Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 341: Non-Linear Tales from L.A.

So far the 1990s have primarily given us Best Picture nominees that are set in the past and have fairly rigid story structures. But the decade also produced some fresh voices in the world of film-making who were trying to change the face of the industry. Quentin Tarantino was one such voice whose style of direction combined stylised sequences, comic dialogue and superior soundtracks. Additionally Tarantino became known for his screenplays which were witty and often didn't obey the rules regarding linear storytelling. After a successful debut in Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino hit the big time with the Best Picture nominated Pulp Fiction. The film depicts a number of events which all relate in some way to Ving Rhames' L.A. mob boss Marsellus Wallace and a mysterious briefcase that belongs to him. The retrieval of the briefcase is a job undertaken by hitmen Jules and Vincent who both go on a voyage of discovery throughout the film. Vincent is later tasked with taken Marsellus' pretty wife Mia out on a date where they participate in the now iconic twist-dancing contest. Finally we learn the story of boxer Butch, his dad's gold watch and how he gets on Marsellus' bad side after refusing to throw a fight. Throw in The Wolf, a hold-up at a diner and an overdose and you've got the basic structure of Pulp Fiction. However, Tarantino tipped the structure of the film on its head by having the middle part of the film open and close it whilst the final scenes happened about forty-five minutes before the final credits rolled. This non-linear style really made the film stand-out as did the post-modern references which would become a regular occurrence in Tarantino's later movies. 

I remember being lent a VHS of Pulp Fiction when I was about fifteen and was blown away by the audacity of the movie. I watched it several times during my teens but this was the first time I'd revisited it in a while and I don't think its lost any of its impact. Whilst I'm not a Tarantino fanboy I still feel that his first three films were all great works that gave the film world something new. From the opening conversation between Pumpkin and Honey Bunny to the conclusion of the robbery Pulp Fiction was a compelling watch with one glaring exception. My major problem with Pulp Fiction is the story involving Butch isn't as exciting as the rest of the movie and significantly slows down the pace of the picture. I feel this is partly because Butch is a somewhat withdrawn character and partly due to the explicit nature of the scenes involving Marsellus, Zed and The Gimp. Part of the reason that Butch was given so much screentime was due to the fact that Bruce Willis was the film's biggest name and so had to be given the spotlight in what was a best a mediocre plot strand. Pulp Fiction definitely revived the career of Willis and it did the same for Travolta who needed a resurgence following his appearance in the Look Who's Talking franchise. Travolta's cool, calm and collected persona was perfectly executed as the charming yet violent hitman Vincent. Travolta proved to be an expert screen presence and was given a Best Actor nomination as a reward. Meanwhile Samuel L Jackson stole the show as the Bible-quoting Jules and made quite an impact at the Oscars when he seemed visibly annoyed that he'd lost the Best Supporting Actor prize. Uma Thurman was also nominated for her role as the flirty yet troubled Mia and she was yet another cast member who benefited from appearing in the movie. Capable support was provided by Harvey Keitel whose appearance as The Wolf stands out as one of my favourite parts of the entire film. 

Pulp Fiction is an incredibly stylish film with all of the sets and props being incredibly distinctive. All of the key characters have memorable costumes that helps mark them out and in the long term has meant that we never forget them. Another key aspect of Pulp Fiction is the fact that the film didn't have a score but rather a collection of classic songs which helped propel the action. Nobody can hear Dick Dale's Misirlou without thinking of Pulp Fiction whilst Urge Overkill's cover of 'Girl You'll be a Woman Soon' made into the charts as a result of featuring in the film. As far as Oscar success goes the film saw Tarantino win his first Best Screenplay award which in my opinion was well-deserved. It's not surprising that the film got another six nominations when you consider that it was the first movie to be entirely produced by Harvey Weinstein's Miramax company. As we've seen, Weinstein became incredibly influential throughout the decade when it came to the Oscars but in the case of Pulp Fiction is acclaim was more than deserved. But looking back I think the success of his first three films went to Tarantino's head and he lost the discipline he'd employed in his earlier works. Even his last two movies, which have been critically acclaimed, suffered from some sloppy storytelling and a number of over-indulgent scenes. Thankfully Pulp Fiction reminds of a time before Tarantino's ego got the better of him and I would say that it still stands up today as a masterpiece thanks to its funny and violent nature as well as its extremely accomplished ensemble cast. 

Next time we look at two big movie stars who decided to direct and star in two films that later went on to become Best Picture nominees. 

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 286-287: Don't Stand So Close to Me

During my assessment of her work in the 1950s, I constantly wondered why Deborah Kerr never won an Oscar despite being nominated a mind-boggling six times. There's another lady who has now tied Kerr for being the actress with the most unsuccessful Oscar nominated performances. The actress in question is Glenn Close who in the 1980s lost out in the acting categories a total of five times whilst her most recent loss came a couple of years ago. We've already witnessed one of Close's Oscar-nominated roles, in The Big Chill where she played a well-meaning and friendly Doctor. However, in the tail-end of the decade, Close would demonstrate that she was much better at playing manipulative and at times downright scary female protagonists.

The great thing about Close's performance in Fatal Attraction is that her character initially seems fairly normal. Whilst it's clear that her character Alex Forrest is attracted to Michael Douglas' lawyer Dan Gallagher when they meet at a party there doesn't seem to be anything amiss about her. The audience remain similarly unsurprised when the couple begin an affair while Dan's wife and daughter are out in the country visiting family. The affair between Dan and Alex lasts for one whole weekend during which the latter starts to demonstrate signs that she may not be as normal as we first expected. However, as Alex realises Dan's intentions towards her were only fleeting, she stuns him by slitting her wrists when he attempts to leave. His compassion towards her is misread as something more and soon she's bombarding both his work and home phone with plenty of messages. Dan attempts to evade Alex by changing his phone number but once again she outsmarts him by turning up at his apartment as a potential buyer. Alex eventually admits to Dan that she's pregnant and he's the father but he claims that he wants nothing to do with her. From there Alex's behaviour becomes dangerous as she commits numerous crimes, including one incredibly iconic sequence involving an innocent pet and a pan of scorching water. Eventually Dan admits his affair to his wife and they agree to work together to bring down the psychopathic Alex.

After watching Fatal Attraction my first thought was the shock that a psychological thriller like this was ever nominated for Best Picture. While Fatal Attraction isn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination it's not a movie that I would associate with the Oscars. Indeed, if Fatal Attraction was released in 2014 it would be instantly seen as a slightly creepy erotic film and may garner a cult audience but nothing more. What I personally enjoyed about Adrian Lyne's film is how the shocking moments are interspersed with plenty of mundane scenes involving Dan and his family. I believe that a thriller only works if the thrills are well built up and Fatal Attraction was a film that certainly was aware of how to do this. I do feel that I possibly would've enjoyed the film more had I not known the basic outline of the plot before sitting down to watch it. That being said I was still incredibly shocked by the final scenes which saw Alex's revenge thwarted by the Gallaghers. One of the reason the film works so well is the performance from Close who is believable as the unhinged Alex who would go to any lengths to ensnare the man she feels she should be with. Close excels both in the early scenes as the flirty, confident businesswoman and later as the psychopathic ex-lover with revenge firmly in her sights. Michael Douglas was the go-to sleazeball of the 1980s and here he takes to his role as the philandering family man with ease. My main issue with the film was the fact that the career woman Alex would be completely willing to sacrifice everything just because of her obsession with one man. This did spoil my enjoyment of the film slightly but then I don't think Fatal Attraction is a film that is based firmly in reality. Overall I found Fatal Attraction to be a gripping thriller with a satisfying ending that proved that Close was the perfect choice to play a manipulative character in the 1980s.

I'm sure that's partly why that, a year later, Close was called upon to play the Marquise de Merteuil in Dangerous Liaisons. The film, an adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, portrays Merteuil as a strong woman who attempts to play games with men to avenge the way her sex is treated. Her latest scheme involves getting one over on a former lover by attempting to break in his new fiancée, the virginal Cécile de Volanges, and therefore making a mockery of him in society. To do so she enlists the help of the similarly despicable Vicomte de Valmont who refuses to take part in her plot to deflower Cécile. His primary reason for this refusal is that he's already attempting to seduce another virtuous soul in Madame de Tourvel, a married woman who is currently staying with aunt. Merteuil believes that Valmont doesn't have a chance with Tourvel and makes a wager to this affect making herself the prize. From there the games really start to begin as Valmont manipulates his way around society, professing his love for Tourvel and staging charitable deeds in the hope that she'll see him as a decent man. Eventually, after making a discovery, Valmont agrees to seduce Cécile, an act that proves a lot easier than he first suspected. With a lot of double crossing and sexual encounters along the way, the ending of Dangerous Liaisons is fairly touching. I have to say that I wasn't expecting the sort of conclusion that the film offered and for that reason alone it really surprised me.

Having watched a lot of costume dramas throughout the decades, I can't say without a doubt that Dangerous Liaisons heralded in a new era for the genre. While the Oscar-winning production design and costumes remained fairly traditional the tone of the film was anything just. The tone can be attributed to Christopher Hampton, whose adapted screenplay was incredibly well-placed and was a worthy winner of an Oscar itself. Hampton's mischievous script was full of sexually charged conversations and manipulative characters who generally would have been secondary characters in other costume dramas. Neither Merteuil nor Valmont are particularly likeable characters but it's their hedonistic lifestyle and manipulation of others that makes them so intriguing. Hampton makes sure that neither are considered caricatures and includes scenes in which both explain their motivations for behaving as they do. The supporting characters add different elements to the plot whether it be the piety displayed by Tourvel or the wide-eyed innocence of the ditzy Cécile. Of her two roles in this post, Close is definitely more comfortable playing Merteuil primarily as her vengeance is portrayed as a way of getting back at all the men that have wronged her. Close is great both in her character's scenes with Valmont and those in which she is forced to act as an upstanding pillar of society. Close also shares a brilliant chemistry with John Malkovich who delivers a scenery-chewing performance as the dastardly Valmont. Malkovich controls every scene he's in and I believe its an absolute travesty that he wasn't nominated for his role in the film. Instead, the other nomination went to Michelle Pfieffer who was great at playing the pure Tourvel and in particular portraying her eventual love for Valmont. While I personally enjoyed Uma Thurman's turn as Cécile I felt that Keanu Reeves was miscast as her lover and music teacher Danceny. In fact, as Danency plays a vital part in the closing stages of the film, I would've thought that somebody with a bit mroe experience would've been cast. But that's a minor quibble of a lavishly exotic film that played with the boundaries of the costume drama genre and had fun doing it. Once again it demonstrated that Close was great at playing strong, slightly unhinged female characters.

Ironically, Close's most recent nomination saw her play a woman who was much more at home in her regular guise as a man. I really do hope that Close one day gets her day in the sun and wins an Oscar because, judging from what I've seen in the 1980s alone, she more than deserves it.

Next time a focus on another actress who, unlike Close, successfully won the Best Actress Oscar during the 1980s.