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.
Showing posts with label Tommy Lee Jones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tommy Lee Jones. Show all posts
Friday, 22 May 2015
Tuesday, 31 March 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 416: Coen Country
Although they've only featured once on the blog up to now, when their big Oscar moment came Joel and Ethan Cohen had already been making critically acclaimed movies for twenty years. Whilst Fargo was their biggest hit on the awards scene they'd also made big noise with such hits as O Brother Where Art Thou, The Big Lebowski and Barton Fink. However, their biggest success would come at the 2008 ceremony where they would go on to win three awards for screenwriting, directing and producing that year's Best Picture winner.
The film was No Country for Old Men, which the Coens adapted from the book by Cormac McCarthy. The book's primary focus is on grizzled but kindly Texas sheriff Ed Tom Bell who isn't happy about the fact that his quaint town is used for big money drug deals. Although Bell's words start and the film the focus is instead on one of those aforementioned deals that went awry. Local welder Llewelyn Moss gets himself tangled up in the deal when he finds a bag of money and decides to keep it for himself. However, although he'd know that there'd be people after him, he didn't quite reckon on the ferocity of the film's antagonists. The antagonist in question is Anton Chigurh a fearsome, humourless man who uses a captive bolt pistol as his weapon of choice. Anton has been hired to recover the money and realising what Llewelyn has done tracks him across Texas in attempt to get the cash back. At times No Country for Old Men plays like a silent movie as there are five minute chunks of the film that have no dialogue at all. I feel that this makes the cat-and-mouse game between Llewelyn and Anton all the more interesting especially after both suffer serious injuries. However, even though I've watched the film a handful of times, the ending featuring Bell recounting his dreams to his wife doesn't sit quite right with me. After a shocking scene involving Anton and Llewelyn's wife, there's no denying that an old man relaying memories of his father is going to be at least a little anticlimactic.
I think it's this ending that made some people gravitate towards No Country as they praised it for its subtle tone and character development. Whilst the ending doesn't sit well with me, I agree that No Country for Old Men is a masterclass is subtle film-making. The Coen brothers make sure that the audience has to fully concentrate on the screen in order to immerse themselves in the world of Llewelyn and Anton. For what was their eighth collaboration at the time, The Coens enlisted brilliant cinematographer Roger Deakins to capture the Texas exteriors. Deakins' style for the piece gives it the tone of a classic western, which is certainly odd for a film set in 1980. That being said there's more than a touch of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly when you think about the characters of Bell, Anton and Llewelyn. Tommy Lee Jones is perfectly cast as the laconic Sheriff Bell and he particularly comes to life every time he has to deliver one of his character's monologues. Josh Brolin brings an intensity to the role of out-of-his-depth everyman Llewelyn Moss. Despite his character being quite selfish at times, Brolin is still a brooding screen presence and therefore makes the audience care about Llewelyn's fate. Woody Harrelson livens thinks up briefly as an associate of Anton's who tries to cut a bargain with the hapless Llewelyn. However, the film does belong to Javier Bardem who makes Anton the most memorable element of the film. From the opening scene in which he chokes a cop to death with his handcuffs to how he deals with Llewelyn's wife, Bardem completely owns the screen. Bardem's performance as the intense hitman won him the Best Supporting Actor award that year and I can't say that it wasn't deserved. While this wasn't the Coen Brothers' best film it was certainly an excellent achievement as they combined the old west with a more contemporary thriller element. I think it's also good to see a Best Picture winner that presents its story in a subtle way and doesn't have to rely on special effects or big budget sets to woo the Academy.
And with that we're done with the noughties, next time I review the ten Oscar ceremonies that comprised the decade.
Thursday, 10 July 2014
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 344: As Seen on TV
It has been really interesting chronicling the history of cinema over the course of this blog as we've seen film-making change during the past seventy years. Whereas cinema was once the only source of entertainment that people could find soon films saw themselves competing with a box which could be found in the living room of most homes. Television provided an alternative to the cinema where people could be informed and entertained in equal measure. As we entered the 1990s a trend began to adapt old TV shows into movies with spooky sitcom The Addams Family being the first major example of this. Oscar honoured this trend by nominating The Fugitive for Best Picture with the film being based on the 1960s series of the same name. Although you'd think it would be hard to condense four seasons of a show into a two hour film, I felt that director Andrew Davis and the two screenwriters did an admirable job. Both the TV show and the film focus on Dr. Richard Kimble, a respected surgeon who is convicted of killing his wife and sentenced to death. As the title would suggest, Kimble soon goes on the run and is eager to find the one-armed man who he claims was the real killer. As I wasn't overly familiar with the plot of the TV show, I was wondering how they could possibly have made this premise last so long as it seems like an ideal movie plot. I'm guessing why this was adapted into a film and the cat-and-mouse sequences between Kimble and Deputy Marshall Gerard were expertly choreographed. However, the film doesn't feel too much like a Best Picture winner and instead is nothing more than an above average action thriller. Whilst there's nothing particularly wrong about that genre of the film, I don't think it stacks up against a lot of the other films I've watched over the course of the decade.
It's incredibly surprising then that The Fugitive would be nominated for an amazing seven Oscars including Best Picture and a win for Tommy Lee Jones in the Supporting Actor category. I was sceptical of Jones' win before watching The Fugitive primarily because he'd convinced the academy his performance here was better than Ralph Fiennes' turn in Schindler's List. After watching the film I'm even more convinced that Fiennes should have triumphed as Jones' wise-cracking deputy wasn't exactly a crucial presence in the film. Part of me thinks that his award here was the academy's way of apologising for not giving him the win for his superior performance in JFK which was definitely more of an award-winning turn. I personally feel The Fugitive's main strengths were its cinematography and editing both of which added more tension to the brilliant chase sequences. However, The Fugitive didn't win in any of these categories which I would have a problem with if it weren't for the fact that the majority of the awards went to Schindler's List. After following his career over two decades I feel it's rather a shame that Harrison Ford has reverted back to his action persona especially as we saw him shine in films as diverse as Witness and Working Girl. At the same time Ford is a brilliant action hero and he gives a compelling turn as a wrongly-accused man searching for the truth. Interestingly I feel that Ford looks more like a fugitive before he goes on the run as his beard gives him the look of a homeless gentleman while his clean-shaven look is more in line with that of a debonair doctor. Like a lot of action films, The Fugitive calls for some large suspensions of disbelief in order for the plot to progress but I didn't particularly have a problem with any of these. In fact I found The Fugitive to be a refreshing change to all of the historical epics I've watched recently and it acted as more of a pallet cleanser between the stereotypical 'worthy films'. But ultimately The Fugitive doesn't show me anything that suggests it should be a Best Picture candidate and I definitely feel that Jones' Best Supporting Actor win was a mistake.
Next time we look at a man who became one of the biggest stars of the 1990s.
Sunday, 6 July 2014
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 338-340: The Costner Collection
In my previous post I commented on how Patrick Swayze was one of the top box office draws in 1990 which made Ghost one of the highest-grossing movies of the year. But the man who remained a large draw over four consecutive years in the 1990s was Kevin Costner. Costner had gained most people's attention after appearing as Elliot Ness in The Untouchables before following it up with a starring role in Bull Durham. But it was another baseball film, and Best Picture nominee, that would cement his place as one of cinema's most recognisable stars.
That film was Field of Dreams in which Costner played Ray Kinsella, a farmer with a quirky family who begins to hear voices emanating from his cornfield. The film wasn't one I'd seen before but had heard various things about it namely that it was a feelgood film that appealed to male sports fans in particular. As somebody who's never particularly been a sports fan I was sceptical to the feelings this film provoked and it seems I was right to do this. The other famous attribute of the film is the line 'if you build it he will come' which convinces Ray to erect a baseball pitch next to his cornfield. Thanks to the fact that neither he nor his wife are particularly rational people they build the pitch to see what will happen. The film called for plenty of disbelief suspension as the ghost of disgraced baseball player 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson and various others started to play on the field. However director Phil Alden Robertson insinuated that the ghosts were only visible to open-minded folks due to the fact that Ray's brother-in-law couldn't see them when they were in plain sight. Despite risking financial ruin, Ray listneed to the voice once again as this time he was told to 'Heal his Pain'. The pain he had to heal was that of author Terrence Mann, a voice of the 1960s who had since disappeared from popular culture. Mann was possibly the most interesting character in Field of Dreams as he had become an antisocial recluse refusing to see anybody who'd been inspired by his works. Mann and Ray's road trip soon went into an entirely different direction as we learnt the story of player turned doctor 'Moonlight' Graham. I found the whole Graham subplot to be a bizarre diversion in the film's narrative which then picked up when Ray returned home. Despite not enjoying a lot of what had gone before, I have to admit that I rather enjoyed the final scenes of the film in which Ray was reunited with his father for a game of catch. However I didn't find this to be a particularly heartwarming scene and it didn't bring a tear to my eye in the way that scenes similar to this have done.
Throughout Field of Dreams I tried to work out why Costner would become such a big Box Office draw over the next four years. The answer I came up with was that he had the clean cut looks of a classic movie star and chose projects that would suit his style. The role of Ray Kinsella sees Costner play to his strengths as a likeable man who is following his heart rather than his head. Costner admirably anchored the film but at the same time I didn't think his performance was ever that enigmatic. Personally I thought the film's best performance came courtesy of James Earl Jones who breathed life into the character of Terrence Mann. Jones portrayed Mann as a belligerent character who was once full of ideals but has since fallen into obscurity while also ably conveying the author's change over the course of the film. The inclusion of Burt Lancaster as Doc Graham was an odd one as I don't think a star of his calibre should have appeared in such a small role. As much as I love Lancaster I think he was misused here and I think he should've stuck with his instincts which initially led him to turn down the role. Although I wasn't completely taken in by Field of Dreams' narrative I did think it had a particularly distinctive style. The use of a real farm in Iowa added some realism to the piece and John Lindley's stunning cinematography perfectly captured the exterior scenes. Furthermore Lindley tried his best to shoot the ghostly baseball players in a convincing way and was aided by James Horner's enchanting score. In fact it was Horner's score that stuck with me the most once I'd watched the film and that really says something about both the script and the performances. Whilst Field of Dreams wasn't a bad little film I just wasn't blown away by anything that happened in it and so don't understand the impact that it has had on a lot of people.
Following Field of Dreams, Costner's next project was his first film as a director and one that he'd been personally involved in for over five years. Costner first read Michael Blake's script for Dances with Wolves in the early 1980s and convinced him to turn into a novel. When the novel was finally released, Costner won the film rights and went over budget as well as over schedule to complete the western. There were plenty of sceptics who felt that Dances with Wolves would be a failure based on the fact that Costner broken the unwritten rule of first time directors; never film outdoors. Costner broke this rule in the biggest way possible, setting the majority of the film in the South Dakota countryside. Part of the reason for the delay was due to the area's unpredictable weather which held up filming for days at a time. But Costner wanted to use the area to add realism to the story about a Union Officer who integrates with a Sioux Indian tribe during the American Civil War. Costner's John Dunbar is the officer in question who ventures into the tribal camp when he finds one of their number, Stands with a Fist, wounded and on her own. Dunbar starts to impress the Sioux with his abilities but his failure to speak their language means that he has trouble communicating with them. Thankfully Stands with a Fist, who was adopted by the community after being born into an English-speaking family, remembers how to converse in her native tongue and eventually falls in love with Dunbar. Due to his relationship with a certain mammal, Dunbar later changes his name to 'Dances with Wolves' and helps his new family defeat the vicious Pawnee Tribe. However, Dunbar is later captured by his own people who believe he is a traitor to their cause and place him under arrest. The film's final scenes bring up the themes of family and finding somewhere to belong but deliver this message in an incredibly brutal way.
With the delays on the film, Dances with Wolves was expecting to be a flop especially considering it was a three hour western from a debut director. However critics and audiences flocked to see the film and it was later named Best Picture with Costner winning a further award for Best Director. Watching the film more than twenty years later I can't really see what both the critics and the academy members saw to make them hold the film in such high acclaim. A lot of the positives can be attributed to Dean Semler's cinematography which perfectly captured the imagery of the American west. Semler led me into Costner's world of the Sioux tribe and on a visual level I felt like I was part of the action. The story was another matter altogether as Blake's script was overlong and seemed to tread over the same points many times. In my opinion it took far too long for Dunbar to encounter the Sioux tribe as his integration into their society was the main story of the film. I was equally disinterested in Dunbar's relationship with Stands with a Fist partly because of Mary McDonnell's subdued performance. Whilst the character of Stands with a Fist was an interesting one I don't think McDonnell was really captivating and I don't feel that she shared a lot of chemistry with Costner. Of the three films in this post, I feel Dances with Wolves features Costner's weakest performance as he plays an unconvincing military hero. In my opinion Costner is at his best when he's on screen with other actors but as Dunbar faces plenty of solitary days during the film he's forced to lead the film single-handedly. I do feel that Costner should have stayed behind the scenes and given somebody else the role of Dunbar as it seems to me as if he was a little over-stretched. Although visually stunning, Dances with Wolves was a struggle for me to get through and I found the two central performances to be incredibly mediocre. But, as we've learnt by now, the academy loves a historical epic and Costner definitely delivered that with Dances with Wolves.
Costner won his two Oscars in 1991 before going on to play Robin Hood and as a result was subsequently named the biggest Box Office draw of the year. 1991 also saw Costner star in his third and final Best Picture nominated film as he starred as district attorney Jim Garrison in Oliver Stone's JFK. Costner resurrects the everyman persona he had in Field of Dreams to play the New Orleans DA who is desperate to point out the inaccuracies carried out in the Warren Report into President Kennedy's assassination. The film itself almost acts as a drama documentary with a long prologue, narrated by Martin Sheen, talking about the good Kennedy did for the country and what happened following the assassination. Garrison's main claim is that other people were involved in the assassination and that the original suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald, may not have been part of the plan. Stone's script, co-written with Zachary Sklar, sees Garrison conduct a number of interviews with witnesses and his staff. These dialogue-heavy scenes are interspersed with flashbacks of the events themselves which are all presented in black and white. I found this to be an interesting narrative device that stopped the film dragging and gives the audience a visual aid to enhance the characters' dialogue. Garrison finally finds enough evidence to charge New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw with conspiracy to murder but discovers that several forces are acting against him bringing the case to trial. Stone uses his film to criticise the media's ability to tarnish the reputation of an individual to the extent that people start to distrust every word Garrison says. Although it was a little clichéd, the affect that Garrison's investigation had on his family was a well-executed subplot and one that felt realistic. The final court case in which Garrison struggled against the full force of the government was perfectly executed and was up there with some of cinema's finest courtroom scenes. However I personally felt that Garrison's final speech was a little bit overblown and it almost felt like Stone was writing at testimony against everything that was wrong with the US government.
Unsurprisingly the film was met with mass controversy on its release as many critics accused Stone of rewriting history. As somebody who has very little knowledge of this time in American history I felt that JFK was an interesting exploration of a potential cover-up. But even I felt Stone's approach was a little heavy-handed and some of his suggestions seemed completely over-the-top. Though not as over-stretched as Dances with Wolves, JFK was still a bit overlong for my liking with a few scenes being surplus to requirements. But those are just minor niggles in a film that is stylish, well-written and that includes a fantastic ensemble cast all of whom play their parts brilliantly. As Shaw, Tommy Lee Jones is convincing as both a Louisiana slimeball and a closeted homosexual who is ashamed of certain parts of his life. Jones' performance earned JFK its only acting nomination but this doesn't do justice to some of the fine turns put in by Joe Pesci, Kevin Bacon and Laurie Metcalf. But to me the best performance came from Gary Oldman as Harvey Oswald as he's able to bring some sympathy to one of history's most famous killers. Oswald's story is told almost entirely in flashbacks but Oldman's charisma is enough to make all aspect of his character appear realistic. Robert Richardson's cinematography brilliantly captures the hectic nature of the day of Kennedy's assassination and the various elements that help back-up Garrison's case. Stone was committed to recreating the assassination almost frame-for-frame and used the real Dealey Plaza to do so. The film's editing was one of its biggest strengths as Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia seamlessly cut between the characters' speaking and the black and white flashbacks. As you would expect, John Williams' musical sequences enhance the film even more and feel incredibly presidential. Overall I enjoyed the majority of JFK with only Stone's heavy-handedness letting the film down slightly.
Meanwhile Costner continued to be a star following his roles in JFK and the romantic drama The Bodyguard. But Costner fell from favour following such flops as The Postman and Waterworld and as a result he lost his headliner status. Having watched these three films it was clear that audiences were drawn to Costner's likeable presence and he often played reliable heroes who did little wrong. But at the same time I can see why he hasn't had the long-lasting appeal of some other headliners and instead is now playing supporting roles in films such as the recent Jack Ryan instalment.
Next time we see the rise of a director who burst onto the scene in the 1990s with a whole new approach to film-making.
That film was Field of Dreams in which Costner played Ray Kinsella, a farmer with a quirky family who begins to hear voices emanating from his cornfield. The film wasn't one I'd seen before but had heard various things about it namely that it was a feelgood film that appealed to male sports fans in particular. As somebody who's never particularly been a sports fan I was sceptical to the feelings this film provoked and it seems I was right to do this. The other famous attribute of the film is the line 'if you build it he will come' which convinces Ray to erect a baseball pitch next to his cornfield. Thanks to the fact that neither he nor his wife are particularly rational people they build the pitch to see what will happen. The film called for plenty of disbelief suspension as the ghost of disgraced baseball player 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson and various others started to play on the field. However director Phil Alden Robertson insinuated that the ghosts were only visible to open-minded folks due to the fact that Ray's brother-in-law couldn't see them when they were in plain sight. Despite risking financial ruin, Ray listneed to the voice once again as this time he was told to 'Heal his Pain'. The pain he had to heal was that of author Terrence Mann, a voice of the 1960s who had since disappeared from popular culture. Mann was possibly the most interesting character in Field of Dreams as he had become an antisocial recluse refusing to see anybody who'd been inspired by his works. Mann and Ray's road trip soon went into an entirely different direction as we learnt the story of player turned doctor 'Moonlight' Graham. I found the whole Graham subplot to be a bizarre diversion in the film's narrative which then picked up when Ray returned home. Despite not enjoying a lot of what had gone before, I have to admit that I rather enjoyed the final scenes of the film in which Ray was reunited with his father for a game of catch. However I didn't find this to be a particularly heartwarming scene and it didn't bring a tear to my eye in the way that scenes similar to this have done.
Throughout Field of Dreams I tried to work out why Costner would become such a big Box Office draw over the next four years. The answer I came up with was that he had the clean cut looks of a classic movie star and chose projects that would suit his style. The role of Ray Kinsella sees Costner play to his strengths as a likeable man who is following his heart rather than his head. Costner admirably anchored the film but at the same time I didn't think his performance was ever that enigmatic. Personally I thought the film's best performance came courtesy of James Earl Jones who breathed life into the character of Terrence Mann. Jones portrayed Mann as a belligerent character who was once full of ideals but has since fallen into obscurity while also ably conveying the author's change over the course of the film. The inclusion of Burt Lancaster as Doc Graham was an odd one as I don't think a star of his calibre should have appeared in such a small role. As much as I love Lancaster I think he was misused here and I think he should've stuck with his instincts which initially led him to turn down the role. Although I wasn't completely taken in by Field of Dreams' narrative I did think it had a particularly distinctive style. The use of a real farm in Iowa added some realism to the piece and John Lindley's stunning cinematography perfectly captured the exterior scenes. Furthermore Lindley tried his best to shoot the ghostly baseball players in a convincing way and was aided by James Horner's enchanting score. In fact it was Horner's score that stuck with me the most once I'd watched the film and that really says something about both the script and the performances. Whilst Field of Dreams wasn't a bad little film I just wasn't blown away by anything that happened in it and so don't understand the impact that it has had on a lot of people.
Following Field of Dreams, Costner's next project was his first film as a director and one that he'd been personally involved in for over five years. Costner first read Michael Blake's script for Dances with Wolves in the early 1980s and convinced him to turn into a novel. When the novel was finally released, Costner won the film rights and went over budget as well as over schedule to complete the western. There were plenty of sceptics who felt that Dances with Wolves would be a failure based on the fact that Costner broken the unwritten rule of first time directors; never film outdoors. Costner broke this rule in the biggest way possible, setting the majority of the film in the South Dakota countryside. Part of the reason for the delay was due to the area's unpredictable weather which held up filming for days at a time. But Costner wanted to use the area to add realism to the story about a Union Officer who integrates with a Sioux Indian tribe during the American Civil War. Costner's John Dunbar is the officer in question who ventures into the tribal camp when he finds one of their number, Stands with a Fist, wounded and on her own. Dunbar starts to impress the Sioux with his abilities but his failure to speak their language means that he has trouble communicating with them. Thankfully Stands with a Fist, who was adopted by the community after being born into an English-speaking family, remembers how to converse in her native tongue and eventually falls in love with Dunbar. Due to his relationship with a certain mammal, Dunbar later changes his name to 'Dances with Wolves' and helps his new family defeat the vicious Pawnee Tribe. However, Dunbar is later captured by his own people who believe he is a traitor to their cause and place him under arrest. The film's final scenes bring up the themes of family and finding somewhere to belong but deliver this message in an incredibly brutal way.
With the delays on the film, Dances with Wolves was expecting to be a flop especially considering it was a three hour western from a debut director. However critics and audiences flocked to see the film and it was later named Best Picture with Costner winning a further award for Best Director. Watching the film more than twenty years later I can't really see what both the critics and the academy members saw to make them hold the film in such high acclaim. A lot of the positives can be attributed to Dean Semler's cinematography which perfectly captured the imagery of the American west. Semler led me into Costner's world of the Sioux tribe and on a visual level I felt like I was part of the action. The story was another matter altogether as Blake's script was overlong and seemed to tread over the same points many times. In my opinion it took far too long for Dunbar to encounter the Sioux tribe as his integration into their society was the main story of the film. I was equally disinterested in Dunbar's relationship with Stands with a Fist partly because of Mary McDonnell's subdued performance. Whilst the character of Stands with a Fist was an interesting one I don't think McDonnell was really captivating and I don't feel that she shared a lot of chemistry with Costner. Of the three films in this post, I feel Dances with Wolves features Costner's weakest performance as he plays an unconvincing military hero. In my opinion Costner is at his best when he's on screen with other actors but as Dunbar faces plenty of solitary days during the film he's forced to lead the film single-handedly. I do feel that Costner should have stayed behind the scenes and given somebody else the role of Dunbar as it seems to me as if he was a little over-stretched. Although visually stunning, Dances with Wolves was a struggle for me to get through and I found the two central performances to be incredibly mediocre. But, as we've learnt by now, the academy loves a historical epic and Costner definitely delivered that with Dances with Wolves.
Costner won his two Oscars in 1991 before going on to play Robin Hood and as a result was subsequently named the biggest Box Office draw of the year. 1991 also saw Costner star in his third and final Best Picture nominated film as he starred as district attorney Jim Garrison in Oliver Stone's JFK. Costner resurrects the everyman persona he had in Field of Dreams to play the New Orleans DA who is desperate to point out the inaccuracies carried out in the Warren Report into President Kennedy's assassination. The film itself almost acts as a drama documentary with a long prologue, narrated by Martin Sheen, talking about the good Kennedy did for the country and what happened following the assassination. Garrison's main claim is that other people were involved in the assassination and that the original suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald, may not have been part of the plan. Stone's script, co-written with Zachary Sklar, sees Garrison conduct a number of interviews with witnesses and his staff. These dialogue-heavy scenes are interspersed with flashbacks of the events themselves which are all presented in black and white. I found this to be an interesting narrative device that stopped the film dragging and gives the audience a visual aid to enhance the characters' dialogue. Garrison finally finds enough evidence to charge New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw with conspiracy to murder but discovers that several forces are acting against him bringing the case to trial. Stone uses his film to criticise the media's ability to tarnish the reputation of an individual to the extent that people start to distrust every word Garrison says. Although it was a little clichéd, the affect that Garrison's investigation had on his family was a well-executed subplot and one that felt realistic. The final court case in which Garrison struggled against the full force of the government was perfectly executed and was up there with some of cinema's finest courtroom scenes. However I personally felt that Garrison's final speech was a little bit overblown and it almost felt like Stone was writing at testimony against everything that was wrong with the US government.
Unsurprisingly the film was met with mass controversy on its release as many critics accused Stone of rewriting history. As somebody who has very little knowledge of this time in American history I felt that JFK was an interesting exploration of a potential cover-up. But even I felt Stone's approach was a little heavy-handed and some of his suggestions seemed completely over-the-top. Though not as over-stretched as Dances with Wolves, JFK was still a bit overlong for my liking with a few scenes being surplus to requirements. But those are just minor niggles in a film that is stylish, well-written and that includes a fantastic ensemble cast all of whom play their parts brilliantly. As Shaw, Tommy Lee Jones is convincing as both a Louisiana slimeball and a closeted homosexual who is ashamed of certain parts of his life. Jones' performance earned JFK its only acting nomination but this doesn't do justice to some of the fine turns put in by Joe Pesci, Kevin Bacon and Laurie Metcalf. But to me the best performance came from Gary Oldman as Harvey Oswald as he's able to bring some sympathy to one of history's most famous killers. Oswald's story is told almost entirely in flashbacks but Oldman's charisma is enough to make all aspect of his character appear realistic. Robert Richardson's cinematography brilliantly captures the hectic nature of the day of Kennedy's assassination and the various elements that help back-up Garrison's case. Stone was committed to recreating the assassination almost frame-for-frame and used the real Dealey Plaza to do so. The film's editing was one of its biggest strengths as Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia seamlessly cut between the characters' speaking and the black and white flashbacks. As you would expect, John Williams' musical sequences enhance the film even more and feel incredibly presidential. Overall I enjoyed the majority of JFK with only Stone's heavy-handedness letting the film down slightly.
Meanwhile Costner continued to be a star following his roles in JFK and the romantic drama The Bodyguard. But Costner fell from favour following such flops as The Postman and Waterworld and as a result he lost his headliner status. Having watched these three films it was clear that audiences were drawn to Costner's likeable presence and he often played reliable heroes who did little wrong. But at the same time I can see why he hasn't had the long-lasting appeal of some other headliners and instead is now playing supporting roles in films such as the recent Jack Ryan instalment.
Next time we see the rise of a director who burst onto the scene in the 1990s with a whole new approach to film-making.
Friday, 4 April 2014
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 288-289: A Bunch of Sissy's
From Glenn Close we turn our attention to another great actress in Sissy Spacek. Far from playing the Feme Fatale which has been Close's go to guise, Spacek's acting style was is much more natural and allows the audience to identify with her character. It was this down-to-Earth attitude that earned her six best Actress nominations one of which she turned into a win.
Spacek's winning performance came as country singer Loretta Lynn in Coal Miner's Daughter. I thought her innocent wide-eyed look was perfect as she had to portray Lynn as a young woman of thirteen up to her glory days as a country star. In fact I thought that Spacek almost pulled off being a teenager in the opening scenes and was fantastic in portraying the transformation of Lynn over the years. The first part of the film sees Loretta being courted by eventual husband Mooney who soon breaks a promise he made to her father and moves her away from her native Kentucky. As she has a brilliant voice, Mooney encourages her to perform and she soon receives an offer to cut a demo for her first single. Realising that they have to capitalise on this initial breakthrough, Mooney and Loretta go on a tour of DJs and promoters in the south in order to get her voice heard. Loretta's innocence makes her seem instantly likeable and she's genuinely shocked when she discovers her song 'Honky Tonk Girl' has made into the charts. This in turn lands her a spot on the Grand Ole Opry and she soon attracts the attention of her idol Patsy Cline. As Loretta's success grows, Mooney becomes jealous of his wife becoming the more dominant one in their marriage. With Loretta beginning to overwork herself she soon becomes stressed and unable to remember the words to her lyrics. Although she suffers a breakdown, the film ends on a high as we witness her comeback and the performance of the film's titular track 'Coal Miner's Daughter'.
Having watched a lot of biopics about musicians in the past I did approach Coal Miner's Daughter with some level of trepidation. Luckily, I needn't of worried as Michael Apted's film was an incredibly well-paced piece that covered all of the key points of Lynn's life without every overstaying its welcome. Tom Rickman's adaptation of Lynn's autobiography made me understand the motivations of both her and Mooney as her success in the music business changed her to an extent. What I liked about both of the Lynns is how they didn't feel like stereotypes and instead felt like real people throughout the course of the film. Whilst Mooney does react jealousy to Loretta's new stardom he never gets aggressive and is later supportive of her during her breakdown. Similarly you can understand Loretta's need to make herself more glamorous as her star ascends despite the fact that she really doesn't need as much make-up as she thinks she does. The musical numbers are all joyous, though I suppose you have to at least enjoy country music a little bit to appreciate them. Sissy Spacek more than deserved her Oscar as she portrayed all of the stages of Lynn's persona from innocent teenager to glamorous superstar to an overworked singer heading for a nervous breakdown. Spacek excelled at portraying Lynn's innocent charm and she really made the character come alive both through her acting and her singing. I'm shocked that Tommy Lee Jones didn't receive at least a nomination for his role as the supportive yet jealous Mooney. I personally believe that his performance is as integral as Spacek's and I really found his performance brought out the human side in the sometimes aggressive Mooney. Coal Miner's Daughter was really a step above the normal biopic and showcased just how great Spacek can be when given the right part.
The fact that they are both based on true stories is possibly the only similarity between Coal Miner's Daughter and Spacek's other Best Picture nominee Missing. Missing doesn't have the gloss of a Best Picture film but instead employs the documentary style favoured by its director Costa-Gavras. Set in Chile during the rule of Pinochet, Spacek plays Beth Horman the wife of a radical journalist who goes missing after their house was ransacked. Charlie's disappearance prompts his father to arrive in Chile and seek help from the American consulate in finding his son. Ed had never approved of his son's life choices and wondered why he'd never settled down and got a proper job. Whereas Charlie was a fairly liberal young man, his father is incredibly conservative and is a practising Christian Scientist meaning he's very much a man of faith. Ed and Beth clash over the latter's lack of co-operation with the men who are attempting to help find Charlie. Beth's distrust of the men is later explained through a series of flashbacks showing what sort of a man Captain Ray Tower actually is. As they spend more time together, Ed and Beth continue to bond as he realises the horrors of the country his son briefly called home. With the American government appearing more suspicious then they first seemed, Ed begins to give up hope of ever seeing his son again. Though the ending is predictable, especially if you were aware of the original story, it doesn't make it any less shocking.
Missing was a film that focused on a recent crisis and gave it a human face. Costa-Gavras portrayed the Chile of the time where bodies were simply strewn across the streets for all to see and where the sound of gunshots was a regular occurrence. Ricardo Aronovich's superb cinematography captured all this brutal detail perfectly and he particularly excelled when shooting the scenes in Chile's national stadium. The human face of the film was Ed who was experiencing the horrific nature of the country first hand and we as the audience were meant to relate to him. The fact that Ed was played by Jack Lemmon meant that he came across as likeable despite his initial prejudices and beliefs. Lemmon's performance was just brilliant as he made the audience identify with a man who was just trying to find his son. Though Beth wasn't as innocent as Loretta Lynn, Spacek still played an extremely down-to-Earth character. Spacek played Beth as somebody who was horrified by what was going on around but had got used to it over time. Spacek also really came alive when portraying Beth's defiance in the face of the American authorities. Another memorable aspect of the film was Vangelis' electric score which contributed to both the jarring nature of the Chilean conflict and the emotional aspects of the Ed/Beth relationship. Even though I found it tough to get through at times, Missing was nonetheless an accomplished film which told the story of a conflict through the eyes of those who didn't quite want to believe it. It is definitely a piece of historical film-making and one that is still as relevant today as it was thirty years ago.
Next time we have the film which became the last live action musical to be nominated for Best Picture for twenty-two years!
Spacek's winning performance came as country singer Loretta Lynn in Coal Miner's Daughter. I thought her innocent wide-eyed look was perfect as she had to portray Lynn as a young woman of thirteen up to her glory days as a country star. In fact I thought that Spacek almost pulled off being a teenager in the opening scenes and was fantastic in portraying the transformation of Lynn over the years. The first part of the film sees Loretta being courted by eventual husband Mooney who soon breaks a promise he made to her father and moves her away from her native Kentucky. As she has a brilliant voice, Mooney encourages her to perform and she soon receives an offer to cut a demo for her first single. Realising that they have to capitalise on this initial breakthrough, Mooney and Loretta go on a tour of DJs and promoters in the south in order to get her voice heard. Loretta's innocence makes her seem instantly likeable and she's genuinely shocked when she discovers her song 'Honky Tonk Girl' has made into the charts. This in turn lands her a spot on the Grand Ole Opry and she soon attracts the attention of her idol Patsy Cline. As Loretta's success grows, Mooney becomes jealous of his wife becoming the more dominant one in their marriage. With Loretta beginning to overwork herself she soon becomes stressed and unable to remember the words to her lyrics. Although she suffers a breakdown, the film ends on a high as we witness her comeback and the performance of the film's titular track 'Coal Miner's Daughter'.
Having watched a lot of biopics about musicians in the past I did approach Coal Miner's Daughter with some level of trepidation. Luckily, I needn't of worried as Michael Apted's film was an incredibly well-paced piece that covered all of the key points of Lynn's life without every overstaying its welcome. Tom Rickman's adaptation of Lynn's autobiography made me understand the motivations of both her and Mooney as her success in the music business changed her to an extent. What I liked about both of the Lynns is how they didn't feel like stereotypes and instead felt like real people throughout the course of the film. Whilst Mooney does react jealousy to Loretta's new stardom he never gets aggressive and is later supportive of her during her breakdown. Similarly you can understand Loretta's need to make herself more glamorous as her star ascends despite the fact that she really doesn't need as much make-up as she thinks she does. The musical numbers are all joyous, though I suppose you have to at least enjoy country music a little bit to appreciate them. Sissy Spacek more than deserved her Oscar as she portrayed all of the stages of Lynn's persona from innocent teenager to glamorous superstar to an overworked singer heading for a nervous breakdown. Spacek excelled at portraying Lynn's innocent charm and she really made the character come alive both through her acting and her singing. I'm shocked that Tommy Lee Jones didn't receive at least a nomination for his role as the supportive yet jealous Mooney. I personally believe that his performance is as integral as Spacek's and I really found his performance brought out the human side in the sometimes aggressive Mooney. Coal Miner's Daughter was really a step above the normal biopic and showcased just how great Spacek can be when given the right part.
The fact that they are both based on true stories is possibly the only similarity between Coal Miner's Daughter and Spacek's other Best Picture nominee Missing. Missing doesn't have the gloss of a Best Picture film but instead employs the documentary style favoured by its director Costa-Gavras. Set in Chile during the rule of Pinochet, Spacek plays Beth Horman the wife of a radical journalist who goes missing after their house was ransacked. Charlie's disappearance prompts his father to arrive in Chile and seek help from the American consulate in finding his son. Ed had never approved of his son's life choices and wondered why he'd never settled down and got a proper job. Whereas Charlie was a fairly liberal young man, his father is incredibly conservative and is a practising Christian Scientist meaning he's very much a man of faith. Ed and Beth clash over the latter's lack of co-operation with the men who are attempting to help find Charlie. Beth's distrust of the men is later explained through a series of flashbacks showing what sort of a man Captain Ray Tower actually is. As they spend more time together, Ed and Beth continue to bond as he realises the horrors of the country his son briefly called home. With the American government appearing more suspicious then they first seemed, Ed begins to give up hope of ever seeing his son again. Though the ending is predictable, especially if you were aware of the original story, it doesn't make it any less shocking.
Missing was a film that focused on a recent crisis and gave it a human face. Costa-Gavras portrayed the Chile of the time where bodies were simply strewn across the streets for all to see and where the sound of gunshots was a regular occurrence. Ricardo Aronovich's superb cinematography captured all this brutal detail perfectly and he particularly excelled when shooting the scenes in Chile's national stadium. The human face of the film was Ed who was experiencing the horrific nature of the country first hand and we as the audience were meant to relate to him. The fact that Ed was played by Jack Lemmon meant that he came across as likeable despite his initial prejudices and beliefs. Lemmon's performance was just brilliant as he made the audience identify with a man who was just trying to find his son. Though Beth wasn't as innocent as Loretta Lynn, Spacek still played an extremely down-to-Earth character. Spacek played Beth as somebody who was horrified by what was going on around but had got used to it over time. Spacek also really came alive when portraying Beth's defiance in the face of the American authorities. Another memorable aspect of the film was Vangelis' electric score which contributed to both the jarring nature of the Chilean conflict and the emotional aspects of the Ed/Beth relationship. Even though I found it tough to get through at times, Missing was nonetheless an accomplished film which told the story of a conflict through the eyes of those who didn't quite want to believe it. It is definitely a piece of historical film-making and one that is still as relevant today as it was thirty years ago.
Next time we have the film which became the last live action musical to be nominated for Best Picture for twenty-two years!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)