Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 394: Horsing About

The one thing about a lot of these Oscar films is that they are often tailored towards a purely adult audience. Even the fantasy-strewn Lord of the Rings was given a 12 Certificate due its strong level of violence as well as the fact that Gollum was probably quite scary for young children. However, after twenty-five films filled with bad language, nudity and violence I was ready to settle down for something a little more sedate. Thankfully that was provided for me in the form of Seabiscuit; a charming PG-rated film about the little racehorse that could. In fact the closest that Seabisucit got to violence was during the races themselves when the jockeys tried to push each other off of their respective horses.

Despite being the title character, Seabiscuit doesn't feature in the first part of the film which instead focuses on us getting to know the other members of the team. The stories of both Seabiscuit's eventual jockey Red Pollard and owner Charles S Howard are fairly sombre in tone and anchor the film's first third. Although born to a wealthy family, Red soon found himself out on the streets following the Wall Street Crash. Taken in as a stable boy, Red later began racing himself however was subsequently blinded in one eye following an illegal boxing match. Meanwhile Charles made his money in the motor industry but went on a downward spiral after his son died in a car accident. Both men were rehabilitated when they came into contact with the rambunctious Seabiscuit who was initially thought as being too wild to tame. The horse is originally brought to Howard by the wily Tom Smith; an outcast horse trainer who eventually forms a surrogate family with Red and Charles. From there the film resembles more of a classic sports movie with Seabiscuit gaining popularity due to Red's fine relationship with his new horse. Howard eventually targets wealthy tycoon Samuel Riddle and challenges him to a race against his famous horse War Stallion. Meanwhile tragedy befalls Red as he learns he may not be able to ride again following a tragic fall. However, as is often the case with these sorts of films, everybody finds a redemption of sorts and the last line of Gary Ross' film is so sickly sweet that it did make me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

As well as being the little horse that could, Seabiscuit was the little film that could; securing a surprise place in that year's Best Picture category. At the time many were suspecting the spot that Seabiscuit ultimately got to go to Anthony Mingella's epic civil war drama Cold Mountain. That film certainly feels like much more of an Oscar-film than this cute but slightly unremarkable family drama. What I liked about Seabiscuit were the way the race sequences were shot and John Schwartzman's cinematography made me experience what being part of those races would've been like. There were also a trio of incredibly likeable turns from Tobey Maguire, Jeff Bridges and Chris Cooper all of whom brought out the complexities in their characters. Maguire was perfectly cast as weedy jockey Red and allowed his naturally emotive face to relay the various heartbreaks that his character experienced across the years. Bridges brilliantly balanced Howard's effervescent personality with his personal tragedy to present a realistic persona. Meanwhile Cooper's turn as the rough and ready trainer added an extra dimension to the trio's makeshift family. Additionally enjoyable was William H Macy's few appearances as quirky racing journalist Tick Tock McLaughlin. The problem I had with Seabiscuit was in its storytelling as it started incredibly slow and took too long for the three main characters to meet. I also felt the tale started to meander towards the movie's ending whilst some of the dialogue was rather trite. Overall I feel that Gary Ross' film will appeal to families looking for a fulfilling real-life tale and to it's credit it does deliver that. But nothing about Seabiscuit is particularly memorable and it definitely never felt like a film that deserved its spot in the Best Picture category.

After all these lovely horse-racing adventures we're back to reality with a triple bill of Martin Scorsese movies.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 386-387: The Lasse Hallström Collection

After spending time in the present day we move back to the past with two films from a man who started his career by directing ABBA videos. However, by the turn of the decade, Swedish helmer Lasse Hallström had begun making films in the English language. His first big success was with What's Eating Gilbert Grape? however he would later see two of his films nominated for Best Picture in successive years.

First up was a film version of John Irving's The Cider House Rules; with the author adapting his own work for the screen. Both films in this post were new to me going in, however I did know a little about The Cider House Rules thanks to one of its stars. That star was Michael Caine who won his second Supporting Actor Oscar for playing the patriarchal Dr. Wilbur Larch who cares for the young boys of a Maine orphanage. I personally thought that all of the action would take place at the orphanage but instead the film primarily deals with the story of Homer Wells; a young man born at the institution that Larch takes under his wing. Initially believing that Homer would take over Larch's place as the lead doctor at the orphanage, the film went of course about forty minutes in when our protagonist left his home with a couple who'd come for an abortion. From there on I thought the film meandered too much as Homer became an apple picker and also learnt to catch lobsters. The film mainly concerned itself with exploring Homer's affair with the married Candy as well as his relationship with his fellow apple pickers. Meanwhile, we got regular updates from Dr. Larch who tried to get the board to make Homer his replacement, going as far as to present phony qualifications in his apprentice's name. The film had a rather predictable conclusion as Homer became Larch's replacement and ended the movie by quoting his mentor's iconic line to the current intake of boys at the orphanage.

For a film that deals with the subjects of incest, abortion and infidelity; The Cider House Rules is an incredibly quaint tale. John Irving's ill-paced narrative meant that the film fluctuated in quality depending on what was happening to Homer at the time. I have to say that I didn't much care for Tobey Maguire's wide-eyed performance of Homer and felt he lacked the qualities of a leading man here. Similarly, Charlize Theron gave a lacklustre turn as the one-dimensional Candy; a woman who had supposedly cheated on her husband with the young doctor who was present at her abortion. I think the reason Michael Caine won his Oscar for The Cider House Rules is that he looked better thanks to the flimsy turns given by the rest of the cast. Having not seen The Cider House Rules before I was generally underwhelmed by Caine's overall showing here and it's fair to say that he's been a lot better in films that weren't as well-regarded by the Academy. Additionally, Caine was up against more worthy competition with at least two performers more deserving of the Award than he was. What I feel made The Cider House Rules an Academy favourite was the sumptuous cinematography provided by John Stapleton. Stapleton utilises the Maine scenery well and Hallström certainly realises that the script's main strengths are its exterior locations. I would go as far as to say that the Maine countryside made the biggest impression on me out of everything that happened in the film. Apart from the cinematography, everything else was a little lacklustre and I was ultimately disappointed with what I saw from Hallström here especially seeing as he was nominated for Best Director at that year's ceremony.

One year later Hallström had another film in contention for Best Picture although this time he didn't feature in the director category. The film was Chocolat; another movie based on a popular novel this time one by Joanne Harris. Although sharing The Cider House Rules' cinematographic flair, I thought that Chocolat had more substance than Hallström's previous effort. The film starred Juliette Binoche as Vianne, a lively woman who rocks up in a quiet French village alongside her young daughter Anouk. The village that she arrives in is extremely Catholic and is ruled over by the mayor; Comte De Raymond, an incredibly biased figure who has the majority of the townsfolk under his spell. The Comte and Vianne clash almost immediately when he discovers she is opening a chocolate shop during Lent. The film's main focus is then on the feud between the two as the Comte does everything he can to close down her shop. At the same time we see the effect that Vianne's presence has on the other villagers, including brow-beaten Josephine and eccentric landlady Armande. Though her confectionery awakens passions in others it's not till later in the film that Vianne's own passions are awakened. This happens when she lays eyes on Roux; a river traveller whose presence in the village is more unwelcome than Vianne's. There is an incredibly connection between the pair however Vianne later feels she's put her daughter in trouble as a result of her dalliance with the handsome Roux. The final scenes of the film effortlessly balance comedy and tragedy with some memorable moments being provided before the end credits roll.

I think the reason I enjoyed Chocolat a lot more than I did The Cider House Rules was due to the fact that the former film was a lot more focused than the latter. The film had a clear purpose and looked at a specific time frame; that being the season of Lent as the Comte threatened to put Vianne out of business before Easter. Hallström again focuses on the exterior shots as the French village comes to life in all of its glory thanks in part to cinematographer Roger Pratt. Chocolat's utterly charming nature is enhanced by Rachel Portman's memorable score whilst the quirky characters are made more recognisable by their distinctive costumes. But what makes Chocolat really come alive is its ensemble cast; four of whom gave tremendous performances. Juliette Binoche was an utter delight in the lead role and perfectly conveyed both Vianne's wicked side with her more vulnerable nature. Binoche was nominated for a prize at that year's Oscars, as was Judi Dench who chewed some considerable scenery as diabetic landlady Armande. The fabulous Alfred Molina gave a measured turn as the film's antagonist Comte de Raymond and I thought he particularly excelled during his character's breakdown in the window of Vianne's shop. Similarly impressive was Lena Olin who, as battered wife Josephine, went on the biggest journey from shrewish housewife to independent woman. If there's a weak link in the cast then it's Johnny Depp, however I feel that this is primarily due to the fact that his character is given much to do. However, Depp and Binoche share a fine chemistry which makes Roux and Vianne's relationship all the more believable. Obviously the other plus point to watching Chocolat is the fine selection of confectionery that is on display throughout the movie so my one piece of advice would be not to watch this on an empty stomach. Whilst Chocolat isn't a particularly original film, it's certainly an enjoyable bit of escapism and I felt that Hallström deserved his Best Director nod much more for this film than he did The Cider House Rules.

Next time we turn our attention to a film that explores blood, oil and milkshakes in equal measure.