Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 410-411: A Couple of Clint's

Back on Day 309, I mentioned how Clint Eastwood had gone unrecognised by Oscar until winning the Best Picture prize in 1993 for Unforgiven. Oscar's love affair with Eastwood carried into the next decade with three of his films being nominated for Best Picture during the ten year stretch. This post will look at two of those three movies with the third to be covered at a later date.

We kick off with a film that Clint directed but never appeared however fact fans may want to know that Mystic River was the first movie that Eastwood scored himself. Eastwood's score is just one of the many positive elements of Mystic River; a film that I enjoyed immensely on this second viewing. This Boston-set crime thriller revolves around three childhood friends; Jimmy, Sean and Dave all of whom are effected by an event from their past. The event itself is played out in the film's first three minutes in which Dave is abducted by two men that three boys believe to be cops. Flash forward twenty-eight years later and Dave's abduction and subsequent abuse have caused him to become quite a slow-witted man. Although it's clear he loves his son and wife, he's prone to moments of absence and comes home one night covered in blood. That night happens to be the same one on which Jimmy's nineteen-year-old daughter goes missing and is eventually found murdered. Jimmy, who is now one of the town's most respected citizens, uses underhanded tactics to try and discover who the perpetrator was. This annoys Sean who just happens to be the investigating officer on the case and who isn't willing to believe his partner when he suggests Dave might be the killer. Screenwriter Brian Helgeland's adaptation of Dennis Lehane's novel perfectly ups the tension as the audience have to wait till the end of the film to learn who the murderer actually is. Therefore Eastwood and Helgeland create a sense of unease which I believe help to make us sympathise with the characters who aren't quite sure who to trust. This also means that Mystic River's final twenty minutes are incredibly emotional as revelation after revelation pours out and by the end I was personally left with my heart broken.

As I previously mentioned this is my second time watching Mystic River but, just like a lot of films in this decade, it's not one that I particularly remember. I'm not quite sure why that is as everything about Mystic River is perfectly delivered from Eastwood's aforementioned score to Tom Stern's cinematography which allows the small town to become a character itself. Helegland does a good job of getting through the history between the three characters quite quickly to the extent that we understand why they are how they are. The more sympathetic character is definitely Dave, who has remained almost in a childlike state since his trauma at a young age. Tim Robbins is absolutely great as Dave, capturing the essence of the character beautifully and delivering a particularly stunning turn towards the end of the film. Sean Penn meanwhile gives Jimmy a terrifying demeanour but couples this with a softer side which is on view in the scene where his character learns of the death of his daughter. This scene is particularly iconic thanks to Stern's framing of the piece and the image of Penn being held back by numerous cops. Both Penn and Robbins won Oscars for their roles in the film but I feel a little sorry for Kevin Bacon who had the job of playing the less flashy role of Sean. I felt that Bacon deserved to at least be recognised for playing an intelligent police officer who occasionally let his heart get in the way of doing his job. Also nominated at the ceremony was Marcia Gay Harden who delivered a memorable supporting performance as Dave's frightened wife. I also personally liked Laura Linney as Jimmy's wife who becomes almost like a Lady Macbeth figure in the film's final ten minutes. Absorbing from beginning to end; Mystic River works as a thriller, a character study and a mystery all at the same time.

One year later Eastwood found himself in the same position as he did twelve years earlier as he picked up Best Director and Best Picture for his boxing movie Million Dollar Baby. Here Clint was back in front of the camera as grizzled boxing trainer Frankie Dunn, a man who was living with many regrets. Frankie was presented as the kind of man who put in all the work on a fighter only to be left behind when the boxer wanted to go for the title. His only true friends were the local pastor and Eddie 'Scrap-Iron' Dupris; a former fighter who now lives and works at Frankie's gym. In an Unforgiven reunion, Eddie is played by Morgan Freeman who seems to have been hired purely to give a Shawshank Redemption-like voiceover to the film. However, if you're going to get somebody to provide a thoughtful voiceover to a film then Freeman's your man and I felt he gave Million Dollar Baby that special quality. The bulk of the film is devoted to Frankie's training of Hilary Swank's Maggie Fitzgerald; an older female boxer that he was reluctant to take on as he doesn't coach girls. However, as the film goes on the pair develop an interesting working relationship which allows Maggie to thrive in the ring. I found that Paul Haggis' script made Million Dollar Baby feel classier than your average sporting film and Maggie's fights were split up with plenty of emotional scenes between Frankie and Maggie. One brilliant set piece sees Maggie return home to surprise her mother with a new house only to find her lovely gesture spat back in her face. The element of Million Dollar Baby that I remember the most is the film's final act in which Maggie finds herself paralysed after an accident in a title match. Here I felt that Haggis over-egged the pudding a little bit as Million Dollar Baby became a different film altogether especially after Maggie asks Frankie to help her end her own life. Although I knew the ending was coming, I still found it shocking to watch and I think this sensitive storyline helped Million Dollar Baby to win Best Picture.

Alongside Eastwood's awards for Directing and Best Picture both Swank and Freeman picked up awards for their performances. Swank gave a good portrayal of an every woman who was fighting to achieve her goal however for the most part I found it to be rather unremarkable. I think that the reason she was given the award was due to the final act as Maggie finds herself unable to fight the inevitable. Freeman's wise narration was coupled with a number of fine scenes in which he finally got to have the one fight that had been eluding him all these years. Whilst Freeman did a good job in this film I feel he's been better elsewhere especially in The Shawshank Redemption and Seven. If anybody should have won an Oscar for acting in the film I believe it should have been Eastwood himself as he perfectly conveyed the evolution in the character of Frankie. Clint played to his strengths for the most part but he still conveyed Frankie's growing fatherly feelings towards Maggie. As he had done in Mystic River, Clint also provided a suitable score for Million Dollar Baby which again enhanced the overall mood of the film. I personally felt that Million Dollar Baby took a while to get going and it was only when Frankie took Maggie under his wing that the pace of the film picked up. A subplot involving the simple fighter Danger didn't do anything for me and instead proved that Paul Haggis sometimes adds too many elements to his story as he did the year later with his script for Crash. Although a solid drama, I think it's Million Dollar Baby's mawkish third act that lets it down, although I'm sure this is why the academy ultimately gave it the Best Picture award. Ultimately there's a lot to like about Million Dollar Baby, especially the performances and Eastwood's assured direction, but it just doesn't have that extra special something that a Best Picture winner truly needs.

Next time I take a magical trip down death row.

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.

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.