Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 206: A Star-Studded History Lesson

As I previously mentioned in my post on The Graduate, the 1960s were definitely a decade of change when it came to film-making. At the same time, several of the old-fashioned epic style films were being made, some with bumper casts. The next two posts will deal with these star-studded epic films and we start with How the West Was Won. The film was an interesting one, as it split its story into five parts with three of these directed by Henry Hathaway and the other two by John Ford and James Marshall respectively. In addition, How the West Was Won marked itself out visually as it was filmed in a three-strip cinerama which had both post and negative affects on the viewing experience. The story itself deals with generations of the same family initially known as the Prescotts, whose daughters would both go on to marry and have children. Over time we saw how the families battled the wild rivers to get to the west, how they battled through the civil war and ultimately dealt with outlaws to claim the land for themselves. The two sisters - Eve and Lilith, had different fates with the former creating a homestead on the place where their parents died. Eve's son Zeb would later go on to fight in The Civil War and negotiate with the Native Americans. Lilith meanwhile hooks up with a gambler and inherits a run down gold mine before finally reuniting with Zeb and his growing family. The story comes full circle as the Prescott family finally settle in the west once and for all.

Seeing as it was made in 1962, How the West Was Won has a very old-fashioned feel to it and almost seems a little out of place Similarly, the big name cast are mostly wasted with John Wayne being the biggest example as his role is nothing more than an extended cameo. Indeed, the actors who have the biggest parts are Debbie Reynolds and George Peppard, neither of whom are promoted as the main stars of the piece. I felt that actors such as James Stewart, Henry Fonda and Gregory Peck popping up for two minutes did nothing to enhance the film and instead made the story feel a little flabby. That's not to say I didn't enjoy How the West Was Won and found it to be a colourful western epic which passed the time fine. The sweeping scenery and Spencer Tracy's assured narration were definitely the film's biggest strengths while I learnt a lot about the formation of America. At the same time, I was never blown away by the film and none of it really stuck with me after the DVD had finished playing. The three-strip cinerama process also made the film seem a little odd with the visible strips of paper almost looking a little messy. Overall, while not a bad film, How the West Was Won was quite unremarkable endeavour which is odd when you consider who was involved.

Next time a similar sort of film to How the West Was Won, but one that is a lot darker.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 188: The Trouble with Texans

The one gripe a lot of us have about the Oscars in 2013 is that there is a lot of lobbying going on and often the least-deserving films get a Best Picture nod. Lobbying isn't a particularly new idea though and in 1961 John Wayne did plenty of it for his pet project The Alamo. Indeed The Alamo ended up getting a Best Picture nomination over more deserving films such as Psycho and Spartacus. Wayne, who acted as director as well as star and producer, obviously thought the tale of The Alamo was one worth telling but after seeing the film I'm not entirely sure why. As you can imagine from the title, the film essentially tells the story of the lead up to the battle of The Alamo. The three men in charge of the mission have different philosophies and this also plays into the film's narrative. Firstly there's William Travis a fairly stoic soul who wants things done the proper way and wants his men to learn to fight rather than drink and be merry. Then there's the alcoholic Jim Bowie who resents Travis' nature and believes himself to be the more experienced official. Finally there's legendary Davy Crockett, played by Wayne, who arrives at The Alamo to bring his men to fight alongside the Texans. The plot sees the three men attempt to bond and formulate a strategy to try and take down the Mexican forces. The final part of the film sees the battle itself and watches the three men in action as the Mexicans attempt to overpower them and take The Alamo.

I wasn't surprised when I learnt that The Alamo didn't recoup the money that was spent on it as to me it was a fairly dreary film. At over two and a half hours I really didn't feel that it was well-paced and there were far too many scenes of men in rooms just talking to each other. I feel that part of the failure of the film is Wayne's direction which isn't particularly exciting which means that The Alamo pales in comparison to some of Wayne's earlier westerns. In fact the only memorable scenes in the entire film are in the final act where we get to see the actual Battle of The Alamo itself. I believe that these would be the scenes that audiences at the time would've come to see though I reckon they would've resented having to sit through two hours of talking in order to get that far. In terms of casting the only one of the three leads that brings anything to the table is Laurence Harvey as the professional Travis. Harvey was recruited by Wayne after Room at the Top and this was his first major vehicle as a star. Wayne meanwhile is miscast as Crockett as it really is hard to buy him as a leader of men especially at this late stage of his career. The only acting nomination the film received was for Chill Wills who plays Beekeeper who is the comic relief of the film. It's plain to see that the only reason The Alamo would get a Best Picture nod is through heavy lobbying and that's obviously what's happened. It's just a shame that some of the other films released in the same year didn't qualify because John Wayne through his weight around and got awarded for it.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 180: Judgment Call

One of the interesting things about doing this Oscar challenge is seeing how the stars of the 1930s have changed when we get to the 1960s. Spencer Tracy for example, whose final film Guess Who's Coming to Dinner has already been talked about here, had his initial success in the 1930s however had a career resurface in his final decade. An example of this is Judgment at Nuremberg where Tracey plays a small town judge Dan Heywood who has been recruited to sit as the chief justice at one of the many military tribunals of German judges accused of committing crimes against humanity by sending people of different religious beliefs to Concentration Camps. One judge in particular is the quiet and reserved Ernst Janning, played by an almost unrecognisable Burt Lancaster, who feels that he shouldn't be tried alongside the crueller judges who seemingly knew what the Nazis were doing. The sides are argued by the forthright American Colonel Tad Lawson, played by Richard Widmark, and the passionate defence council Hans Rolfe played by Maximilian Schell who went onto win the Best Actor Oscar for his role. While in Nuremberg Dan meets Marlene Dietrich's Frau Bertholt a wife of one of the judges who was previously put on trial and one that he almost romances however he realises that she is trying to manipulate his feelings to give a different verdict at the trial. Most of the film is set during the trial but is still incredibly gripping as Stanley Kramer attempts to make us question if doing something when you don't know the full consequence is as bad as what the Nazis were doing at the concentration camps and I have to say it was a fascinating watch.

Despite its three hour run time Judgment at Nuremberg flew by thanks mainly to Tracy's great performance as the conflicted Dan who comes off as an ordinary guy who has to make an extraordinary decision. Dan's almost-romance with Frau Bertholt perfectly exemplifies his tough decision as she is one of the many characters who try to influence him in some way. The film is basically about accountability and how much each of these judges actually knew about the sentence they were giving to those who received them. Schell's Oscar winning performance was incredibly heartfelt as he is able to convey someone who is sticking up for the bad guys but can still justify it because he is 'doing his job' and his final words to Dan perfectly encapsulate his feelings on the matter. It's not just Schell though as I thought Tracy's performance here was just captivating and better in fact than his two Oscar wining turns back in the 1930s. He's one of those screen presences who can mesmerise you without saying anything at all and for that reason I feel in a way he should've won Best Actor over Schell. I also enjoyed Burt Lancaster, who is silent for the majority of his time on screen, as his final testimony is one of the highlights of the picture and once again adds to the moral ambiguity of the plot. While Judgment at Nuremberg may not be particularly cinematic it as at the same time an enthralling tale that I was never bored at and for that reason alone it deserved its place as one of the five Best Picture Nominees.