose seemed to be to entertain. I certainly don't think the film has taken on classic status since its release and it never screamed out Best Picture winner to me when I watched it at the cinema the first time round. That's not a knock against a very fun and enjoyable musical but instead against the Academy who felt that this was more deserving of the big prize than some of the better films that were released in the same year.

Next time we look at a film which contains one of the most famous movie twists of all time.