Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 328-329: The Two Faces of Elizabeth I

Even in the early days of Oscar, the academy loved British films that focused on the Tudor Monarchy. In fact the first ever British film to be nominated for an Oscar was The Private Life of Henry VIII for which Charles Laughton won a Best Actor statuette. At the 1999 Oscars, Henry's daughter Elizabeth featured in two films which focused on different stages of her reign. Although Elizabeth was played by different actors the pair of movies did share a pair of actors who featured prominently throughout. 

The imaginatively named Elizabeth was the first of these two films and saw Cate Blanchett take on the role of the titular Queen. Shekhar Kapur's film was based around Elizabeth's ascent to the throne following her sister Mary's death and her struggles to gain the respect she needed. It didn't help matters that everybody around her was trying to marry her off every five minutes or get her to declare a war on some country or other. It really seemed to me as if Elizabeth would've been better off continuing to dance round that field with Joseph Fiennes' Dudley rather than committing herself to running the country. Obviously things got a bit more complicated when it turned out when Dudley was married and plotting to have her removed from the throne. But the only other alternative was Vincent Cassel's hilariously campy cross-dressing French King who was flanked by an intimidating Eric Cantona. On the performances front, Elizabeth really belonged to Cate Blanchett who became an overnight sensation after appearing in the film. Elizabeth's transformation is the key aspect of Michael Hirst's script and Blanchett deals with this perfectly. She is convincing as the naive exile in the aforementioned dancing scenes but is equally great commanding rooms full of sceptical men. I feel the turning point in the film is Elizabeth's appearance in front of the bishops which Blanchett plays incredibly well, initially seeming nervous before becoming the strong-willed woman we know she will be. Geoffrey Rush puts in a supporting turn as Elizabeth's devious supporter Walsingham who ends up being her biggest ally. Rush is brilliant as he utilises a number of inquisitive facial expressions and tries to get the audience to second guess his actions. Christopher Eccleston's Norfolk is an incredibly brooding villain as he uses his cunning rather than any sort of brutality to get what he wants. The film is give an air of legitimacy via the inclusion of veteran performers such as Richard Attenborough and John Gielgud whilst at the same time introducing some new faces like Daniel Craig and Emily Mortimer. 

It's this use of new faces and exciting visuals that sets Elizabeth out from the standard costume drama. I was personally won over straight away when the incredibly modern title card sequence flashed across the screen. The intrusive camera work in some scenes helped make the audience part of the action and livened up an occasionally dull story. I was surprised that, among the seven Oscar nominations the film received, the innovative editing wasn't even recognised. I felt that several of the film's key sequences relied on some great editing to make them feel important and give Elizabeth the modern twist it deserved. Additionally, the film was unflinching in its depiction of violence, which I feel was another positive attribute to Elizabeth's overall success. From the burning of the protestants at the beginning of the film right up to Norfolk's beheading, Elizabeth set out to show us that life in the Tudor court wasn't all bonnets and balls. Up to this point I feel most of the period dramas have kept the violence and bloodshed behind closed doors but Elizabeth swung those doors wide open. The narrative of the film was well-paced and the two hour runtime perfectly suited the story of a Queen struggling to rule her nation. My main disappointment was that the film didn't pick up as many Oscars as it should have done, only winning the award for Best Make-up. Whilst I felt that the Tudor faces were well realised, Elizabeth was much more than just your standard costume drama. But the reason for its failure at the awards can be attributed to the next film on my list. 

The film was Shakespeare in Love, which won that year's Best Picture and a further six Oscars including one for Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth I. Dench's role in the film was minimal and therefore some sniped at her Oscar win. I have to admit at the time I was one of them but after seeing the likes of Beatrice Straight and Maureen Stapleton win Best Supporting Actress with minimal screen time I changed my mind. Dench's Elizabeth was definitely a scene-stealer and she portrayed the Queen as somebody who was frustrated by those who stood on ceremony. Dench dealt well with the comic nature of the screenplay and was convincing as the legendary virgin queen. The link between the two performances is the line in which Elizabeth talks about being a woman in a man's profession, something she's had to cope with since her reign began. Dench wasn't the only actress to win an award for the film as Gwynth Paltrow triumphed, playing theatre-fan Viola De Lessops. Viola's romance with Shakespeare during the rehearsals for Romeo and Juliet is the basis of the film which is odd seeing as she poses as a man for large portions of the movie. Gwyenth does put in a lively turn but does nothing to convince me that she should've beaten Blanchett at that year's Oscar ceremony. Geoffrey Rush and Joseph Fiennes do double duty in this entry as they play theatre owner Henslowe and the titular playwright respectively. Fiennes is a perfectly serviceable leading man and shares fine chemistry with Paltrow which helps to make their on-screen romance convincing. Rush meanwhile is the perfect comic foil for the rest of the cast and his harassed Henslowe is the stand-out turn of a great supporting cast. One of my favourite performances in the film came from Tom Wilkinson as Hugh Fennyman, a loan shark who gets enraptured by the theatre after bankrolling Romeo and Juliet. 

I don't personally feel that there's that much wrong with Shakespeare in Love and it's not particularly offensive. Instead it just feels a little unremarkable and too whimsical to ever be taken seriously as a Best Picture contender. Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman's script is a little knowing and overly comic for a film that I feel should be a little bit more serious. That being said I did enjoy some of the little touches; most notably the fact that the rowers are presented like modern-day taxi drivers. I have to admit that I did enjoy the film's final act as the performance of Romeo and Juliet itself was the highlight of the film. But it was the journey to the theatre that was the problem and I found plenty of the film's characters uninteresting or unlikeable. Stoppard and Norman don't appear to have put in a lot of work into making Colin Firth's Wessex a serious enough threat to Viola and Shakespeare's relationship. Even though she ultimately travels to America with him her heart will always be with the romantic playwright. I do feel it's a little mean to constantly cast Firth as the cuckold as he played a similar third wheel as Kristin Scott Thomas' husband in The English Patient. So how did a lightweight comedy costume drama come to be the last film to win Best Picture in the twentieth century? Well that's down to its involvement with Harvey Weinstein's Miramax studios which are notorious for aggressively campaigning for their films to win awards. Weinstein's campaign for Shakespeare in Love's win including holding a party for director John Madden and inviting several of the academy's key voters. He put millions of dollars into securing the film won in as many categories as possible and he was ultimately successful. However, after watching these two films back-to-back, its clear that Shakespeare in Love wasn't even the best Elizabethan film to be released that year. It's just a shame that politics and campaigning can get in the way of the right film winning the Best Picture and I feel that the 1999 ceremony exemplifies that point perfectly. 

Next time we stay with costume drama as we focus on the continued success of Merchant Ivory. 

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 307: Give Peace a Chance

So we're finally here, and a lot quicker than I thought we would be, as I've finished in the 1980s in just over two months. As always the decade is ending and with, you guessed it, yet another historical epic. Although not directed by David Lean, Gandhi almost feels like a tribute to Lean by its director Richard Attenborough. I suppose I feel this way because of the film's spectacular exterior scenes and the way ii which India is shot throughout the film. In fact Lean was on board at one point to direct Gandhi but due to different circumstances it was Attenborough who ultimately helmed the project. Like a lot of the epics I've looked at in this decade, Gandhi takes place over a number of years beginning in 1893 and ending in 1948. The opening scene depicts the young Mohandas Gandhi being thrown off a train after he refused to move classes. From there Gandhi begins to fight injustice, firstly in South Africa when a new rule comes in which essentially makes Indians feel like second class citizens. Throughout the movie, we learn that Gandhi is only interested in peaceful protests and doesn't get angry when he's thrown in prison for his beliefs. As well as making a number of enemies, Gandhi builds up a following and he has a few loyal friends who he's able to count on. Much of the film depicts Gandhi's attempt to end the British Empire's control of India and his participation in the country's eventual independence. But Gandhi soon realises that he still cannot fully bring about peace due to the fact that India's different religious groups begin to squabble amongst one another. To attempt to counteract this, Gandhi goes on a hunger strike and eventually convinces his countrymen to throw down their weapons. Although he's ultimately murdered, Gandhi's message of an eye for an eye leaves all of us blind is one that resonates long after the film has ended.

I was interested to learn that novelisation of Gandhi's screenplay starts with an introduction from the film-makers explaining that no man's life can be encompassed in one telling. That's certainly evident throughout Gandhi, which at times feels like a potted history of the man rather than a cinematic version of his life story. It was clear that this was a passion project for Attenborough, who had attempted to get the project off the ground for almost thirty years. I do feel his need to tell as much of Gandhi's story as possible has meant that the film was a lot longer than it should've been and contained many superfluous scenes that were full of expositional speeches. Like most epics, Gandhi was at least great to look at with the film's cinematography capturing the brilliant scenery that India had to offer. Though it needed to be cut down, the film's editing was great nonetheless especially when newsreel from the time was intercut into the main body of the picture. Period detail appears to be another element that Attenborough was keen on getting right and he accomplished that thanks to some superb art direction and costume design. On top of the film's technical achievements, Gandhi's other saving grace was the fantastic central performance from Ben Kingsley. Kingsley was cast due to his Indian heritage and through his performance he really explained why so many people wanted to follow Gandhi. Kingsley's performance is one of the most captivating I've seen over the course of this project and he was rightfully rewarded with a Best Actor Oscar. There were plenty of familiar faces among the supporting cast with Martin Sheen, Candice Bergen and Geraldine James all giving impressive turns. But, aside from Kingsley, the best performance in the film came from Rohini Hattangadi as Gandhi's wife and I personally feel that she should have least received a nomination for her part in the movie. Ultimately Gandi combines a brilliant central term with some fairly outstanding set pieces but is let down by a baggy script and an overly long run time.

But did Gandhi deserve to win the Best Picture prize? Find out next time as I review every Oscar ceremony from the 1980s.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 201: How to keep your Coolies

As I move onto the last ten or so films of this decade I can't help but notice how many war films I have left to watch. In fact I'm surprised by the number of war epics and westerns in these ceremonies, but I suppose these were simpler times before the notion of the 'Oscar film' was ever created. Anyway, the next war film on my list, The Sand Pebbles, stars everybody's favourite action hero Steve McQueen as naval machinist Jake Holman. The film follows Holman as he becomes a member of the crew of gunboat 'The San Paolo', nicknamed the 'Sand Pebble' by the men who serve on it. When Holman arrives he discovers that the crew do very little and instead leave all of the work to the Chinese labourers known as Coolies. Holman isn't a fan of the current situation and wants to work in the engine room, but the majority of the crew see him as a threat to their cushy lifestyle and refuse to help him out. Holman's only friend aboard the ship is the sensitive Frenchy who strikes up a relationship with educated local girl Maily, after he stopped her from being bought by another crew member. However, Maily and Frenchy's relationship is stalled when the rebellious natives refuse to let the San Paolo leave until they free all of their Chinese coolies. This stalemate eventually results in a gun battle between the two which leaves many of the San Paolo crew members dead. Meanwhile Holman and Captain Collins lead a team whose mission it is to rescue two American teachers who are stranded in the country. But it seems that this mission may be their last as the Chinese begin to close in on them.

I have to say that, during this Oscar challenge, the films that feature prolonged battle segments are the ones that probably interest me the least. Thankfully, when The Sand Pebbles wasn't full of macho posturing, there were some things to like. Steve McQueen gives a balanced performance as Holman, a man who is always trying to do the right thing but always seems to get people killed in the process. In fact I quite agreed with the crew of the San Paolo as life was a lot easier before he came along. But his presence at least brings up some interesting themes about the exploitation of immigrant workers and racial tensions between the two. Richard Crenna was also great as the matter-of-fact captain who was just trying to do the best for his crew and I felt his scenes were some of the more compelling. But the film was definitely stolen by Richard Attenborough whose was brilliant as the likeable yet naive Frenchy. Even though I couldn't tell what accent Attenborough was attempting, I found Frenchy's relationship with Maily the most interesting and engaging story in the whole film. At just over three hours, The Sand Pebbles was far too long and I thought that, if it had been trimmed down by at least thirty minutes, it would've been a lot better. I also didn't much care for the central love story betwen Holman and Candice Bergen's teacher Shirley as there was never any chemistry between the two. Interestingly, The Sand Pebbles was nominated for eight Oscars but went home with none, something I'm not surprised about as I found it to be a completely forgettable film, if not one that did have a few standout moments.

Next time more shooting and macho posturing with another all-action war film.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 173: Even More Musical Melodies

Back again with another double bill of musicals kicking off with a film that sneaked its way into being one of the five nominees at the 1968 ceremony.

Possibly the least impressive of the four films in this blog is the only one I hadn't seen before that being the original 1967 version of Doctor Dolittle. For me the film is most famous for two things Rex Harrison and the song 'If Could Talk to the Animals' however after reading around the production it seems it has an infamous backstory. Originally projected to cost only $6 million dollars the end budget almost tripled that and the film was known as the picture that almost bought Warner Brothers to its knees. The only reason I'm watching it is due to the studio launching a rather aggressive campaign in which it wined and dined Academy members in order to get seven nominations. It won two deservedly for the ahead-of-their-time special effects, which included a two headed llama and a giant snail, as well as for the aforementioned song. Rex Harrison, who wasn't nominated, was brilliant as the former people doctor who'd turned to animals and learnt to communicate with them but had angered several people around him because of this. The first half of the film deals with his past while the second half sees him take off to find the elusive Great Pink Sea Snail eventually ending up on the floating Sea-Star Island. Personally I'm not quite sure what audience this film is aimed at as many of the songs would be too much for the kids while the romance between Dolittle's assistant played by Anthony Newley and the snotty-nosed Emma is really uninvolving. Bar Harrison, a couple of the songs and the effects this is could be described as a white elephant of a film, incidentally not one of the animals that Dolittle deals with, as large set-pieces on the island plus one at a circus fail to provide any interest. In a year in which more interesting films should've taken the Best Picture slot that Dolittle ended up getting it proves just how easily-influenced the Oscar panel were back in the 1960s and depending on who you listen to not a lot has changed in term of the way things work today.

Ending on a more positive note with the film that won the Best Picture at the final 1960s Oscar ceremony that being Oliver! Unlike a lot of these films, which were basically screen musicals adapted almost note-for-note, the film version of Oliver! changed some roles, got rid of some songs and made the whole thing seem more like a film. For example the second half of the film version has a lot less songs than the stage version does which makes it seem rightly a lot more dramatic and less light-hearted than the first half. Not that you can say most of the plot of Oliver! is generally light-hearted dealing as it does with an orphan who runs away from the workhouse to end up working for a gang of young thieves led by a cunning Jew and a woman-beating Neanderthal. Obviously I'm referring there to Oscar nominee Ron Moody's Fagin and Oliver Reed's Bill Sikes who was a character that had a minimal role in the musical but appears more for the film audience to realise that he's no good. Like Mary Poppins, Oliver is one of the films on this list that I have watched many times before however I approached it this time thinking does this feel like a Best Picture winner? My answer would probably be yes but from an earlier decade as by this time the Academy was awarding more alternative films for example the prior winner to Oliver! was In the Heat of the Night and the one after was Midnight Cowboy. What Oliver! is is a brilliant musical with fine turns from Moody, Reed, Shani Wallis as Nancy, Harry Secombe as Mr Bumble and Jack Wild as The Artful Dodger who was the only other cast member to get an Oscar nomination. There are some great set pieces namely in the 'Consider Yourself' and 'Who Will Buy' numbers the latter of which is one of my favourite moments. However as I am one for darker stuff I love the last twenty minutes most notably Fagin and Dodger's reprise of Reviewing the Situation as well as the eventual capture of Bill, hell even Bullseye the dog is brilliant. In 1969 film was changing however if you'd watched Oliver! as a representation of what movies were like at the time then you wouldn't know it although it is an excellent musical I feel that something grittier could've possibly won in its place but then again I haven't watched its competitors yet so only time will tell.

OK  more Oscar blogging to come soon with an Audrey Hepburn double coming up next.

Big Oscar Challenge Day 90-92: Catch-Up Part 3

The good thing about this Oscar Challenge is that I am able to watch films that I've never heard of but I really enjoy one of these is The Pied Piper a film about a man who is forced into action to get a group of children out of Nazi-occupied France and get them safely to the U.S. Monty Woolley was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for his role as the curmudgeonly Howard who begrudgingly takes the children of two parents at the same French resort where he is staying over the border, bit by bit they are joined by other European children and are captured by the Nazis as Woolley almost falls foul of Otto Preminger's German General. Although it wasn't a great film The Pied Piper had a nice tone to it and an enjoyable unstarry cast even though Roddy MacDowall did feature as one of the children. The Pied Piper was a few of the films that I watched during this period that were involved with World War 2. There was also 1944 nominee In Which We Serve, one of the first British films to be nominated for a plethora of Oscars it revolves around the crew of a ship during the war. It portrays these men as both dedicated to the war effort as well as normal down-to-Earth men. The cast is awfully impressive and includes Noel Coward, John Mills, Celia Johnson and Richard Attenborough in his first ever role. And from 1943 there was Wake Island a rather short film about the Pearl Harbour bombing and how it affected both the soldiers stationed on the island and the men working on a building site there also. The most impressive thing about Wake Island was the final scenes during the attacks by the Japanese for a film made in the 1940s the effects that are used are very real indeed. Another film that seemed like an also-ran inclusion in a year of 10 nominees, this was one that fell against Mrs Miniver a film that I haven't actually watched yet.

As well as the films showing the reactions to the war we also had the satirical reaction to the war courtesy of Mr Charlie Chaplin. The Great Dictator was the only Chaplin movieever to be nominated for Best Picture while the man himself also got nominated for both Best Actor and for his screenplay. The film was historic as it was the first time Chaplin ever spoke in a film and saw him took on a duel role both as a Jewish barber who is fighting in the war as a private and Adenoyd Hynkel a Dictator modelled on a certain Mr Hitler. Thanks to the farcical nature of the film Chaplin's two characters are mistaken for each other in hilarious circumstances. For a 1940s comedy it is very witty indeed and challenges Hitler's authority and his underlings in quite a strong manner. as the other generals are called Herring and Gerbitsch and if you think about it I'm guessing you could work out who they represent. Continuing the tradition of comedies not doing very well at the Oscars, The Great Dictator failed to pick up any of the five awards it was nominated for. Despite that I really enjoyed it and think that it is possibly one of the most influential comedy films of all time and is certainly better remembered than that year's winner the still marvellous Rebecca.