Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 209: More English History Lessons

As I've been trawling through the 1960s nominees I've been amazed at how many British films I've come across. Those of you who read my Peter O'Toole piece know that the actor starred in two films in which he played Henry II, those being Becket and The Lion in Winter. I'd like to think that those two films make up some sort of trilogy with my final 1960s film - A Man for All Seasons. The film, which won Best Picture at the 1967 ceremony, also concerns English monarchy and is full of idyllic outdoor locations. Like Becket, the film is about the relationship between a King and one of his nobleman, in this case Henry VIII and his Chancellor Sir Thomas More. The film is all based around the story of Henry attempting to get a divorce from Catherine of Aragon so he can marry his mistress Anne Boleyn. The incredibly pious More doesn't think that Henry should get the divorce and moreover refuses to implant him as head of the Church of England. It's clear that Henry really loves Thomas, however he can't understand his friend's decision not to let him do whatever he wants. In the end, Thomas realises that resistance is futile so he resigns as Chancellor and the marriage later goes through. However, Henry is keen to punish More for both refusing the marriage and not attending the wedding. Henry requests that the new Chancellor, Thomas Cromwell, try to find evidence that proves More is a traitor. However, More remains steadfast in his silence and is arrested for his supposed betrayal of the King. Anybody who knows their English history knows how the story ends, however I'm not going to spoil it for those who didn't listen during class.

From the opening few scenes of A Man for All Seasons, it's pretty easy to see that the film was based on a play. A lot of the scenes involve characters simply talking to each other in rooms while I times I felt I was simply watching a filmed version of the play. Having said that, the film attempts to make the most of its exterior locations most notably the journey More makes between his house and court using the river. The Oscar-winning costumes are all also stunning and really add to the realism of the film as you really believe you're in Tudor England. However, the film's best quality is definitely its ensemble cast, all of whom completely embody their respective characters. Paul Scofield won the Best Actor Oscar for his role as More and I found him completely engrossing throughout. Scofield is able to convey More's moral standing with ease but also makes him somewhat of a flawed hero. As his wife, the Oscar-nominated Wendy Hiller puts in another great turn as she pleads with her husband to forgo his morals and save himself. In addition, the film boasts several scene-stealing performances most notably Robert Shaw as the boisterous King Henry and Orson Welles as the shady Cardinal Wolsely. In one of his first on-screen roles, John Hurt makes a big impression as the slimy Rich who plays both sides of the court to get his own way. My main issue with A Man for All Seasons was that it remained fairly static throughout and I never really found myself immersed in the story in the way I probably ought to be. This is probably because I studied this period of history quite extensively and therefore found it quite hard to enjoy A Man for All Seasons as pure entertainment film.

Overall, A Man for All Seasons is an incredibly well-acted film that boasts gorgeous costumes and art direction. At the same time a lot of the scenes are quite static and I never felt I could truly relax while watching the film. But did the film deserve to win Best Picture? Join me next time as I look back at the 1960s ceremonies and reveal my decisions on whether the ten winners all deserved their awards.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 117: Orson Keeps it in the Family

I think one of the biggest Oscar surprises is that Citizen Kane never won Best Picture and instead it went to John Ford's Welsh mining drama How Green Was My Valley. Welles' next film The Magnificent Ambersons also got a nomination but lost to Mrs Miniver. Unlike in Citizen Kane, Welles doesn't feature in the cast instead giving a fairly ominous voiceover telling us the story of The Ambersons an eccentric family who have all inherited money from the patriarch Major Amberson. The film mainly focuses on George, the spoilt grandson of Major Amberson and his objections to his mother marrying an automobile manufacturer after his father has died. The man in question is Joseph Cotten's Eugene Morgan who was George's mother Isabel's first love. George also falls in love with and gets engaged to George's daughter Lucy however the union is doomed when George's spoilt nature comes out and he reveals he doesn't want to work instead live of the family's fortunes which are dwindling. One of the main themes throughout the film is new money vs. old as the Ambersons fortune is generations old whereas Eugene has earned his money from his inventions. Eugene and Isobel are never allowed to be together as George takes his mother around Europe and then returns when she gets ill and later dies. However the future looks better for Lucy and George after George learns the error of his ways and decides to get a job and also reconcile with Eugene as the film ends.

Compared to Citizen Kane, The Maginifcent Ambersons isn't as big of a film but it still has that Wellsian style to it which is mainly seen during the scenes in the Ambersons grandiose mansion which is almost too big for its inhabitants. Possibly the best performance in the film, and the only one nominated for an Oscar, was from Agnes Moorhead as the Amberson's maiden aunt Fanny who seems a bit distressed that no-one ever finds her attractive and goes off on a rant near the end of the film in which she chastises George for never taking her seriously. Welles' long time friend Joseh Cotten is basically just a bit handsome and debonair as the inventor Eugene while Dolores Costello and Anne Baxter are fine in their roles but are never more than just token female parts maybe this is because Moorhead has such an interesting character it but the other actresses in the shade. One of the biggest problems of the film is that Tim Holt's George is just plain unlikeable so I have no sympathy for him even when he changes his ways at the end of the film I've already given up on him. Although the film did get another nomination for cinematography, there was no Best Director nod for Welles and indeed he was so poorly treated by the Academy that when they awarded him with a Special Award he refused to go and pick it up. Overall the Ambersons is a well-made film but one that suffers from a lack of likeable characters or a plot that flows particularly well.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 65: Today's Big Story - It Didn't Win Best Picture

If you look at lists made of the Best Films of All Time by noted cinema critics, there's one film that always seemed to top the list, Citizen Kane. It is odd then that this film didn't receive a Best Picture award, which went to How Green was My Valley, and only won one award of the nine awards that it was nominated for. That was for Best Original Screenplay which is more than justified as, for a movie made in the early 1940s, it has one of the best scripts of the era. In terms of the narrative structure I believe that it is the only film that I have watched thus far that has a non-linear narrative. For those who haven't seen the film, no excuse really, but the plot involves the death of newspaper magnate whose last word was simply 'Rosebud'. This triggers newsreel reporter Jerry Thompson to try and discover the significance of this final word. Thompson interviews various people in Kane's wife including his business manager, his butler, his best friend and his second wife as well as reading the memoirs of Kane's former guardian. While Thompson's interviews take place in the present once the interviews start we get flashbacks from Kane's past starting with his childhood where he is taken from his parents to live with banker Walter Thatcher, we see him as a ruthless newspaper owner and also running for governor before a romance with a singer ruins his political career as well as ending his first marriage. His second wife Susan is an aspiring singer but Kane pushes her into singing opera which she is really no good and eventually leaves Kane when she realises that he wants her to be something that she can't be. Obviously the final shot of the film reveals the significance of the word Rosebud and if you're any kind of fan of film then you will already know who or what Rosebud is. But again for those of you who are yet to watch it I won't spoil the surprise.

What I will bang on about however is how revolutionary the film is, while it may not be the best film of all time, it is certainly the best film of its time. The cinematography is incredibly well executed from the wide angle shots of Kane's Xanadu mansion to the close-ups on character's expressions every scene is given significance. The art direction is also spot-on, every set is given a lot of detail and it really captures the viewer's imagination, again both cinematography and art direction went to How Green was My Valley. All of this is a testament to Orson Welles, whose cinematic vision is realised here he is a presence both as a director and an actor, again he was nominated for both and lost out to John Ford and Gary Cooper respectively. Although I think the Oscars usually get it right, to give Citizen Kane only one Oscar when it is visually spectacular and narratively brilliant, is just wrong. Having never seen How Green was my Valley I really don't know but it must have to be spectacular to match the power of Kane.