Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 258-260: The Further Adventures of Redford and Newman

So here we are in the 1980s a decade in which the Oscar-nominated films weren't the most interesting being made at the time. In this decade I will be looking at familiar faces from the past decades and looking at what they're doing now while in addition focusing on some of the new stars of the era. I'll start though by delivering on a promise that I made in the last post and seeing what Robert Redford and Paul Newman got up to in the 1980s.

Strangely the first film on this list features neither Redford nor Newman but instead is the former's directorial debut. Interestingly, Paul Newman's directorial debut - Rachel, Rachel was also Oscar-nominated but Redford went one better and actually won the Best Director Award. Also winning that year's Best Picture statuette, Ordinary People focused on a seemingly normal suburban family who were going through a terrible ordeal. Their older son Buck died in a boating accident the previous year whilst younger son Conrad, who was also in the boat, tried to commit suicide presumably at his guilt over causing the accident. The film starts just after a month after Conrad's return to the hospital and sees him taking up dad Calvin's suggestion of seeing a therapist. The therapist in question, Dr Berger, is quite long-in-the-tooth and doesn't appear to be that interested in what Conrad has to say. But, rather predictably in my eyes, the pair forms a relationship that grows into a stronger bond than that which Conrad shares with his mother Beth. Throughout the film, Beth is constantly trying to prove that everything is alright and that her family is completely normal, when in actuality they are far from it. An early scene at a friend's party shows the disparity between the couple as Beth is making idle chit-chat whilst Calvin is having an earnest conversation about his son's health. Calvin later finds himself caught in the middle when Beth snaps at Conrad for having quit the swim team without consulting them. Though Ordinary People is seen as Conrad's story, especially considering he is also involved in an awkward romantic plot, for me this is all about Calvin's failure to appease both of the people who loves dearly.

I did indeed feel that Ordinary People was as its best when focusing on the relationships between the three members of the Jarrett family. The strained relationship between Beth and Conrad was brilliantly handled as was the way that Calvin and Beth behave in private and when out with friends. I did feel that Ordinary People was less successful when we were dealing with Conrad on his own and especially when we saw him pal around with his school friends or attempt to romance choir member Jeannine. Similarly, Conrad's exchanges with Dr. Berger felt a little exaggerated and spoilt the realistic narrative that I feel Redford and the writers were going for. This was definitely an assured debut for Redford, however at times I did feel that he was a little obvious with he let his audience see. For example, I feel that the boating accident in which Buck died shouldn't have been part of the film and instead should have just been an event that the audience pictured in their own mind. I had a similar issue when Calvin was thinking about finding Conrad dead in the bathroom but I feel that ultimately this seen worked thanks to the facial expressions of Donald Sutherland. Indeed, I found Sutherland to be the best performer out of the central cast and he made Calvin feel the most real out of any of the major characters. Oddly, Sutherland was the only major cast member not nominated for an Oscar which I feel is a major oversight on the part of the academy. Best known for her work as the nation's favourite sitcom star, Mary Tyler Moore played a fairly unlikeable character in socially aware Beth. I felt Moore's performance was incredibly compelling and she shared great chemistry with Sutherland. Another sitcom actor, Judd Hirsch, was cast as Dr. Berger a role he played with vigour even if I didn't feel he completely pulled it off. Meanwhile, in his debut, Timothy Hutton was awarded with a Best Supporting Actor award for his role as Conrad. Though not perfect, Hutton was an engaging presence especially when he was onscreen with a member of the Jarrett family. Whilst Ordinary People was an interesting exploration into suburban life, it didn't exactly leave a lasting impression and therefore I'm not quite sure how it won Best Picture. In fact the only thing that's stayed with me about the film is its use of Pachelbel's Canon which is currently stuck in my head.

Whilst his buddy was jumping behind the camera, Paul Newman was staying very much in front of it, playing attorney Frank Galvin in The Verdict. Once a member of a major law firm, Galvin has recently has suffered a fall from grace due to his divorce and the fact that he hasn't been able to win a case. Galvin's old friend Mickey hands him a new case in which the family of a woman in a coma is suing the hospital that the feel put her in that condition. Five years ago, Debra Ann Kay went into the hospital to have a baby but was given the wrong anaesthetic and ended up comatose. Mickey gives the case to Galvin as he feels the Catholic hospital will most likely want to settle out of court. The hospital's lawyers offer Galvin £210,000 to settle but, after visiting Debra in hospital, he feels that he has to do the right thing and takes the case to trial. Frank is fighting a losing battle from the word go as he finds himself up against slimy defence attorney Ed Concannon and a bench full of lawyers. In addition, all of the doctors who were in the operating room are covering each other's backs and the only person who'll testify is an MD who regularly appears as a star witness. Even the trial's judge works against Frank as he seems as somewhat of an adversary. Just when it looks like Frank is out for the count, he figures out exactly why only one of the nurses wouldn't testify. He works with this particle of information and eventually finds a witness that will be able to testify against the hospital. I personally feel that The Verdict plays out almost like a sports film with Frank being the once great sportsman who now struggles to keep up with the youngsters. So, just like a sports movie, the final scenes let the audience decide whether Frank still has it or if he'll lose to somebody who has superior tactics.

The Verdict perfectly demonstrates the sort of role Paul Newman was taking at this point in his career. He was no longer Butch Cassidy or The Sting's Henry Gondorff and instead specialised in playing once great men who are past their former glory. Though he only was nominated for Best Actor here, it would be reprising the role of The Hustler's Eddie Felson that would finally win him the award four years later. His performance in The Verdict is a thing of beauty and perfectly demonstrates how Newman devotes himself entirely to his character. Despite his faults, we're rooting for Frank Galvin from the word-go as he's a man that's willing to do the right thing and essentially wants to right the wrongs he's made in the past. Every good hero needs an antagonist and James Mason plays his role as Concannon perfectly. Regularly cool, calm and collected; Concannon is later revealed to be a master manipulator and attempts to defend the hospital, fully knowing that they're in the wrong. Providing excellent support are Charlotte Rampling, as Frank's love interest Laura, and Jack Warden as his best mate Mickey. As well as marking Newman's final appearance in a Best Picture nominee, The Verdict marks the last appearance in this blog of Sidney Lumet. Lumet once again is able to direct a character-driven piece that provides shocks and ultimately makes us care about the outcome. Lumet was aided by a brilliant script from David Mamet, who creates a group of characters who feel realistic and are forced to make moral decisions that we may have to make at some point. The Verdict is definitely a stripped-down old-fashioned courtroom drama but it does what it does excellently. It's fair to say that, of the three films I've watched in this post, The Verdict was definitely the one I enjoyed the most so surprisingly it's the only one that didn't go on to win Best Picture.

Three years later, Robert Redford would go on to star in his final on-screen role in a Best Picture nominee, that being eventual victor Out of Africa. Though Redford's name appears first on the opening credits, he doesn't appear much in the film's first hour. Instead we follow the exploits of Karen Blixen, a Danish lady who early on marries her friend Baron Blixen and takes him to her family's farm in what is now Kenya. Once in Africa, Karen is introduced to Redford's big game hunter Denys through a mutual friend Berkeley Cole. As the philandering Blixen often leaves Karen to her own devices she starts to entertain both Berkeley and Denys. The First World War changes things in Africa, with Karen forced to move out of her farm and she later returns to Denmark after contracting a fairly serious disease. The second half of the film charts the course of the relationship between Karen and Denys as she moves him into her house and the two begin a courtship of sorts. But any opportunity to make their relationship into a more permanent arrangement is thwarted by Denys' lack of commitment and his insistence to live like a wild animal. Denys would rather fly his plane around then enter a serious conversation about marriage and Karen finally realises that their romance is doomed. Following a number of other tragedies, Karen prepares to leave Africa and hopes to reunite with Denys on more time before journeying to Denmark.

I feel that director Sydney Pollack really brought Karen's story to life due to the dazzling cinematography which perfectly captured the Kenyan scenery. The scenes that really stuck in my head were the set pieces involving Karen's first arrival into Africa and her first trip in the plane with Denys. The sweeping shots of the African countryside are perfectly accompanied by John Barry's majestic score. However, despite its visual grandeur, Out of Africa was beset by many problems, the first being its length. Clocking in at over two and half hours, the film had a meandering narrative that felt like it was trying to stick too much to the original source materials. In fact every detail of Karen's life was included in the film and I did feel as if Pollack could have edited Out of Africa down to about two hours. Though she is given some gorgeous costumes to wear, I never really believed in Meryl Streep's Oscar-nominated performance as Karen. As well as a wavering accent, she never really made me care about Karen's struggles and so I wasn't that disappointed when things didn't go her way. At times it appeared as if Redford was in a different movie to Streep as his performance of Denys almost felt like he was channelling an India Jones-esque hero. Though Redford and Streep did have some chemistry, it was still a stretch to believe in their on-screen romance which was the basis of the film's second half. To me the best performances came from the supporting cast namely Michael Kitchen as Berkeley and Klaus Maria Brandauer as Baron Blixen. Despite some stunning visuals, Out of Africa to me felt too over-indulgent and long-winded to be a really good film. Due to its important message and exotic locations, I can understand why it won Best Picture but I have a sneaking suspicion that there were better released that year that deserved it more.

So that's it as far as on-screen performances from Redford and Newman are concerned. Whilst another of Redford's directorial efforts will pop up in the 1990s, neither would appear in a Best Picture nominee again. I do feel that both, Newman in particular, have progressed a lot since we first met them and this post begins an interesting trend of following the career trajectory of actors who we've followed for quite some time. Continuing the theme next time is a film featuring a man who starred in two of my favourite nominated films from the 1970s.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 232-233: An I-Lumet-nating Double Bill

If you put a gun to my head and asked me what my favourite film of all time was then the answer would probably be 12 Angry Men. It's one of those films that I could just watch over and over again while it's also incredibly well-made. Shockingly, I've watched very few of director Sidney Lumet's other films and that's one mistake I've been able to correct with the help of this project. This post will look over the two Oscar-nominated films that he directed in the 1970s.

One of the things that makes 12 Angry Men so effective is that it's almost entirely set in the jury room and I felt the same way about Dog Day Afternoon. Though it's not restricted to one setting, Dog Day Afternoon is almost wholly set in and around a bank that is being robbed. The film begins with Sal and Sonny robbing a bank and attempting to commit the crime without being caught. Things soon go awry when they discover that there's hardly any money left in the bank and instead decides to steal a bunch of traveller's cheques. However, as Sonny tries to burn off the bank's register on the cheques, smoke starts to billow from the bank which in turn alerts locals that something's not right at the bank. Soon the pair are discovered and the police descend on the bank and, as they attempt to diffuse the situation, we learn more about our central pair. As Sonny is the man that the police are in constant contact with, he comes out of the bank on several occasions to talk to Detective Moretti, the policeman in charge of handling the hostage situation. Sonny soon becomes a local hero as he is attempting to stand up for the common man. Sonny later becomes a gay icon as we discover he married a man in a secret ceremony and has robbed the bank in order to pay for his wife Leon's sexual reassignment surgery. However, Leon is less than thrilled with this revelation and it seems as if he's been trying to escape Sonny for years. Meanwhile, the more menacing Sal is getting increasingly agitated as he doesn't really care for Sonny's flamboyance and his need to be a friend to all of their hostages. Soon, the stage is set for the final act in which Sonny and Sal attempt to escape, while the police endeavour to stop them.

I found Dog Day Afternoon to be a slow burning story that took its time to develop. It was only after Moretti and his team arrived that I really started to get involved in the film. Lumet and writer Frank Piersen create an intriguing anti-hero in Sonny, a character who we begin to learn more of once the hostage situation is in full swing. Throughout the film our perception of Sonny changes as we learn that, in an odd sort of way, he's trying to do the best for everyone. The character of Sal is more interesting, as we have to make our own minds up about him, and he really isn't as in your face as Sonny is. The pairing of Al Pacino and John Cazale is a great one and their loud and calm double act contrasts their roles in The Godfather films. I found Pacino to be more captivating here than he was in The Godfather films and I found that the character of Sonny really tested him. Meanwhile Chris Sarandon was brilliant in his handful of scenes as Leon, the pre-op transsexual who wanted nothing to do with his new husband. The claustrophobic nature of the over-heated bank added to the tense feel of the film as Sonny started to lose his head. As I'd never seen the film before, I have to admit that the final sequence had me on the edge of my seat. I felt that Dog Day Afternoon perfectly enforced my views that Lumet is an assured director who gets the best out of his actors and utilises his setting to full effect.

If I hadn't thought that already then I would've definitely to come that conclusion after watching Network. Of all of Lumet's films Network definitely did the best at the Oscars and Paddy Chayefsky's script is still widely regarded as one of the best of all time. Though I'd never seen Network before I was aware that it centred around Peter Finch's Howard Beale and the fact that he claimed he was going to commit suicide live on air. What I didn't realise was that the main story was a lot bigger than that and involved the UBS Network's head of programming Diana Christensen and her wish to put Beale back on the air after he becomes one of the biggest talking points in the country. Christensen is portrayed as a woman who puts her career before anything else and can't seem to sustain a relationship with anyone. Even her affair with the married former head of news Max Schumacher doesn't satisfy her and he eventually tries to act as the voice of reason in the film. Meanwhile Beale's power over the masses has no ends and he soon attempts to block a merger between UPS' owner CCA and Saudi Arabians. Obviously the CCA aren't happy about this and attempt to put end to Beale once and for all. But, as Network shows us throughout, people are guided by television and trust it more than they do the people in their own lives.

Coming into Network, I was expecting it to all revolve around Peter Finch as Howard Beale, but I was wrong. Even though Finch rightfully won the Best Actor Oscar, I would've said he was more of a supporting performer while William Holden was the real star of the show. Holden's Schumacher is the wise old sage of the film and he is the only person who doesn't always think about what's best for ratings. Chayefsky's satirical look at the world of television is incredibly witty and the dialogue is written with a sort of beat at the heart of it. Finch is utterly spellbinding as the crazy Beale while Faye Dunaway puts in an Oscar-winning performance as Diana. I found Dunaway to be great here also, playing the strong woman in a man's world she was almost the tragic heroine of the piece as she discovered that she couldn't be anything other than her job. Robert Duvall as the company' money man and Ned Beatty as CCA's chairman both put in great supporting turns with the latter really playing the film's version of the devil incarnate. In fact, the only cast member not to make much of an impression was Beatrice Straight, odd seeing as she won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her role in the film. Straight does hold the record for appearing on screen for the shortest time. Network continues Lumet's love of filming inside a certain location, with the UPS network buildings housing the majority of the film. Once again these buildings feel quite claustrophobic as they contain rooms full of people talking about meaningless statistics and programme concepts. Overall, I found Network to be a more wholly enjoyable film than Dog Day Afternoon even if it wasn't as intriguing or gripping. Network, and in particular its script, has influenced a whole generation of directors and screenwriters, many of whom have mocked the industry in which they made their name. Though Network is an incredibly influential film, it still holds up today in its own right and I do think people should seek it out if they haven't already seen it.

Next time we take things a bit easier with a lightweight comedy about the afterlife.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 127: My Day in Court

So finally a new decade in the Oscar challenge and we move from the tumultuous 1940s to the glorious 1950s in which the big screen came alive as Technicolor became more and more frequent and the cinemas were dominated by large, colourful epics luckily Oscar still had place in its nomination slots to honour smaller films that were well written but may've only had two or three sets to their name. And we're starting off with two such films both based in a courtroom setting.

The first of these two films is 1958 nominee Witness for the Prosecution the adaptation of Agatha Christie's novel starring Charles Laughton as the belligerent Sir Wilfred a brilliant barrister who has just returned to his chambers having suffered from health problems. It is not long before Wilfred is visited by a solicitor friend who has a new client - Leonard Vole who is accused of murdering the wealthy spinster Emily French with strong circumstantial evidence pointing towards him as the killer. The only person who can vouch for his whereabouts and act as his alibi is his German wife Christine, here played by the sultry Marlene Dietrich, but Wilfred warns that a testimony from a loving wife doesn't hold up to much. The best scenes of the film happen in the Old Bailey mainly because the set is so impressive, it had been recreated by Alexandre Trauner, and is also where the trial begins The prosecution calls several witnesses before their key witness is revealed as Christine acting as the titular Witness for the Prosecution. Anything I say from there would spoil the film and I was told specifically at the end of the film by a stern voice-over not to tell my friends anything about the film's conclusion. I will say however that I very much enjoyed Witness for the Prosecution and most of that is down to Laughton's performance a mix of drama and comedy he captures what I believe the character needed and ultimately is able to do the right thing. It is odd to see Laughton act this way after portraying a bunch of villains in the 1930s, in films such as Les Miserables and Mutiny on the Bounty, however he did display comic flare in Ruggles of Red Gap and he uses that here getting a Best Actor Nomination but ultimately losing to Alec Guinness. The other Oscar nominee here is Elsa Lanchester who plays Sir Wilfred's fussing personal nurse Miss Plimsoll with whom Wilfred clashes but by the end they have a grudging respect for what the other does while I did enjoy this performance I'm surprised Dietrich didn't get a nomination for playing her feme fatale role to great effect. Sometimes the tone doesn't feel just right, occasionally the comedy feels misjudged especially since this is a film about an old woman who has been murdered but the great ending which I didn't see coming makes up for any shifts in tone.

Also nominated at the 1958 ceremony was a film which is still my favourite of all time that being the late Sidney Lumet's classic 12 Angry Men. If you haven't seen the film then you need to as, in the words of one of my friends, it's good for you but I will indulge you with a small plot summary nonetheless. Almost all of the film takes place in a jury room in which the twelve men who make up the jury are discussing whether the boy on trial killed his father or not and if they find him guilty he will go to the chair. The boy has been raised in a slum and two witnesses attest to seeing the boy stab his father or that they heard him shout that he was going to kill him. Initially only Henry Fonda's Juror Number 8 stands up for the boy voting Not Guilty in the first round of votes so that there can be a discussion about the trial and whether all the evidence was completely accurate. Some people bring their own prejudices to the table for example one juror has a problem with people from slum backgrounds while another lets his personal issues cloud his judgment. The best thing about the film, in my opinion, is the way in which the plot unravels and the characters are given more depth as the time goes on. We only learn two of the juror's names and that only happens in the very final scene instead they are referred to simply by their juror numbers. Despite the cramped setting, filmic techniques are still employed throughout 12 Angry Men including using different shots to focus on either the whole set or one character in particular for example a close-up on Juror Number 4 who in his own words never sweats but is in fact seen perspiring during one key moment. I honestly can't find fault with this film and have seen it so many times and I'm still horrified that it didn't win Best Picture or at least Best Screenplay. The only actor nominated for his role in the film was Fonda which I think is a mistake there are plenty of strong performances most notably from Lee J Cobb as the last angry man Juror No. 3. Overall a masterpiece and that's my final word on the matter.