As the decades have gone on some of the films on the Oscar Challenge have become more violent as film-makers began to push the envelope. The 1970s in particular featured plenty of nominees that had a violent tone and often focused on those operating outside the law. The gangster genre was revived to an extent in the 1990s with two films focusing on mobsters with both being slightly different in tone.
The first was 1991 nominee Goodfellas, a film I'm ashamed to say I've never watched up until this point. The film covers 25 years in the life of Henry Hill who famously always wanted to be a gangster. The opening of the film sees Henry ingratiate himself into the gang and proves himself to them when he refuses to give them up when he first appears in court. Henry's main associate throughout the course of the film is the incredibly volatile Tommy DeVito, who even clashes with his friends on occasion. The other character who recurs throughout the film is the more senior Jimmy Conway who is seen as a gentleman by those who know him. The majority of the film's first half sees the glamorous life that Henry's new position has earned him especially after partaking in numerous robberies. At the same time Tommy's temper gets the trio in a lot of trouble and they end up trying to bury an important member of the mob who was trying to humiliate Tommy. In fact Tommy later kills a young bartender just for insulting him, this coming after he injured the boy's feet. As the years pass Henry find himself in jail, whilst his relationship with his wife Karen deteriorates when he takes on a mistress. The final third of the film deals with Henry's new line in drug-dealing, something he started in prison, and the gang's involvement in the Lufthansa Heist at JFK airport. These latter scenes strip away the glamour of the criminal life as Henry's associates are either murdered or jailed. Despite all that's happened to him Henry still longs for the glamorous life that he no longer has now he's in witness protection.
Goodfellas is often held up as one of the best films of all time but while I enjoyed it throughout there was nothing particularly remarkable about it. Narratively the film has issues as it is led by an expositional voiceover delivered by Ray Liotta as the adult Henry Hill. Voiceovers like this are one of my pet hates in visual storytelling as part of the film mantra is usually 'don't tell us, show us'. In fact Goodfellas really riled me up when it introduced a second voiceover by Lorraine Bracco who played Henry's wife Karen. Although it does have faults, the script moves along quite sharply so we get all of the key facts about Henry's life without every settling down for too long. Director Martin Scorsese really focuses on the opulent life the gangsters enjoy, both at home and in their social life at the Copacabana. I feel that both the art direction and the costume design deserved to be recognised at the Oscars with the latter brilliantly changing to indicate the style of the time. In the role of Henry, Ray Liotta was a dependable presence who really came alive in the latter scenes when his character started to develop a serious amount of paranoia. As we've seen him become a star name over the past couple of decades it's odd that Robert De Niro was used sparingly until the film's final third. I think it works quite well as Jimmy is an interesting character who is explored more as the film goes on. But obviously the most famous performance in the film, and the one that won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar, was that of Joe Pesci as Tommy. From the moment he delivers his iconic 'Funny how?' speech you know you're in the presence of an actor at the top of his game. He employs a frantic energy which means you never know what Tommy will do next but at the same time he makes you sympathise with him when he unsuspectingly gets murdered on one of the happiest days of his life. Action-packed, well-shot and with a fantastic cast; Goodfellas is definitely a fun film to watch but I wouldn't add it to the list of my all-time favourites.
One of the films that I knew very little about before watching it was Barry Levinson's Bugsy which featured in the Best Picture line-up the next year. The film stars Warren Beatty as Ben Siegel who is known as Bugsy to everybody but doesn't like the nickname used in his presence. Bugsy looks at two aspects of Siegel's life both of which happen when he travels from New York to L.A. to sort outside business in the city's betting parlours. Almost instantly Ben falls in love with small-time actress Virginia Hill, who appears to really know how to play to a man's weaknesses. When they meet Ben is already married whilst Virginia is in a relationship with one of Bugsy's acquaintances. Despite that, after a night filled with banter, the two decide that they can't keep their hands off one another. The relationship between Virginia and Ben is rocky at best as he fails to get a divorce and he gets insanely jealous when she even looks at another man. Similarly Virginia is frightened of Ben's violent temper and occasionally he beats somebody up just because they annoy him in some small way. After being abandoned in the desert by Virginia, Ben realises that Las Vegas would be the perfect place to build a hotel and casino. Ben's mobster chums are less than thrilled by the prospect of ploughing a million dollars into a risky venture but they change their minds when they realise that gambling is legal in Nevada. While planning the hotel, Ben puts Virginia in charge of finances and so the project goes way over budget. Eventually Ben is facing problems from every side with his wife wanting a divorce and the mobsters needing a return on the money they've invested. Ultimately Ben's dream for hotel-filled Las Vegas survived but unfortunately he didn't.
Although both feature characters that essentially rob and murder for a living, Bugsy and Goodfellas are very different films. The main difference is that a lot of the violence in Bugsy takes place off-screen whilst Goodfellas is incredibly graphic from the word go. Although we do see Bugsy get physical on a fair few occasions the key murders in the piece are either only heard or performed a lot more subtly than they are in Goodfellas. Even though Goodfellas had the odd funny line, Bugsy is incredibly comedic at times with the dialogue spoken between Ben and Virginia being reminiscent of that of a screwball comedy. This central relationship forms the basis for a film which has a lot of great one-liners and plenty of energy throughout. Most of this energy is provided by Warren Beatty, who probably gives the best performance that I've seen during this challenge. Beatty makes you care about Bugsy and I couldn't help but be one over by his frantic movements and undying love for Virginia. Beatty plays brilliantly off Annette Bening, who one year later would become his wife, and the pair utilise their real life chemistry to great effect. Brilliant support is also provided by Ben Kingsley Ben's associate Meyer Lansky and by Harvey Keitel as the quick-talking Micky Cohen. Unlike Goodfellas, Bugsy also took home awards for its outstanding period costumes and art direction both of which helped to give the film a glamorous look. Again, like with Goodfellas, Bugsy isn't a film that's ever going to be one of my favourites but overall I found it entertaining and surprisingly funny. Additionally, as he was definitely the star of the show, I feel that Beatty should have won his Best Actor Oscar for Bugsy as it is a prize that has eluded him his entire career.
Next time we head to Italy for the two foreign language films that were nominated for Best Picture in the 1990s.
Showing posts with label Warren Beatty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Warren Beatty. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 June 2014
Tuesday, 25 March 2014
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 279-281: Jack's Back!
Arguably one of the largest presences throughout the last decade was Jack Nicholson, who won the Best Actor prize for his role in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and was nominated numerous times elsewhere. Like many of the stars of the 1970s, Jack's success continued into the eighties but oddly he took a backseat in a lot of his roles. In two of the three Best Picture nominees he appeared in he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor twice before being back to playing the lead in the final film of the trio.
In a way I feel that Nicholson's role as a supporting performer allowed him to improve his repertoire and demonstrated the range that he had. A case in point is his turn in Warren Beatty's Reds in which Nicholson plays playwright Eugene O'Neill, an acquaintance of Beatty's journalist turned revolutionary John Reed. Reds was Beatty's epic retelling of the build-up and response to Reed's 'Ten Days That Shook the World' which chronicled his first-hand experiences of the Russian revolution. The first half of the film is dedicated to Reed's life in New York and his relationship with journalist Louise Bryant who is initially presented as a big fan of his. Reed and Bryant get married but their relationship is fraught to say the least as they split-up and reconcile several time throughout the film. At the same time, Bryant starts an affair with O'Neill which is born out of the fact that he doesn't see her as a particularly decent performer in one of his plays. O'Neill pops up throughout the film and is presented as somebody who observes life rather than somebody who actually does something about it. In fact he's almost the polar opposite to Reed whose political views become more radical after his time in Russia and he tries to make some changes to the Socialist Party in America. The final third of the film looks at political identity in Russia and sees Louise try to find John after he goes missing in Finland. The couple's final reunion is beautifully played although it did take a hell of a long time getting there.
It was clear with Reds that Beatty was influenced by the grand epics of past decades, most of which have been featured in this blog. At over three hours long, Reds achieved epic status but at the same time the film felt awfully modern. As with other epics, Reds had some excellent cinematography as well as some great early 20th century period detail and costumes. But what really made Reds unique was the use of 'witnesses', talking heads who appeared throughout the film to discuss their experiences with Reed and Bryant. I felt that these witnesses really made Reds feel like a documentary and their presence bolstered the film from average melodrama to important historical epic. I found Nicholson's performance in Reds to be rather understated and if anything he was the least passionate of all of the characters. To me it took a while to adjust to Jack Nicholson not playing a version of himself but I felt that he was effective in the handful of scenes he appeared in the film. Conversely, Beatty brought the passion both in front and behind the camera to create an idealistic character who was definitely very flawed. Beatty and Diane Keaton had some great chemistry and made us believe in John and Louise's fiery marriage. In fact, Keaton stole the show for me and I enjoyed her performance in Reds more so than her Oscar winning turn in Annie Hall. Oddly, of the four actors nominated for the film it's Maureen Stapleton as Reed's good friend Emma Goldman. There's nothing particularly wrong with Stapleton's performance I just don't feel she's on-screen long enough to warrant the win. Stapleton's only shining moment came towards the end of the film when she delivered a monologue about the changing face of Russian politics. Beatty was awarded with a Best Director prize for Reds, which truly felt like his passion project, whilst a third Oscar was given for the stunning cinematography employed throughout. Ultimately, Reds was a little baggy in places but no more so than other epics and I feel it really benefited from the real life witnesses interviewed throughout. Meanwhile Nicholson delivered an out-of-character performance which demonstrated the range of the actor.
This range continued into a film in which Nicholson won the award for Best Supporting Actor for playing an alcoholic former spaceman who romances his next door neighbour. The film was Terms of Endearment, which itself would go on to win the Best Picture Award that year, and the next door neighbour was Shirely Maclaine's Aurora whose life is chronicled throughout the movie. Over the course of a number of years, we follow the widowed Aurora and her daughter Emma as they fall out and make up numerous times. Aurora is sceptical about Emma's husband Flap, who she believes isn't good enough for her beloved daughter and eventually decides not to attend the woman. This decision puts a wedge between the pair and it takes a while for wounds to be healed and for everybody to move on. When Emma, Flap and their young son move away from Huston things start to unravel as Emma gets pregnant twice more. With Flap never around, Emma is forced to take on the responsibilities of mothering three children with her eldest son beginning to resent her. Throughout the film both Flap and Emma conduct affairs whilst the previously celibate Aurora starts a relationship with Nicholson's Garrett Breedlove, who previously only dated much younger women. The romance between Garrett and Aurora is an interesting one as he is always trying to provoke her whilst she's unsure if he's the right man for her. But a tragic diagnosis puts everything into perspective for the mother and daughter pair who are forced to reconcile for the last time.
As it covers a number of years in our protagonists' lives, I found Terms of Endearment to be incredibly episodic. With its focus on relationships, illness and family bonds I thought that James L Brooks' script suited a soap opera more than it did a Best Picture winner. Indeed, upon watching this film I found little to suggest that it should have been awarded the top prize at that year's Oscars. There were very few likeable characters in the main cast with Aurora being presented as somebody who was realistic to the point of hatred whilst Emma could be quite bratty at times. The only person I had any real sympathy for was Sam, a married bank manager with whom Emma conducts an affair. Michael Gore's Oscar-nominated score was incredibly overpowering and really did nothing for the overall feel of the film. I personally felt that Terms of Endearment's only saving grace were its performances and that's possibly why it went on to win two of the four acting awards at the Oscars. As Aurora, Shirley MacLaine won best actress and I think this was fair enough as she added a slight tenderness to a character who could've been even more detestable in the hands of a lesser actress. However I felt that Maclaine's co-star, and fellow nominee, Debra Winger was more deserving of the Oscar as she definitely turned in the better performance as the tragic Emma. John Lithgow, Jeff Daniels and Danny DeVito lent fine support even if DeVito really didn't have a lot to do as one of Aurora's suitors. But to me it was Nicholson who stole the show as Garrett, a man whose best years are behind him and who is living off one of his previous accomplishments. Nicholson's turn as the man who has to come to terms with the ageing process seemed incredibly real and it almost felt as Garrett's transition marked Nicholson's move to the next stage of his career. Despite him already attaining lead man status, his Supporting Actor Oscar here was more than deserved as he really gave Terms of Endearment the realism is sorely needed.
But, two years later, Nicholson was back where he belonged, in the lead role, as we saw him portray Charley Partanna in Prizzi's Honor. The film is an incredibly darkly comic saga focusing on the Prizzi crime dynasty for whom Charley works as one of their top hitmen. Charley almost married into the family before, conducting a relationship with the Don's grandaughter Maerose, but it ultimately didn't pan out. The film opens at a Prizzi family wedding where Charley spots a beautiful blond woman and wonders who she is. He later runs into this woman at the wedding reception but she quickly disappears before he can ask her name. She later contacts him and reveals herself to be Irene Walker however its only later that Charley discovers that Irene is another contractor for the Prizzi family. In addition, Irene is involved in a casino heist in which she is thought to have stolen a large amount of money from the Prizzis. The film then moves along at a pace as everybody seems to be double crossing one another in order to get money and power. But Irene and Charley's relationship seems to be the only real element of the whole film as they decide to get married. Although the big question is whether two hired killers can ever live together in wedded bliss especially considering all that has gone on up to this point.
Prizzi's Honor was an interesting film in that I never quite knew exactly where it was going. Richard Condon and Janet Roach's script gives us a cast full of characters who really can't be trusted due to the profession that they're all in. In fact the only reliable character is Charley himself who, despite being a contractor, is actually a fairly decent and down-to-Earth guy. You get the impression that, if Charley hadn't been born into this world, then he would just be doing a normal job. At times Prizzi's Honor feels like its spoofing films such as The Godfather especially with its opening wedding scenes which mirror the start of Coppola's classic gangster yarn. The relationship between Charley and Irene also has the feel of a screwball comedy pairing as both are trying to act like the powerful member of the couple. But at times I felt that this comic element made for an imbalance in tone and at times it was hard to decide how seriously Prizzi's Honor was actually taking itself. However John Huston's slick direction made for an incredibly stylish affair which was bolstered by a trio of fine performances. Of all of the performances I've seen of his so far, Prizzi's Honor was the one in which Nicholson played his most down-to-Earth character yet. Nicholson was incredibly restrained as the hitman with a heart who really struggled to know where his allegiance's lay. However Nicholson was eclipsed by his two-female co-stars most notably Kathleen Turner who lent her femme fatale style to the role of Irene. Turner and Nicholson's chemistry was fantastic and I was a little shocked to learn that she didn't receive any recognition from the Oscars. The same cannot be said for Huston's granddaughter Anjelica who won the Best Supporting Actress award for playing the scheming Maerose Prizzi. I though Huston was fantastic throughout the film and really appeared to be having tons of fun playing Maerose. Ultimately Prizzi's Honor was an imbalanced by enjoyable gangster comedy however it wasn't a film that I ever found particularly memorable or engrossing.
Next time we have another Oscar winning performance from an actor who we've seen many times already during this blog.
In a way I feel that Nicholson's role as a supporting performer allowed him to improve his repertoire and demonstrated the range that he had. A case in point is his turn in Warren Beatty's Reds in which Nicholson plays playwright Eugene O'Neill, an acquaintance of Beatty's journalist turned revolutionary John Reed. Reds was Beatty's epic retelling of the build-up and response to Reed's 'Ten Days That Shook the World' which chronicled his first-hand experiences of the Russian revolution. The first half of the film is dedicated to Reed's life in New York and his relationship with journalist Louise Bryant who is initially presented as a big fan of his. Reed and Bryant get married but their relationship is fraught to say the least as they split-up and reconcile several time throughout the film. At the same time, Bryant starts an affair with O'Neill which is born out of the fact that he doesn't see her as a particularly decent performer in one of his plays. O'Neill pops up throughout the film and is presented as somebody who observes life rather than somebody who actually does something about it. In fact he's almost the polar opposite to Reed whose political views become more radical after his time in Russia and he tries to make some changes to the Socialist Party in America. The final third of the film looks at political identity in Russia and sees Louise try to find John after he goes missing in Finland. The couple's final reunion is beautifully played although it did take a hell of a long time getting there.
It was clear with Reds that Beatty was influenced by the grand epics of past decades, most of which have been featured in this blog. At over three hours long, Reds achieved epic status but at the same time the film felt awfully modern. As with other epics, Reds had some excellent cinematography as well as some great early 20th century period detail and costumes. But what really made Reds unique was the use of 'witnesses', talking heads who appeared throughout the film to discuss their experiences with Reed and Bryant. I felt that these witnesses really made Reds feel like a documentary and their presence bolstered the film from average melodrama to important historical epic. I found Nicholson's performance in Reds to be rather understated and if anything he was the least passionate of all of the characters. To me it took a while to adjust to Jack Nicholson not playing a version of himself but I felt that he was effective in the handful of scenes he appeared in the film. Conversely, Beatty brought the passion both in front and behind the camera to create an idealistic character who was definitely very flawed. Beatty and Diane Keaton had some great chemistry and made us believe in John and Louise's fiery marriage. In fact, Keaton stole the show for me and I enjoyed her performance in Reds more so than her Oscar winning turn in Annie Hall. Oddly, of the four actors nominated for the film it's Maureen Stapleton as Reed's good friend Emma Goldman. There's nothing particularly wrong with Stapleton's performance I just don't feel she's on-screen long enough to warrant the win. Stapleton's only shining moment came towards the end of the film when she delivered a monologue about the changing face of Russian politics. Beatty was awarded with a Best Director prize for Reds, which truly felt like his passion project, whilst a third Oscar was given for the stunning cinematography employed throughout. Ultimately, Reds was a little baggy in places but no more so than other epics and I feel it really benefited from the real life witnesses interviewed throughout. Meanwhile Nicholson delivered an out-of-character performance which demonstrated the range of the actor.
This range continued into a film in which Nicholson won the award for Best Supporting Actor for playing an alcoholic former spaceman who romances his next door neighbour. The film was Terms of Endearment, which itself would go on to win the Best Picture Award that year, and the next door neighbour was Shirely Maclaine's Aurora whose life is chronicled throughout the movie. Over the course of a number of years, we follow the widowed Aurora and her daughter Emma as they fall out and make up numerous times. Aurora is sceptical about Emma's husband Flap, who she believes isn't good enough for her beloved daughter and eventually decides not to attend the woman. This decision puts a wedge between the pair and it takes a while for wounds to be healed and for everybody to move on. When Emma, Flap and their young son move away from Huston things start to unravel as Emma gets pregnant twice more. With Flap never around, Emma is forced to take on the responsibilities of mothering three children with her eldest son beginning to resent her. Throughout the film both Flap and Emma conduct affairs whilst the previously celibate Aurora starts a relationship with Nicholson's Garrett Breedlove, who previously only dated much younger women. The romance between Garrett and Aurora is an interesting one as he is always trying to provoke her whilst she's unsure if he's the right man for her. But a tragic diagnosis puts everything into perspective for the mother and daughter pair who are forced to reconcile for the last time.
As it covers a number of years in our protagonists' lives, I found Terms of Endearment to be incredibly episodic. With its focus on relationships, illness and family bonds I thought that James L Brooks' script suited a soap opera more than it did a Best Picture winner. Indeed, upon watching this film I found little to suggest that it should have been awarded the top prize at that year's Oscars. There were very few likeable characters in the main cast with Aurora being presented as somebody who was realistic to the point of hatred whilst Emma could be quite bratty at times. The only person I had any real sympathy for was Sam, a married bank manager with whom Emma conducts an affair. Michael Gore's Oscar-nominated score was incredibly overpowering and really did nothing for the overall feel of the film. I personally felt that Terms of Endearment's only saving grace were its performances and that's possibly why it went on to win two of the four acting awards at the Oscars. As Aurora, Shirley MacLaine won best actress and I think this was fair enough as she added a slight tenderness to a character who could've been even more detestable in the hands of a lesser actress. However I felt that Maclaine's co-star, and fellow nominee, Debra Winger was more deserving of the Oscar as she definitely turned in the better performance as the tragic Emma. John Lithgow, Jeff Daniels and Danny DeVito lent fine support even if DeVito really didn't have a lot to do as one of Aurora's suitors. But to me it was Nicholson who stole the show as Garrett, a man whose best years are behind him and who is living off one of his previous accomplishments. Nicholson's turn as the man who has to come to terms with the ageing process seemed incredibly real and it almost felt as Garrett's transition marked Nicholson's move to the next stage of his career. Despite him already attaining lead man status, his Supporting Actor Oscar here was more than deserved as he really gave Terms of Endearment the realism is sorely needed.
But, two years later, Nicholson was back where he belonged, in the lead role, as we saw him portray Charley Partanna in Prizzi's Honor. The film is an incredibly darkly comic saga focusing on the Prizzi crime dynasty for whom Charley works as one of their top hitmen. Charley almost married into the family before, conducting a relationship with the Don's grandaughter Maerose, but it ultimately didn't pan out. The film opens at a Prizzi family wedding where Charley spots a beautiful blond woman and wonders who she is. He later runs into this woman at the wedding reception but she quickly disappears before he can ask her name. She later contacts him and reveals herself to be Irene Walker however its only later that Charley discovers that Irene is another contractor for the Prizzi family. In addition, Irene is involved in a casino heist in which she is thought to have stolen a large amount of money from the Prizzis. The film then moves along at a pace as everybody seems to be double crossing one another in order to get money and power. But Irene and Charley's relationship seems to be the only real element of the whole film as they decide to get married. Although the big question is whether two hired killers can ever live together in wedded bliss especially considering all that has gone on up to this point.
Prizzi's Honor was an interesting film in that I never quite knew exactly where it was going. Richard Condon and Janet Roach's script gives us a cast full of characters who really can't be trusted due to the profession that they're all in. In fact the only reliable character is Charley himself who, despite being a contractor, is actually a fairly decent and down-to-Earth guy. You get the impression that, if Charley hadn't been born into this world, then he would just be doing a normal job. At times Prizzi's Honor feels like its spoofing films such as The Godfather especially with its opening wedding scenes which mirror the start of Coppola's classic gangster yarn. The relationship between Charley and Irene also has the feel of a screwball comedy pairing as both are trying to act like the powerful member of the couple. But at times I felt that this comic element made for an imbalance in tone and at times it was hard to decide how seriously Prizzi's Honor was actually taking itself. However John Huston's slick direction made for an incredibly stylish affair which was bolstered by a trio of fine performances. Of all of the performances I've seen of his so far, Prizzi's Honor was the one in which Nicholson played his most down-to-Earth character yet. Nicholson was incredibly restrained as the hitman with a heart who really struggled to know where his allegiance's lay. However Nicholson was eclipsed by his two-female co-stars most notably Kathleen Turner who lent her femme fatale style to the role of Irene. Turner and Nicholson's chemistry was fantastic and I was a little shocked to learn that she didn't receive any recognition from the Oscars. The same cannot be said for Huston's granddaughter Anjelica who won the Best Supporting Actress award for playing the scheming Maerose Prizzi. I though Huston was fantastic throughout the film and really appeared to be having tons of fun playing Maerose. Ultimately Prizzi's Honor was an imbalanced by enjoyable gangster comedy however it wasn't a film that I ever found particularly memorable or engrossing.
Next time we have another Oscar winning performance from an actor who we've seen many times already during this blog.
Sunday, 5 January 2014
Matts' Big Oscar Challenge Day 234: There's No Beating Beatty
It's been a while but I'm back on the Oscar trail and determined to at least get to the end of the 1980s by the end of the year. The next four reviews are going to be hazy recollections as I watched them last autumn and stupidly didn't write anything down about them at the time.
The first of the four is Heaven Can Wait a remake, not of the 1940s film Heaven Can Wait, but rather then 1940s film Here Comes Mr Jordan both of which have previously been reviewed on this site. This remake sees Robert Montgomery's baseball player being replaced by Warren Beatty's quaterback Joe Pendleton whose motorcycle ends up colliding with a truck with the result being him taken up to heaven by an over-zealous Guardian Angel. As with the original 1940s film Mr Jordan, here played by James Mason, finds a new body for Joe in the form of billionaire Leo Farnsworth. Joe, as Farnsworth, surprises the current Mrs Farnsworth and the old man's business manager as the pair had recently finished killing him off. But Farnsworth's revival results in them ultimately being rumbled for the crime. Elsewhere Joe falls for environmentalist Betty Logan who has come to Farnsworth industries to complain about their unscrupulous activities. Despite the age difference, Betty soon falls for Farsnworth also buys Joe's old team and tries to make himself quarterback. Obviously, anybody who's seen one of the three versions of the film knows exactly how it will end, but I'm not going to spoil it for you here.
It's very rare in this day and age that a comedy makes its way into the Best Picture line-up and it was in the 1970s that the genre began to disappear altogether from the Academy Awards nominations. I personally feel that Heaven Can Wait got into the Best Picture list due to its star power rather than its comic ability. Alongside Beatty, who was actually pretty good throughout, the all-star cast included Julie Christie, James Mason and Charles Grodin. I do feel that Christie in particular was given little to do aside from standing around and playing the love interest. Though there were some changes made to the characters from the original film version, the pivotal parts of the plot remained the same. The question then has to be why remake it in the first place? The only reason I can possibly offer is that cinematic effects had moved on quite significantly since the early 1940s and, to be fair, the supernatural elements of the plot were more visually spectacular than they had been thirty years ago. The film received a shocking ten nominations at the awards as a whole but only picked up one, a slightly deserving nod for the grandiose art direction. Overall Heaven Can Wait is a decent enough comedy, but to me really didn't feel like one of the best five films from any year.
Next up we have two offerings from a director who is known for his sharp wit and ensemble casts.
Sunday, 24 February 2013
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 181: Rom-cons
I find the 1960s a really interesting period for cinema as it bridges the gap between the glossy product of the early years and the more experimental films from the years to come. A perfect example of this is Bonnie and Clyde a film that is shot a lot differently than many of the films I have watched up to this point and its levels of sex and violence mark it out from the safer movies at the time. The film itself concerns the formation of the Barrow gang led by Warren Beatty's forceful Clyde Barrow who hooks up with Faye Dunaway's Bonnie Parker while attempting to steal her mother's car. The two begin to rob banks and soon join forces with Clyde's brother Buck, his wife Blanche and local oaf CW Moss to become notorious throughout the country. The gang are beset by problems especially that Bonnie and Blanche just don't get on with each other while the quintet soon have an angry policeman on their hands after they embarrass Texas Ranger Frank Harmer. Eventually the gang make several mistakes which allows several of their number to be killed and the rest to hide out at the house of CW's father and while I won't spoil the ending I think most of us know how this story turned out.
I was completely transfixed while watching Bonnie and Clyde from the opening bank robbery through to the bloody shoot-out and the final tragic scene everything about it felt new and fresh. Arthur Penn's directorial style owed a lot to the directors of the French New Wave with the camera angles focusing on the sexuality of both of the central characters. The key relationship is obviously that of Bonnie and Clyde and you can tell the two really do care about each other in between their bank robbing and killing sprees. The interesting thing about Bonnie and Clyde is that it makes a lot of the violence seem incredibly comic especially in the case of some of the music that is used while Gene Wilder's cameo is also an odd choice. Talking of Genes we had Mr Hackman here in his first notable role and as Buck he really is the brains of the Barrow family and even in his early days you could see that he would become a big star. In fact the acting in Bonnie and Clyde is great with all five central cast members getting Oscar nominations but the only win was for Estelle Parsons who played the cranky Blanche. Personally the best performance in the whole film comes from Michael J Pollard as the simple CW who really starts to idolise Clyde to the extent that he thinks he is invincible. That's not to put anything against Beatty or Dunaway who both became big name stars after this film and of course would go on to bigger and better things hereafter. With its breathtaking style and great performances it's not hard to see why Bonnie and Clyde was nominated for so many awards however in a year with so many great movies it only came away with two. However its legacy lives on today through the influential award-winning cinematography and through its comical presentation of violence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)