Showing posts with label Woody Harrelson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Woody Harrelson. Show all posts

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. 

Sunday, 15 June 2014

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 321: Terry's All-Stars



I do feel that when a director has achieved particular acclaim he can get away with most things. Terrence Malick is one such director who was well on his way to being a legend after helming Badlands and Days of Heaven in the 1970s. Malick took a twenty year hiatus following Days of Heaven so when it was announced that he'd be returning to the screen plenty of actors wanted a role in his new film. Luckily he was able to accommodate a fair few big names into The Thin Red Line, a film focusing on the Battle of Mount Austin fought in the Pacific between the Americans and the Japanese. Malick's first cut of the film was supposedly five hours long and obviously had to be cut down substantially to half of that original length. Even then I feel that the copy of The Thin Red Line I watched was overlong and confusing in some regards. One of my main issues was that of the duelling narration between Jim Caviezel's Private Witt and Nick Nolte's Lt. Col. Tall. Witt's story is that of a man who is dissatisfied with army life while Tall is trying to prove himself to his superiors who feel that a man of his advancing years shouldn't still be at war. Because of this Tall makes some risky decisions and it's one of his final choices that has an impact on the team. Events become even more complicated when Malick introduces another story later in the film as Ben Chaplin's Private Bell discovers his wife wants a divorce. The fact that both Caviezel and Chaplin are given voiceovers was rather confusing as at times I couldn't really tell the pair apart. It was only after he nobly died to save his comrades was when I realised that Witt was meant to be the hero of the piece. That alone should tell you that Malick's script was confusing and that some of what was cut from the film may have been important.

Spare a thought then for poor Adrien Brody, who prior to the release of The Thin Red Line had told people that he was the main focus of the film. After watching the film Brody's appearance amounted to nothing more than a five minute cameo towards the conclusion. Brody was understandably upset by the decision and he feels that Malick should have at least have informed of the changes that had been made prior to the film's screening. But at least Brody made into the film which is more than can be said for the likes of Martin Sheen, Micky Rourke, Gary Oldman and Billy Bob Thronton who all had their scenes cut entirely. As there are so many big names floating around it's incredibly hard to single out one or two actors to praise their performances in the film. Nick Nolte probably gives the best turn as the weary Tall and both Sean Penn and John Cusack made good impressions during their extended cameos. Like with most Malick films, the strongest aspect of The Thin Red Line is in its visuals. John Toll's cinematography is outstanding, especially when we follow the soldiers inside the long grass where they hide during their attacks. Toll's point-of-view shots really make you feel part of the action and in a way add to our understanding of what war might have been like for these men. But to me there was almost too much of a focus on arty camerawork and not enough done on character development. I personally wasn't a fan of certain characters reminiscing about their families back home and thought these scenes represented Malick's undisciplined approach to film-making. Hans Zimmer's score really helped the film achieve the emotional tone it was looking for especially when it accompanied The Thin Red Line's battle scenes. But that being said, ultimately I found The Thin Red Line to be a beautifully shot war film that really never compelled me to care about specific character. Rather than changing my views about Malick as a film-maker its simply reinforced them and I've still not be able to see what others do in this supposedly great director.

Next time we look at three films from a respected British actor who appeared in two Best Picture winners during the 1990s.