Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 465-466: Steven's Stories of the Past

It's very rare for a director to have had films nominated for Best Picture in five different decades and only a few have ever achieved that feat. Alongside Martin Scorsese, the latest director to do so was Steven Spielberg who helmed two Best Picture nominees in the last few years. Rather than being contemporary tales though, Spielberg's latest offerings featured on times gone by and were on the whole rather stagnant.

This is certainly true of Spielberg's cinematic interpretation of Michael Morpurgo's best-selling family book War Horse. The film tells the story of Joey;  a horse who is initially bought by a Devonshire farmer who is keen to get one over on his arrogant landlord. Although unhappy with his purchase at first, Ted soon discovers that his son Albert has formed a bond with Joey. Joey's trust of Albert eventually leads to him surprising everyone when he ploughs Ted's field. But, as the title suggests, war is coming and a bad harvest leads Ted to sell Joey to the war effort. From there we follow Joey's journey as he undergoes military training and forms a bond with a fellow horse. However, with the British army under attack, Joey is then trained to pull ambulances for the Germans before being taken away by two deserting brothers. Oddly, Joey then spends time with a jam-maker and his ill granddaughter before going back into war again. Rather conveniently, Joey is eventually freed from some barbed wire by a member of Albert's platoon. Finally, horse and boy are reunited in one of the sickliest endings to a Spielberg film I've ever seen as Albert comes back to Devon with Joey in toe. Part of my problem with War Horse was that no character stayed on screen long enough for you really to connect with anyone but Joey. Whilst the animal actors were superb, I find it hard to get emotionally attached to a horse and I feel that that's the key conceit of the film.

Additionally, War Horse is a film that could do with losing a good twenty minutes off its overall running time with its first half hour being extremely tiresome. Indeed, the lead up to the ploughing of a field is hardly the excitement you'd expect from the man who created Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park. The Devonshire that Spielberg imagines is wonderfully shot by his long term collaborator Janusz Kamiński however I still feel the sunny skies of England are a little exaggerated. Of the cast I enjoyed Tom Hiddleston and Benedict Cumberbatch as the two army men who were tasked with caring for the horses. Peter Mullan and Emily Watson were also fine as Albert's parents even if the former's drunken routine was a little clichéd at times. Unfortunately the main focus of the human players is Jeremy Irvine, a young actor who lacks the charisma to pull of some of the cornier elements of the plot. I was quite surprised to learn that Richard Curtis worked on a second draft of the script as character development is usually his strong suit. However I thought the characters in War Horse were thinly drawn at best and were gone again before you got to know them properly. Even the usually reliable John Williams delivered an overblown score that did nothing but signify that War Horse was incredibly melodramatic. Like all Spielberg films, War Horse looks great and this was proven by the film's six Oscar nods which came mainly in the art direction and sound categories. Although I enjoyed War Horse the first time around, it's not a film that stands up to repeat viewings and is one of Spielberg's most tiresome films.

While War Horse is a very British tale, Spielberg's return to the Best Picture category a year later saw him take on an incredibly American story. The film saw Spielberg tell the story of Abraham Lincoln's attempts to have the thirteenth amendment passed by the US House of Representatives. The very straight-forwardly titled Lincoln also looked at the president's relationship with his wife and children during the final four months of his life. At the heart of Lincoln is the story of a man who fought hard to free the slaves despite opposition from elsewhere. The film doesn't paint Lincoln as a saint but instead as somebody who occasionally made dubious decisions for the greater good. Judging from how Spielberg directs the film I got the impression that this is a story that Americans know already and therefore he doesn't really allow international audiences any time to truly get to know the characters. In fact, for the majority of the film it was hard to tell one politician in a wig from another unless they were played by an actor I was familiar with. Although the story isn't one that particularly lends itself to a cinematic setting, I didn't think that the usual engaging Spielberg put enough time into the visuals of Lincoln. In fact the only memorable moments came courtesy of the Civil War scenes at the start of the film and Lincoln's death at the end. The most interesting parts of Lincoln didn't revolve around the political aspects of the story but rather his relationship with his family. I was particularly intrigued to learn that Mary Lincoln had mental issues and that Abraham only stayed with her after she became pregnant. I personally would've liked to have had more scenes between the Lincolns and less involving the political scheming of the president's associates.

For authentically capturing the period of the time, Lincoln's production design team were awarded with an Oscar for their hard work. However, it was the film's other Oscar recipient who deserves the most praise and who made history with his award win. That recipient is Daniel Day-Lewis who won his third Best Actor Oscar to date for giving another fantastic performance as Lincoln. Having watched him develop over the course of this blog, I think that Lincoln represents Day-Lewis' third era as a performer. Although his performance incorporates some of the more brusque elements of the characters he played in Gangs of New York and There Will Be Blood, he lends a much more sympathetic edge to his turn as the former President. Day-Lewis is utterly mesmerising as Lincoln and makes you know exactly what the President is feeling even when he isn't saying anything at all. To date, Day-Lewis is the only man to win three awards in the Lead Actor category and I would say that this record is utterly well-deserved. For playing Mary Lincoln, Sally Field earned an Oscar nomination and I felt her performance here was certainly better than her Oscar-winning turn in Places in the Heart. The final member of the cast to earn a nod was Tommy Lee Jones, who as campaigning Thaddeus Stevens, added some much needed grit to proceedings. I also felt James Spader gave a suitably scenery-chewing turn as the somewhat devious William N Bilbo. Though I didn't find it as captivating as others did, Lincoln is still a solid piece of film-making by a man who knows exactly how to put an excellent movie together. Despite not being visually engaging, I think Lincoln's strengths are in the performances especially those given by Day-Lewis and Field. I do think that its Day-Lewis' turn as Lincoln which will give the film its lasting legacy and I feel that it'll definitely be the time of movie that will be played in history lessons for years to come.

Next up another director who changed course in the second decade of the 21st century.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 432: An American Neurotic in France

It's been a while since we've met up with Woody Allen as his last Best Picture nominee was 1986's Hannah and Her Sisters. In the twenty-five years since Woody's Oscar presence had been confined to the performances from his films with three wins in the Best Supporting Actress categories. However, he returned to the Best Picture contender's race at the 2012 ceremony for a film which also saw him pick up a screenwriting honour. 

The film in question was Midnight in Paris, Woody's homage to the 1920s and also served as a commentary on nostalgia. Woody didn't feature in the film and instead his cipher in the movie was Owen Wilson's maudlin writer Gill. Just like the roles we've seen Allen play in the past, Gill is somebody who is unhappy with his lot in life. He sees himself as a Hollywood hack and is attempting to write a novel if only to satisfy his own literary aspirations. It's quite clear that Gill isn't suited to his fiancée Inez who has joined him in Paris along with her ghastly parents. Whilst Gill is somebody who loves the romantic idea of walking through the streets of Paris in the rain, Inez could never see herself getting wet. Inez is instead drawn to her friend's partner Paul, a pedantic man who thinks he is more intellectual than anyone around him. The film properly gets going when Gill finds himself transported into Paris of the 1920s and soon comes into contact with prominent literary figures such as Hemmingway, Fitzgerald and Gertrude Stein. Gill also finds himself falling for Adriana, the initial love of Picasso who cools off him when she discovers he's engaged. Although I'm not sure Woody Allen is the sort of director who should be engaging in fantastical elements such as the ones in the film I think they sort of work. It's also an interesting look at the theory of nostalgia as Gill finds he suits the 1920s better while Adriana longs to be part of the 1890s crowd. The end of the film was a little bit weak but it made sense in terms of the character of Gill who is presented as somewhat of a dreamer. 

I think Gill's likeability is heightened due to the fact that he's portrayed here by Owen Wilson who is primarily a fine screen presence. He is able to pull off Gill's need to be taken seriously as well as the more fantastical parts of the character. It helps that Gill is surrounded by awful characters in the present such as Rachel McAdams' pompous Inez and Michael Sheen's bore Paul. Allen seems to have had a hoot recreating the famous literary characters such as a drunken Hemmingway and a brusque Getrude Stein. Alison Pill was a particular joy to watch as Zelda Fitzgerald whilst Adrien Brody put in a memorable cameo as Dali. Additionally I think that Wilson shared a great spark with Marion Cotillard who played the adorable Adriana. I'll personally watch Cotillard in most things and I felt she played Adriana beautifully.  Allen's direction also makes the character of Paris a character in and of itself with a three minute opening shot presenting all the different aspects of the city. The problem I had with Midnight in Paris was that it was almost too lightweight and the story itself was very slight. That being said there are so few comedies being nominated for Oscars that one has to applaud the Academy for taking a risk on such an enjoyable film. Ultimately I found Midnight in Paris a breeze to get through and I think it was the right film to reintroduce Woody into the Best Picture category. Although he personally hasn't featured since, his films are still regularly winning Oscars with Cate Blanchett's performance in Blue Jasmine being the most recent example. 

Next time we change pace with two big budget epics that heralded the blockbuster's return to the Best Picture field.