So we've made it through the 20th century and as we celebrate the new millennium; I continue my look back of Oscar-nominated films this time of the noughties. We start with a celebration of the films of one actor who received three acting nods during the decade as well as starring in four Oscar nominated movies.
The actor in question is Russell Crowe who we first met in L.A. Confidential in which he played the rough and ready Bud White. Although Crowe's physical presence was well-utilised during Curtis Hanson's film he also shone during the quieter scenes. Crowe's role in Michael Mann's The Insider couldn't be more different as he donned glasses and had his hair greyed in order to play the perfectly ordinary scientist Jeffrey Wigand. What made Wigand different was the fact he decided to blow the whistle on his former employees; tobacco company Brown and Williamson and reveal that they perjured themselves when they denied that nicotine was addictive. The Insider follows Lowell Bergman, a producer for '60 Minutes', who tried to convince Wigand to appear on the show before turning his attention to his bosses at CBS who refused to air his interview in full. Although it scrutinises the media somewhat, Eric Roth's screenplay almost turns The Insider into a thriller as Wigand's life is threatened in attempt to get him not to talk. Despite their obvious flaws, I was rooting for the film's two major characters throughout as Wigand wrestled with his personal life and struggled to continue after his wife left him. Meanwhile, Bergman's fight for media integrity was an honourable one and it was clear that he was incredibly protective of his source.
Crowe's performance is incredible throughout the film and he makes the rather meek Wigand into a likeable lead character. Crowe brings out the character's small intricacies as he balances Wigand's rather nervous energy with his occasional angry outbursts. After having watched several of his films from the past decades, I felt that Al Pacino gives one of his best turns as the passionate Bergman. The character was different from the gangsters and robbers that Pacino played in the past and I found him captivating throughout. In the supporting role of '60 Minutes' host Mike Wallace, Christopher Plummer shone and I think he deserved a Supporting Actor nod. Away from the acting, I felt that The Insider was a perfect example of how films can use the visual image to tell a story. From Dante Spinotti's grainy cinematography to its tense score everything about The Insider is superb. Although I'd watched the film before, not much of it had stayed in the memory but upon this second viewing I found it to be an extraordinary piece of work. This time The Insider will definitely stay in my memory and I feel that it would've made a great Best Picture winner at the 2000 ceremony. That being said The Insider failed to win any of the seven Oscars it was nominated for and I think this is a great shame. I believe that Crowe was particularly overlooked as his performance was maybe too subtle for the academy to honour him at the time.
Thankfully, one year later, Crowe would win the Best Actor award for playing a character who was anything other than subtle. That film was Gladiator and would see Crowe hacking off the heads of men, women and tigers alike in order to avenge his murdered wife and child. I have several vivid memories of watching, or not watching Gladiator, as I was originally intending to see it on release only for my bus to the cinema to be held up and the usher not let me into watch the movie. I then initially saw it on a school coach trip back from Belgium, before finally buying it on DVD and viewing it in the comfort of my own living room. I'm honestly not surprised that Gladiator won the Best Picture Oscar as Ridley Scott's film harks back to an old-fashioned sort of film-making albeit one made with a 21st century budget. Scott's relaunch of the sword and sandals epic would mean that we would have Gladiator wannabes for years to come but this was certainly a visual treat. The film's final third, depicting the Roman Coliseum was a particularly stunning piece of cinema with the Maltese locations acting as an authentic backdrop. Meanwhile the period costumes were incredibly designed and the score, although a little embellished at times, helped create a certain atmosphere. John Mathieson's cinematography helped capture every facial expression, every battle and every movement with pinpoint precision. For the majority of the film I couldn't take my eye off the screen and that's a testament to Mathieson's work as well as Scott's overall vision.
If Gladiator has one weakness then it's in its screenplay as I found a lot of the scenes were overly expositional. Indeed, there are scenes in which characters simply list their traits to one another which is witnessed just before Commodus murders his father. In fact I'm surprised the screenplay even received an Oscar nomination as the film really thrived in the moments where there was no dialogue at all. That's mainly due to the fact that Crowe has such an expressive face that can tell a lot more stories than what's written on the page. Plenty of the scenes in Gladiator see Maximus reacting to the situation he finds himself in with actions not words and this allows Crowe to play to his strengths. The scenes that focus on his expression as he meets with enemies both on the battlefield and the arena are some of Gladiator's strongest. Crowe's Maximus is every inch the hero and luckily Joaquin Phoenix portrays Commodus as the oily, cowardly villain that he's meant to be. Phoenix was Oscar-nominated for his turn in this film which would be his first massive role and I found him to play the role to perfection. Connie Nielsen also deserves some praise for her role as Commodus' sister/love interest Lucilla; a strong female who doesn't quite know where her heart lies. As a fan of classic British cinema; Scott has loaded the supporting cast with some famous faces including Derek Jacobi, Richard Harris and Oliver Reed. Gladiator would actually be Reed's last film role, he died during filming, and I felt it would be a wonderful tribute to the man if he were at least nominated for his role as gladiator trainer Proximo. On reflection Gladiator deserves the five Oscars it won however it missed out on both the art direction and cinematography awards which I felt was a mistake. Ultimately Ridley Scott has made an old-fashioned epic with a modern twist and has cast a wonderfully expressive actor in the lead role.
Next time we conclude our Russell Crowe quadruple-bill with two more Oscar-nominated offerings from the Kiwi powerhouse.
Showing posts with label Richard Harris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Harris. Show all posts
Thursday, 8 January 2015
Thursday, 29 May 2014
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 308-310: Chronicles of a Freeman
I honestly didn't think I'd get this far this quickly but we're already here in the 1990s. This for me was the decade that I first started going to the cinema on a regular basis and a result I've seen some of these nominees a fair few times before. This allows me to pepper some of these reviews with anecdotes and hopeful will give a more personal insight into some of my early viewing experiences. In term of the Oscars this was the time in which the awards really started getting political with certain dirty tricks campaigns being fought out between certain nominees.
Freeman's good luck would continue three years later when he again starred in an Best Picture winning film. Freeman's role in Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven was as Ned, the trusted ally of Eastwood's William Munny. Interestingly, despite acting and directing in films for over thirty years, Oscar didn't recognise Eastwood till the early 1990s. Eastwood garnered fame in the Western genre firstly as an actor and later as a director but Unforgiven was to be his last foray into the genre. Even if I hadn't known that going in, Unforgiven definitely had the feel of a final film as it demonstrated how killing for money doesn't get easier as you get older. Both Will and Ned are retired gunslingers who have settled down for a life with their respective families only to be tempted out of retirement for one last job. The job in question involves them killing the two men responsibly for the facial mutation of a prostitute in Big Whiskey, Wyoming. Standing in their way is the town's sheriff Little Bill, a man who has a stringent no guns policy although he lets his men use theirs on a regular basis. The middle part of the film demonstrated just what Bill would do to anyone who attempted to collect the ransom that the prostitutes put up. This particular sequence sees the introduction of debonair western legend English Bob whose plans are thwarted by Bill and deputies. Eventually Will's party, which also includes the kid who told him of the job in the first place, arrive in the town. Things aren't easy for them though as Will is taken down by Bill while Ned is later beaten to death after refusing to give up his allies. Although the film has a somewhat happy ending, in so far as the prostitutes have been avenged, nobody really gets out of Unforgiven unscathed.
This was my second time watching Unforgiven as I'd previously watched it as part of my film studies degree about twelve years ago. Unsurprisingly I remember very little about but I really enjoyed it this second time around partly because it felt like a very realistic western film. The deaths are few and far between and when they happen Eastwood makes sure that we see the consequences. Ned and Will are extremely shocked to find that they don't have the heart for killing any more whilst the Kid has a similar reaction to his only kill during the film. In addition the characters feel a lot more well-rounded than the majority of players you'd seen in your standard western. Will is essentially the hero of the piece but in the past he has killed purely for money and he's only recently turned his life round. Similarly the villain, in this case Little Bill, isn't purely evil and the motivation for most of his actions is to keep the peace in his town. The town itself is beautifully constructed and, as Eastwood is a legend in the genre, every scene is expertly directed. Cinematographer Jack N Green really takes us into the centre of the action and makes the town of Big Whiskey come alive. As well as proving to be an expert director, Eastwood's strong and silent persona is perfect for the role of the ageing cowboy Will. Richard Harris puts in a memorable extended cameo as the aforementioned English Bob as he is able to lend his theatrical nature to the Western genre. Unforgiven's best performance though comes from Gene Hackman who earned a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as Little Bill. Hackman makes you believe Little Bill as a major threat to our protagonists but at the same time makes you understand why he's doing what he's doing. As for Freeman, his role was generally to act as Eastwood's second but he did the best he could with his role as the sidekick Ned, who later became Will's motivation for his final revenge attack.
Freeman fared much better, and earned a Best Actor nomination, for his role in Best Picture nominee The Shawshank Redemption. Of the three films in this post, I believe that The Shawshank Redemption is the best so it's interesting that it is the only one that didn't win the big prize. It's also the only film in this post that I've watched multiple times and have even included it in one of my essays. The film sees Freeman star as Red, a long term inmate at Shawshank Prison who is continually up for parole throughout the course of the film. Red acts as the narrator of the film which is a role that Freeman would take on throughout the rest of his career partly due to his dulcet tones. Despite being recognised as the film's lead actor, The Shawshank Redemption is co-headlined by Freeman and Tim Robbins as banker Andy Dufrense. Dufrense enters Shawshank convicted of the murder of his wife and her lover and indeed experiences a tough time inside the jail. But through his friendship with Red, his endurance of sexual attacks at the hands of the 'sisters' and is persistance at kitting the prison library out with new reading material, Andy finds a way to survive. However The Shawshank Redemption will probably be best-remembered for the final scenes in which Andy breaks out of the prison. Upon his release Red joins him but interestingly the film was meant to end with Freeman's voiceover talking about hope. But it appears as if audiences weren't happy with this and wanted the solid conclusion that Andy and Red would be reunited in Mexico. This was the first time watched The Shawshank Redemption with this knowledge and I'll be the first to admit that the ambiguous ending probably would've worked better. That being said I don't begrudge people a happy to a film that is incredibly tough to watch at times.
The very first time I watched The Shawshank Redemption was when somebody lent me a VHS copy of it and I enjoyed it that much that I didn't want to give it back. I think the film is just perfectly paced and has a character at the heart of it that you want to root for. Director Frank Darabont really makes Shawshank one of the main characters of the piece and demonstrates how the institution has affected the prisoners in different way. There are a plenty of emotional moments for me throughout the film and I always can't help but shed a tear when the prison librarian Brooks commits suicide after being released. Similarly I always smile when Andy plays The Marriage of Figaro over the prison's PA system and every inmate is completely transfixed by the music. Tim Robbins is perfectly cast as the mild-mannered bank manager who is forced to spend his lifetime locked up for a crime that he didn't commit. Robbins portrays Andy as a smart character but also one who isn't cut out for a life on the inside. More than anything else Robbins makes you sympathise with Andy so you're cheering when he finally makes his escape from Shawshank. But I'd agree with Oscar in saying that this is Freeman's film, especially as Red acts as the movie's narrator. When we first enter Shawshank, Red's is the first face we see and his expression of joy at being reunited with Andy is our lasting memory of the film. Freeman portrays Red as a worldly-wise character but someone whose view is changed significantly thanks to his relationship with Andy. But it's Freeman's voice that really dominates the film and I bet that if you're thinking about The Shawshank Redemption then it's his voice you'll hear. I do feel that's the biggest testament to both Freeman's performance and the character of Red as a whole.
Next time our trip around the 1990s takes a rather dubious step as we look at two films which focus on characters operating outside of the law.
We start, as we often do, by analysing a trio of films from one actor who appeared in multiple movies during the decade. Our star under the spotlight in the first 1990s post is Morgan Freeman who starred in three nominated films, two of which went on to win Best Picture. Freeman is an interesting actor mainly because he only struck it big in his early 50s due to his roles in Glory as well as in the first film of this trio, Driving Miss Daisy. In the film, which was the first Best Picture winner of the 1990s, Freeman starred as Hoke a wise man hired as a chauffeur for the prickly elderly woman of the title. The film begins with Jessica Tandy's Daisy crashing her car, leading her son to hire Hoke as her driver. The relationship between the pair starts off incredibly frostily as Jessica feels that Hoke is mocking her and refuses to get him to do anything. Eventually a friendship blossoms between the pair as Daisy begins to trust Hoke more. This friendship is chronicled throughout the film which includes an undercurrent about racial tensions during the 1950s and 1960s. Along the way Daisy teaches Hoke to read and repays her by helping her out around the house once her maid passes away. Eventually the ageing process starts to creep up on Daisy and she's eventually put into a home after she starts to display signs of dementia. But the film ends with the friends still enjoying each other's company at the ripe old ages of 81 and 97 respectively.
Part of the reason that Freeman was cast as Hoke is that he played the same role in the stage version of Driving Miss Daisy. It's pretty clear from the start that the film is based on a play as most of the action takes place in the same locations, most notably Daisy's house and car. In fact very little has been done to make the piece feel cinematic, aside from letting us see the various locations that Daisy and Hoke travel to during the course of the movie. The only really memorable attribute from this screen adaptation of the play is Hans Zimmer's lively score which perfectly complements the film's awkward central relationship. In my opinion, Driving Miss Daisy's strongest element is the performances from both Freeman and Tandy. Tandy rightfully won a Best Actress award for playing the prickly Daisy, whose life is changed thanks to Hoke's influence. Tandy made me complete believe in Daisy and also later made me sympathise for a woman who wasn't always that gracious to everyone around her. Meanwhile, Morgan Freeman's joyous portrayal of Hoke was effortless and he and Tandy shared a surprising amount of chemistry. Together they portrayed the relationship between Hoke and Daisy with ease and allowed the audience to really invest in their adventures over the course of the twenty-five years that the film focuses on. Most known for his comedy work, Dan Aykroyd put in a memorable supporting turn as Daisy's son Boolie. Aykroyd portrays Boolie as somewhat of a doormat who often caves into the demands of both his mother and wife. Despite the fine performances, Driving Miss Daisy isn't a particularly spectacular film and it doesn't really feel like a Best Picture winner. The film itself is often regarded as one of the most surprising Best Picture winners, primarily as director Bruce Beresford wasn't even nominated for helming the feature. It'll be interesting to see how worthy the other films nominated against Driving Miss Daisy were, but I'm predicting that there will be at least one strong candidate which deserved the accolade more than this well-acted but unremarkable film.
Freeman's good luck would continue three years later when he again starred in an Best Picture winning film. Freeman's role in Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven was as Ned, the trusted ally of Eastwood's William Munny. Interestingly, despite acting and directing in films for over thirty years, Oscar didn't recognise Eastwood till the early 1990s. Eastwood garnered fame in the Western genre firstly as an actor and later as a director but Unforgiven was to be his last foray into the genre. Even if I hadn't known that going in, Unforgiven definitely had the feel of a final film as it demonstrated how killing for money doesn't get easier as you get older. Both Will and Ned are retired gunslingers who have settled down for a life with their respective families only to be tempted out of retirement for one last job. The job in question involves them killing the two men responsibly for the facial mutation of a prostitute in Big Whiskey, Wyoming. Standing in their way is the town's sheriff Little Bill, a man who has a stringent no guns policy although he lets his men use theirs on a regular basis. The middle part of the film demonstrated just what Bill would do to anyone who attempted to collect the ransom that the prostitutes put up. This particular sequence sees the introduction of debonair western legend English Bob whose plans are thwarted by Bill and deputies. Eventually Will's party, which also includes the kid who told him of the job in the first place, arrive in the town. Things aren't easy for them though as Will is taken down by Bill while Ned is later beaten to death after refusing to give up his allies. Although the film has a somewhat happy ending, in so far as the prostitutes have been avenged, nobody really gets out of Unforgiven unscathed.
This was my second time watching Unforgiven as I'd previously watched it as part of my film studies degree about twelve years ago. Unsurprisingly I remember very little about but I really enjoyed it this second time around partly because it felt like a very realistic western film. The deaths are few and far between and when they happen Eastwood makes sure that we see the consequences. Ned and Will are extremely shocked to find that they don't have the heart for killing any more whilst the Kid has a similar reaction to his only kill during the film. In addition the characters feel a lot more well-rounded than the majority of players you'd seen in your standard western. Will is essentially the hero of the piece but in the past he has killed purely for money and he's only recently turned his life round. Similarly the villain, in this case Little Bill, isn't purely evil and the motivation for most of his actions is to keep the peace in his town. The town itself is beautifully constructed and, as Eastwood is a legend in the genre, every scene is expertly directed. Cinematographer Jack N Green really takes us into the centre of the action and makes the town of Big Whiskey come alive. As well as proving to be an expert director, Eastwood's strong and silent persona is perfect for the role of the ageing cowboy Will. Richard Harris puts in a memorable extended cameo as the aforementioned English Bob as he is able to lend his theatrical nature to the Western genre. Unforgiven's best performance though comes from Gene Hackman who earned a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as Little Bill. Hackman makes you believe Little Bill as a major threat to our protagonists but at the same time makes you understand why he's doing what he's doing. As for Freeman, his role was generally to act as Eastwood's second but he did the best he could with his role as the sidekick Ned, who later became Will's motivation for his final revenge attack.
Freeman fared much better, and earned a Best Actor nomination, for his role in Best Picture nominee The Shawshank Redemption. Of the three films in this post, I believe that The Shawshank Redemption is the best so it's interesting that it is the only one that didn't win the big prize. It's also the only film in this post that I've watched multiple times and have even included it in one of my essays. The film sees Freeman star as Red, a long term inmate at Shawshank Prison who is continually up for parole throughout the course of the film. Red acts as the narrator of the film which is a role that Freeman would take on throughout the rest of his career partly due to his dulcet tones. Despite being recognised as the film's lead actor, The Shawshank Redemption is co-headlined by Freeman and Tim Robbins as banker Andy Dufrense. Dufrense enters Shawshank convicted of the murder of his wife and her lover and indeed experiences a tough time inside the jail. But through his friendship with Red, his endurance of sexual attacks at the hands of the 'sisters' and is persistance at kitting the prison library out with new reading material, Andy finds a way to survive. However The Shawshank Redemption will probably be best-remembered for the final scenes in which Andy breaks out of the prison. Upon his release Red joins him but interestingly the film was meant to end with Freeman's voiceover talking about hope. But it appears as if audiences weren't happy with this and wanted the solid conclusion that Andy and Red would be reunited in Mexico. This was the first time watched The Shawshank Redemption with this knowledge and I'll be the first to admit that the ambiguous ending probably would've worked better. That being said I don't begrudge people a happy to a film that is incredibly tough to watch at times.
The very first time I watched The Shawshank Redemption was when somebody lent me a VHS copy of it and I enjoyed it that much that I didn't want to give it back. I think the film is just perfectly paced and has a character at the heart of it that you want to root for. Director Frank Darabont really makes Shawshank one of the main characters of the piece and demonstrates how the institution has affected the prisoners in different way. There are a plenty of emotional moments for me throughout the film and I always can't help but shed a tear when the prison librarian Brooks commits suicide after being released. Similarly I always smile when Andy plays The Marriage of Figaro over the prison's PA system and every inmate is completely transfixed by the music. Tim Robbins is perfectly cast as the mild-mannered bank manager who is forced to spend his lifetime locked up for a crime that he didn't commit. Robbins portrays Andy as a smart character but also one who isn't cut out for a life on the inside. More than anything else Robbins makes you sympathise with Andy so you're cheering when he finally makes his escape from Shawshank. But I'd agree with Oscar in saying that this is Freeman's film, especially as Red acts as the movie's narrator. When we first enter Shawshank, Red's is the first face we see and his expression of joy at being reunited with Andy is our lasting memory of the film. Freeman portrays Red as a worldly-wise character but someone whose view is changed significantly thanks to his relationship with Andy. But it's Freeman's voice that really dominates the film and I bet that if you're thinking about The Shawshank Redemption then it's his voice you'll hear. I do feel that's the biggest testament to both Freeman's performance and the character of Red as a whole.
Next time our trip around the 1990s takes a rather dubious step as we look at two films which focus on characters operating outside of the law.
Thursday, 6 June 2013
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 199 and 200: All at Sea
So here we are, back again with another post featuring two films bound together by a common theme. This time I'm taking it to incredibly tenuous levels by focusing on two movies that are both set on boats. One is a remake of a previous Oscar winner, the other is a periodic drama focusing on a number of characters aboard a German ocean liner.
And we'll start with the latter film, Ship of Fools, which is based on a novel but feels like it's been adapted from a play. The film focuses on a plethora of characters aboard a liner that has departed from Mexico and is on the way to Germany. Several to camera monologues are performed by a dwarf named Glocken, who is regularly ostracised on the ship and spends his dinner times eating with the Jewish passengers. The majority of the film is seen through the eyes of the ship's Doctor Schumann, who is about depart the vessel as he has found out he is dying from a heart condition. Schumann is drawn to one of the latest passengers - a drug-addicted countessa from Spain who is bound for a Mexican jail. Schumann and La Contessa fall in love but both realise that their courtship cannot last. Aging divorcee Mary Treadwell is attempting to glam herself up but she discovers she isn't as young as she used to be, something former baseball player Bill Denny is also learning. Meanwhile younger couple Jenny and David are having issues as he feels like she doesn't appreciate his art and doesn't have as many ideas and beliefs as him. Finally we meet Rieber, a bigoted businessman who is a member of the Nazi Party and perfectly represents the feeling of some Germans in 1933.
I personally found Ship of Fools to be a mixed bag of stories, some that I liked more than others. I felt the relationship between Schumman and the countessa was perfectly played by Oskar Werner and Simone Signoret. This sort of tragic love story was at the heart of the film and I would've preferred to have seen the film focus on just that. Vivien Leigh, in her final film role, is brilliant as Mary a former beauty who is losing her looks, and I really liked the scene in which she put on make-up in front of the mirror while talking to herself. But I found other stories to be less engaging especially the one focusing on Jose Ferrer's Rieber and his ostracising of several of his fellow passengers. One of the better performances from me came from Michael Dunn who, as Glocken, has to narrate the story straight to the audience. The film certainly looked impressive, with the flamenco scene in particular catching my eye, but there's only so much you can do with a film set almost completely on a boat. Given the cast, I would've thought that Ship of Fools could've been better but there was just far too much going on. While I'm not surprised that it received a ton of Oscar nominations, I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. I also found myself comparing it to previous Best Picture Winner Grand Hotel which this bore more than a striking resemblance to.
Talking of Best Picture winners from the 1930s, we have our first remake of one in the form of Mutiny on the Bounty. This version, director by Lewis Milestone, sees Captain Bligh and Fletcher Christian return but this time both characters seem slightly different. The story is the same, namely that a crew of men set off to Tahiti but on the way their Captain starts to act in a tyrannical fashion. As Captain Bligh wants to keep the water rations low, he starts to deprive his men of their basic rations and raises the ire of Fletcher. But in this version of Mutiny on the Bounty, Fletcher is presented as more of a fop who is influence into mutiny by his fellow shipmates. One seaman in particular, Mills, gets in Fletcher's ear and provokes him into fighting against his captain. One other big change is that Fletcher ultimately regrets his decision and tries to return to England but his plans our sabotaged by other mutineers. This version of the story also introduced a narrator in the form of horticulturist William Brown whose job it was to identify the breadfruit plants when the crew got to Tahiti. However, I didn't believe Brown would've been part of the mutiny and felt the only reason for his betrayal was so that he could recall the story on camera.
I personally wasn't much of a fan of this version of Mutiny on the Bounty than I was of the Oscar-winning 1935 original. Part of the reason for that is that a lot of the performances lacked the passion that was present in the previous cast. A case in point is Trevor Howard, who played Bligh, as he is a lot less menacing and therefore comes across as less of a brute than Charles Laughton. Indeed, Bligh was fairly friendly at times and most of his dastardly acts were at least explainable to an extent. I get the feeling that Fletcher Christian's change of character was due to the fact that Marlon Brando played him. Brando, who allegedly held up the production, obviously wanted to play more of a hero so in this version Fletcher literally goes down in flames. I fact I found the most compelling member of the cast to be Richard Harris as idealistic Seaman Mills. At almost three hours, the film is way too long and I honestly didn't really get into it until the second act. The film really gets going during and after the mutiny with all the cast excelling in their various roles. There's no denying that this version of Mutiny on the Bounty is more visually spectacular than its original but other than that there's nothing new here. I especially wasn't a fan of Brando here, and I feel that he's lost something since I last saw him in On the Waterfront and Sayonara.
Next time we continue on the sea - this time with Steve McQueen.
And we'll start with the latter film, Ship of Fools, which is based on a novel but feels like it's been adapted from a play. The film focuses on a plethora of characters aboard a liner that has departed from Mexico and is on the way to Germany. Several to camera monologues are performed by a dwarf named Glocken, who is regularly ostracised on the ship and spends his dinner times eating with the Jewish passengers. The majority of the film is seen through the eyes of the ship's Doctor Schumann, who is about depart the vessel as he has found out he is dying from a heart condition. Schumann is drawn to one of the latest passengers - a drug-addicted countessa from Spain who is bound for a Mexican jail. Schumann and La Contessa fall in love but both realise that their courtship cannot last. Aging divorcee Mary Treadwell is attempting to glam herself up but she discovers she isn't as young as she used to be, something former baseball player Bill Denny is also learning. Meanwhile younger couple Jenny and David are having issues as he feels like she doesn't appreciate his art and doesn't have as many ideas and beliefs as him. Finally we meet Rieber, a bigoted businessman who is a member of the Nazi Party and perfectly represents the feeling of some Germans in 1933.
I personally found Ship of Fools to be a mixed bag of stories, some that I liked more than others. I felt the relationship between Schumman and the countessa was perfectly played by Oskar Werner and Simone Signoret. This sort of tragic love story was at the heart of the film and I would've preferred to have seen the film focus on just that. Vivien Leigh, in her final film role, is brilliant as Mary a former beauty who is losing her looks, and I really liked the scene in which she put on make-up in front of the mirror while talking to herself. But I found other stories to be less engaging especially the one focusing on Jose Ferrer's Rieber and his ostracising of several of his fellow passengers. One of the better performances from me came from Michael Dunn who, as Glocken, has to narrate the story straight to the audience. The film certainly looked impressive, with the flamenco scene in particular catching my eye, but there's only so much you can do with a film set almost completely on a boat. Given the cast, I would've thought that Ship of Fools could've been better but there was just far too much going on. While I'm not surprised that it received a ton of Oscar nominations, I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. I also found myself comparing it to previous Best Picture Winner Grand Hotel which this bore more than a striking resemblance to.
Talking of Best Picture winners from the 1930s, we have our first remake of one in the form of Mutiny on the Bounty. This version, director by Lewis Milestone, sees Captain Bligh and Fletcher Christian return but this time both characters seem slightly different. The story is the same, namely that a crew of men set off to Tahiti but on the way their Captain starts to act in a tyrannical fashion. As Captain Bligh wants to keep the water rations low, he starts to deprive his men of their basic rations and raises the ire of Fletcher. But in this version of Mutiny on the Bounty, Fletcher is presented as more of a fop who is influence into mutiny by his fellow shipmates. One seaman in particular, Mills, gets in Fletcher's ear and provokes him into fighting against his captain. One other big change is that Fletcher ultimately regrets his decision and tries to return to England but his plans our sabotaged by other mutineers. This version of the story also introduced a narrator in the form of horticulturist William Brown whose job it was to identify the breadfruit plants when the crew got to Tahiti. However, I didn't believe Brown would've been part of the mutiny and felt the only reason for his betrayal was so that he could recall the story on camera.
I personally wasn't much of a fan of this version of Mutiny on the Bounty than I was of the Oscar-winning 1935 original. Part of the reason for that is that a lot of the performances lacked the passion that was present in the previous cast. A case in point is Trevor Howard, who played Bligh, as he is a lot less menacing and therefore comes across as less of a brute than Charles Laughton. Indeed, Bligh was fairly friendly at times and most of his dastardly acts were at least explainable to an extent. I get the feeling that Fletcher Christian's change of character was due to the fact that Marlon Brando played him. Brando, who allegedly held up the production, obviously wanted to play more of a hero so in this version Fletcher literally goes down in flames. I fact I found the most compelling member of the cast to be Richard Harris as idealistic Seaman Mills. At almost three hours, the film is way too long and I honestly didn't really get into it until the second act. The film really gets going during and after the mutiny with all the cast excelling in their various roles. There's no denying that this version of Mutiny on the Bounty is more visually spectacular than its original but other than that there's nothing new here. I especially wasn't a fan of Brando here, and I feel that he's lost something since I last saw him in On the Waterfront and Sayonara.
Next time we continue on the sea - this time with Steve McQueen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)