Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 385: Two Days in L.A.

Often when critics compile their lists of worst Best Picture winners of all time there's one film that comes out on top, or if you like bottom. That film is Crash, which triumphed at the 2006 ceremony despite another film being the odds on favourite going in. Having seen the majority of the Best Picture nominees at the time, I felt that Crash was quite harshly judged and believed that most people hated it because of the academy's decision. But, watching it with my 2015 critic's eyes I have to say that those people who slated Crash's win at the time may have been more on the money than I initially thought.

Paul Haggis' film, which he co-wrote with Bobby Moresco, follows a cavalcade of characters as their paths cross over two days in L.A. The characters include racist Police Officer John Ryan, DA Rick Cabot and his wife Jean, TV Producer Cameron Thayer and petty criminals Anthony and Peter. It's pretty clear that Haggis' main theme is that of race as almost every line of the script relates to the characters' ethnicity or bigotry. Haggis changes the theme of race up a little by having many of the ethnic characters as racist as their white counterparts. This is best exemplified through black Police Lieutenant Dixon, who'd rather let racism go on in his force than risk his position by putting his neck on the line. Similarly, the final scene sees two angry drivers hurl racist insults at one another after getting into a car accident. The problem I have with this is that, as almost everyone is as bigoted as each other, it's really hard to like or identify with any of the characters. Maybe I was a little bit spoilt by the last three films I watched, but none of the characters in Crash feel like real people and that became more apparent when I realised that I didn't know any of their names when the film came to an end. The dialogue similarly doesn't feel believable and there's very little subtlety to Haggis' words with every scene focusing on racism in some form or another. I think that this took away from the believability of the film as a whole as Haggis appeared to be more interested in the his central theme rather than his characters.

Part of the problem is that there are just too many characters in the film so it's hard to really find someone to care about when they're only on screen for about ten minutes. There are two exceptions to the rule, the first being Matt Dillon's John Ryan; who's bigotry is explained through his relationship with his sick father. Dillon, who was the only member of the cast to be Oscar-nominated, presents his character as somebody who knows that he's a prick but at the same time tries to do right by his father. Similarly I was sympathetic to Michael Pena's locksmith Daniel who I felt to be the only truly good-natured character amongst a bad bunch. However a lot of the characters felt two-dimensional with a specific example being the Persian shopkeeper who spends most of the film angry with those around him. What I did like about Crash was its atmospheric style with cinematographer J. Michael Muro perfectly capturing the eeriness of Los Angeles at night. Muro's camera work is one of Crash's most positive elements and he at least tries to make the film look as interesting as possible. The most damning thing I can say about Crash is that it didn't really hold my attention primarily as I didn't care about many of the characters. While I admire what Haggis was trying to do, I think the film's message was more important to him than the characters; who simply acted as plot devices to further the themes of race. I have to say I really wanted to be one of those people who stuck up for Crash, but I'm coming round to think that maybe it didn't deserve it's Best Picture prize after all.

Next time we focus on a Swedish director who specialises in lush period pieces.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 375-376: Duelling Pianos

Welcome back to the 21st Century guys and, at least for the time being, this is where I'll be staying as I get closer to completing my quest. However, as the next four films from the decade are all biopics of sorts, I'll be shooting around various time periods. We start with two films that focus on real life pianists albeit two men who have very little else in common.

First up we have The Pianist; a film based on the memoirs of Polish composer and pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman. The film is a blow-by-blow account of what happened to the Jewish Szpilman during the Second World War as he attempted to survive as Warsaw crumbled around him. The interesting thing about Szpilman is he is never presented as any type of hero but instead as somebody who is simply trying to survive the extraordinary circumstances he's found himself in. Although early on he does his best to try and save his family, once he's separated from them he's essentially concerned about himself. The other interesting thing about the character is that his survival often comes from the help of non-Jews including a friendly couple and a man who married the woman who Szpilman once loved. In the film's latter scenes, Szpilman's survival is aided by a German officer whose sole reason for helping him is to hear his music. Indeed, music is one of The Pianist's main attributes and we can see Szpilman's pain as he's forced to keep quite while in a room with a piano. Although it's a film set during wartime, I don't think The Pianist can really be described as a war film and instead it sees the devastation of Poland from Szpilman's eyes. Screenwriter Ronald Harwood cleverly punctuates scenes of actions with quieter moments that simply focus on Szpilman's deterioration. We follow him as he tries to get over his jaundice and his struggles to find food and water in the film's final scenes. The Pianist's main triumph is in presenting a sympathetic character who is necessarily a heroic man but is someone who's pain the audience can identify with.

It's no surprise that Adrien Brody won the Best Actor prize for his performance as Szpilman as he completely commands the screen throughout. Brody has the mannerisms of a silent film star which helps in the latter half of the film where there is very little dialogue. Brody helps the audience understand Szpilman's feelings as he slumps about the deserted streets of Warsaw clutching a jar of pickles in his hands. I felt Brody was absolutely captivating at playing both the charming musician in the film's early moments and the shell of a man in the film's latter scenes. Brody was aided by director Roman Polanski who made the town of Warsaw as big a character as Szpilman. I found some of The Pianist's images truly shocking as Szpilman was horrified by the dead bodies strewn across the streets and later surveyed the hollowed out buildings which were once occupied by happy families. In my opinion Pawel Edelman deserved an Oscar for his superb cinematography which at times made The Pianist feel like a documentary. Thankfully Polanski was awarded with a Best Director honour for helming a truly memorable piece of cinema which has as much to say about the holocaust as Schindler's List. If there's one criticism I have of The Pianist it's that I didn't feel as strong an emotional connection with Szpilman as I possibly could have done. Whilst I admired the film, I was never completely drawn in to what was happening on the screen and instead I felt more like a bystander. Maybe this is the reason that The Pianist didn't win the Best Picture award however I do feel it deserved it over the film that eventually scooped the award.

While The Pianist dealt with just one period of Szpilman's life, the other film in this post was a wide-reaching biopic of a famous pianist and vocalist. Ray, looked at the life and times of the legendary Ray Charles; from a small boy growing up in Florida to one of the most successful jazz artists of all time. Director Taylor Hackford and screenwriter James L White take a fairly linear approach to telling Ray's life; starting with his first performances in a country band. From there we see his first appearances on stage, touring with a band and meeting his future wife. Throughout the course of the story, the film flashes back to Ray's childhood to witness two very traumatic events in his life. The first is the death of his brother, who drowned in a laundry tub, and the second was the gradual loss of his eyesight. I believe that the film explained how Ray managed to get about with a stick or a dog and showed how exactly he seduced the ladies on a nightly basis. What I liked about the film was that it didn't shy away from the more negative side of Ray's personality, particularly his drug use. As the film progressed, and Ray's success grew, so did his reliance on heroin which as a result put him at odds with his friends and family. Additionally Ray's dalliances with various women are portrayed as he conducted various extra-marital affairs throughout his career. One in particular, with backing singer Margie, has disastrous consequences after she dies from an overdose only a couple of years after giving birth to his child. One problem I did have with the film was that it was pretty uneven as it spent too long on some moments and not enough on others. I found that Hackford and White took too long documenting the build-up of Ray's career and not enough time on other key moments in his life. I'd have like to have seen more about his protests against segregation and his attempts to kick his drug habit. As a result I found that the screenplay was largely inconsistent and that slightly affected my enjoyment of the film.

Thankfully Ray benefited from a tremendous Oscar-winning performance from Jamie Foxx, one that arguably made him a big name star. Foxx could've easily portrayed Charles as somewhat of a caricature but instead made him a fully-rounded character. He was particularly strong at portraying Ray's gradual dependence on drugs and the subtle changes in his character. Additionally, he was able to convey Ray's charisma and you could believe just why so many people fell under his spell. Foxx was ably supported throughout the film by a cast of character actors most notably Richard Shiff and Curtis Armstrong as a pair of Atlantic record chiefs and Regina King as the tragic Margie. I think that your enjoyment of Ray does depend on how much you can tolerate jazz music but I personally felt the music in the film was one of its most positive elements. Hackford and White use the majority of Ray's songs to tell a certain story about a period in his life and as a result give the film the feel of a musical. Paul Hirsch deftly edits together these set pieces to allow the audience to associate Charles' songs to either his success or certain moments in his personal life. It was no surprise to me that, alongside Foxx's honour, the film also won the sound mixing Oscar as I believed that the way the music was used was crucial to Ray's success. As his wife notes towards the end of the film, Ray loved music more than drugs, women and even his own family, a message that the film conveys perfectly. Whilst it doesn't really hold up against some of the more prestigious Oscar films, Ray is a fun biopic with lots of enjoyable musical sequence and is anchored by a fantastic central performance.

We continue our cavalcade of biopics with two more films that earned their stars Best Actor Oscars.