As we've seen throughout the course of this blog, plenty of Oscar nominees and winners been based on well-known pieces of literature. However, the next film on hour list; 2003 nominee The Hours is rather uniquely inspired by Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway. David Hare's adaptation of Michael Cunningham's novel focuses on three women who are all touched by the book in different ways.
The first story concentrates on Woolf herself as she begins to write Mrs. Dalloway in 1923 whilst at the same time dealing with her various emotional issues. The second story is set in suburban Los Angeles during the early 1950s and deals with Laura Brown who is reading Mrs. Dalloway. Finally, in modern day New York, Clarissa Vaughan is planning a party for her dying poet friend Richard who refers to her as Mrs. Dalloway. Despite their disparate time lines and settings; all of the three women who The Hours concentrates on have plenty of similarities. All of three are suffering from mental problems of all kinds; with Virginia struggling with her countryside surroundings, Laura considering suicide and Claudia busying herself with party planning to blot out her insecurities. All three women also have feelings for the same sex whether it be on show, such as Claudia's lesbian relationship with her long term partner, or kept behind closed doors. What I liked about Hare's screenplay was the fact that he kept all three storylines ticking along nicely and made sure that we didn't forget about any one thread. If I'm honest, the least interesting of the three stories was that of Woolf herself who was a little bit too precious to ever care about that much. I enjoyed the subtlety of the Laura storyline and its exploration of the dark underbelly of 1950s suburbia. Meanwhile, Claudia's tale was full of regret and had a rather shocking scene towards the end of it. One element of the final scenes I wasn't particularly keen on was the way that Claudia and Laura's scenes linked together however it did make sense to the overall tale.
Interestingly all three of The Hours' lead actresses were nominated at that year's ceremony however only two of them were representing that film. Despite giving the weakest turn of the three, Nicole Kidman's portrayal of Virginia Woolf netted her that year's Best Actress prize. I would agree with those who theorised that the reason that she was given the award was for putting on a prosthetic nose that made her look only slightly detracted from her overall beauty. Kidman did little to make me care about the Woolf scenes which only perked up with the arrival of Miranda Richardson as her lively sister. Even though she was on screen longer, Julianne Moore was nominated for Best Supporting Actress for her tender portrayal of Laura Brown; a woman who was on the verge of ending it all. Moore was also nominated for Best Actress that year for a similar turn in Far From Heaven however I think her performance in The Hours was slightly better. Oddly the best performance of the trio, which came from Meryl Streep, failed to garner a nomination with the actress instead being recognised for her turn in Adaptation. I think that Streep delivered one of her greatest performances as the bisexual Claudia who was hanging on to the one summer she spent with the love of her life, Richard. As Richard, Ed Harris was a revelation and I feel that he should have won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar that year that ultimately went to Streep's Adaptation co-star Chris Cooper. Aside from the fine performances and well-paced plot, Philip Glass' ever-present score deserves a mention even if it did make some of the scenes feel slightly overblown. This was my first time watching The Hours and I have to admit that I rather liked it even if Kidman's scenes as Woolf bored me a little. It was great to see a female-centric tale garner so much acclaim and I found it to be an easy-to-watch, well-written film.
Next time we return to the work of a director who had somewhat of a resurgence in the early 21st century.
Saturday, 28 March 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 407-408: George, by George
We first met George Clooney back in the 1990s when he was one of many actors who had a bit part in The Thin Red Line. At the time Clooney was beginning to breakthrough into movies after coming to prominence as Dr. Doug Ross in E.R. Finishing his tenure with the show at the end of 1999; Clooney ascended to movie star status during the early 21st century. In 2002 he directed his first film, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and three years later would helm his second feature which netted him a Best Director nod.
That film was Good Night and Good Luck; which earned six nominations in all including two for Clooney in both the directing and screenwriting categories. Clooney also starred in the film as Fred Friendly the co-producer of notorious broadcaster Edward R. Morrow. The story focuses on Morrow's various attacks on Senator Joseph McCarthy and in particular his criticism of the scaremongering tactics that were being employed by his administration. The war begins when Morrow criticises McCarthy's prosecution of a young officer without having any proof of his wrongdoings. Their battle intensifies when McCarthy outright accuses Morrow of having communist leanings to which the host of 'See it Now' totally denies. Clooney and co-writer Grant Heslov's script looks at the effects of this war of words on both the CBS network and Murrow's colleagues on the 'See it Now' show. These include Joseph and Shirley; a married couple who have to keep their relationship a secret from their colleagues due to CBS guidelines. Also featured heavily is CBS journalist Don Hellenbeck, who is criticised in the press for being a 'pinko' and who ultimately commits suicide. In my opinion it's the relationship between the staff members that makes Good Night and Good Luck so successful especially when you come to realise they're like a little family. I especially liked the loyalty displayed by CBS Boss William Palley, the father figure of the group, who defended Murrow's actions to the advertisers who were worried about his barbed attacks. I also liked the way in which the film's narrative was book-ended by Murrow's speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association in which he condemns the way in which TV is dumbing down.
It's clear that in both his writing and direction of Good Night and Good Luck that Clooney has a particular affinity with the 1950s. I wasn't surprised to learn that Clooney's father was a TV news journalist as there seems to be a certain respect of the profession running throughout the film. Indeed Murrow's words about the descent of TV in general looked to be Clooney's critique of the reality-heavy output of 21st century television. The script was just one of the things that made Good Night and Good Luck a solid piece of factual drama that obviously struck a chord with the academy due to its political message. The fact that the film was shot in black and white made it stand out from the colourful films that were nominated alongside it. The decision behind the colour scheme was to do with the fact that Clooney wanted to use black and white archive footage of McCarthy. Interestingly some audience members thought that McCarthy was being played by an actor and actually criticised the authenticity of the performance. However, the acting from top to bottom in Good Night and Good Luck is outstanding and it's hard to pick a weak link from the bunch. I particularly liked the tender turns given by Patricia Clarkson and Robert Downey Jr. as the married couple who had to hide their relationship at work. Ray Wise as the tragic Hellenbeck and Frank Langella as the strong-willed Palley were also on top form. But the stand out turn has to be the one given by David Strathairn as Murrow himself a fact the academy recognised by awarding the star with a Best Actor nomination. Strathairn portrays Murrow as a reserved individual whose passion kicks in as soon as he is able to talk about things that matter. I really liked the fact that the ensemble shared a great chemistry which made the character's family dynamic all the more believable. Whilst Good Night and Good Luck didn't win any of the six awards it was nominated for, Clooney did pick up his only acting Oscar to date for his role in Syriana.
Whilst Clooney did indeed pick up an acting award for Syriana it was in the supporting category and the actor would have to wait another two years to be recognised in the lead actor field. That recognition came for his performance as the eponymous anti-hero in Michael Clayton. Although Clooney had delivered fine performances up to that point he brought an extra tinge of vulnerability to the titular legal fixer. Director Tony Gilroy's script for Michael Clayton was brilliantly structured as he briefly tore away the layers of each character to reveal their true nature. In brief the film sees Clayton called to action by the head of the law firm for which he works when one of their senior litigators has a breakdown during a high profile deposition. Although the troubled Arthur Eden had been dealing with bipolar disorder, Clayton believes that his latest outburst is bigger than simply his illness. Gilroy later reveals that Arthur's paranoid suspicions are valid as he is being followed by goons hired by U-North; the agricultural company that the legal firm were defending. Halfway through the film Arthur is murdered however everyone bar Michael believes that he took his own life. From that point on, the film becomes a conspiracy thriller as Clayton tries to follow in Arthur's footsteps whilst evading suspicion from the U-North group. The unscrupulous U-North is represented by Karen Holder, a brusque general counsel who herself is suffering from mental difficulties. Events come to a head during the film's most iconic scene in which Michael's life is essentially saved by a group of horses. Although the film's ending is a little too neat, I did enjoy the fact that Michael decided to opt on the side of self-preservation while at the same time revealing the truth about the villainous U-North.
Usually I don't like dramas which start halfway through before flashing back to the beginning of the tale. However, in the case of Michael Clayton I think this worked as Gilroy makes the audience anticipate the events that we witnessed during the opening ten minutes. Gilroy's script is perfectly paced as he takes his time to let us get to know the characters before plunging us into the world of conspiracy. The character of Clayton himself isn't every inch the smooth-talking charmer that Clooney had been known for portraying up to this point. Indeed he has his demons which include a serious gambling habit and a recent bankruptcy caused by a bad investment in a bar. Clooney is great at portraying the infallible nature of the character as well as he is when conveying the cool, calm and collected part of Clayton's personality. Giving a similarly brilliant turn was Tom Wilkinson as the troubled Arthur Eden, who may be more sensible then everyone gives him credit for. Wilkinson seemed to be having an absolute hoot playing Arthur, especially when he went off the rails and stripped naked at the deposition. Wilkinson's ability to make us care for Arthur before his eventual demise meant that we then were rooting for Clayton to expose the truth behind his murder. Oddly, although both Clooney and Wilkinson were nominated for Oscars, the only winner on the night was Tilda Swinton. This decision struck me as a little odd as Swinton didn't make any big impression on me mainly as her character Karen Holder isn't on screen for a great deal of time. It almost felt if the Academy were honouring the film as a whole by letting Swinton win one of the seven categories in which Michael Clayton was nominated. Even though I've watched Michael Clayton before it didn't make as big an impression on me as it did this time round. I found it to be an intensely gripping thriller that revealed its hand gradually and was all the better for doing so. However I'm not shocked that it didn't win Best Picture and in a way I'm surprised that it was even nominated in the first place.
Next time we look at a film that occurs over three different timelines that are linked by one specific piece of literary work.
That film was Good Night and Good Luck; which earned six nominations in all including two for Clooney in both the directing and screenwriting categories. Clooney also starred in the film as Fred Friendly the co-producer of notorious broadcaster Edward R. Morrow. The story focuses on Morrow's various attacks on Senator Joseph McCarthy and in particular his criticism of the scaremongering tactics that were being employed by his administration. The war begins when Morrow criticises McCarthy's prosecution of a young officer without having any proof of his wrongdoings. Their battle intensifies when McCarthy outright accuses Morrow of having communist leanings to which the host of 'See it Now' totally denies. Clooney and co-writer Grant Heslov's script looks at the effects of this war of words on both the CBS network and Murrow's colleagues on the 'See it Now' show. These include Joseph and Shirley; a married couple who have to keep their relationship a secret from their colleagues due to CBS guidelines. Also featured heavily is CBS journalist Don Hellenbeck, who is criticised in the press for being a 'pinko' and who ultimately commits suicide. In my opinion it's the relationship between the staff members that makes Good Night and Good Luck so successful especially when you come to realise they're like a little family. I especially liked the loyalty displayed by CBS Boss William Palley, the father figure of the group, who defended Murrow's actions to the advertisers who were worried about his barbed attacks. I also liked the way in which the film's narrative was book-ended by Murrow's speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association in which he condemns the way in which TV is dumbing down.
It's clear that in both his writing and direction of Good Night and Good Luck that Clooney has a particular affinity with the 1950s. I wasn't surprised to learn that Clooney's father was a TV news journalist as there seems to be a certain respect of the profession running throughout the film. Indeed Murrow's words about the descent of TV in general looked to be Clooney's critique of the reality-heavy output of 21st century television. The script was just one of the things that made Good Night and Good Luck a solid piece of factual drama that obviously struck a chord with the academy due to its political message. The fact that the film was shot in black and white made it stand out from the colourful films that were nominated alongside it. The decision behind the colour scheme was to do with the fact that Clooney wanted to use black and white archive footage of McCarthy. Interestingly some audience members thought that McCarthy was being played by an actor and actually criticised the authenticity of the performance. However, the acting from top to bottom in Good Night and Good Luck is outstanding and it's hard to pick a weak link from the bunch. I particularly liked the tender turns given by Patricia Clarkson and Robert Downey Jr. as the married couple who had to hide their relationship at work. Ray Wise as the tragic Hellenbeck and Frank Langella as the strong-willed Palley were also on top form. But the stand out turn has to be the one given by David Strathairn as Murrow himself a fact the academy recognised by awarding the star with a Best Actor nomination. Strathairn portrays Murrow as a reserved individual whose passion kicks in as soon as he is able to talk about things that matter. I really liked the fact that the ensemble shared a great chemistry which made the character's family dynamic all the more believable. Whilst Good Night and Good Luck didn't win any of the six awards it was nominated for, Clooney did pick up his only acting Oscar to date for his role in Syriana.
Whilst Clooney did indeed pick up an acting award for Syriana it was in the supporting category and the actor would have to wait another two years to be recognised in the lead actor field. That recognition came for his performance as the eponymous anti-hero in Michael Clayton. Although Clooney had delivered fine performances up to that point he brought an extra tinge of vulnerability to the titular legal fixer. Director Tony Gilroy's script for Michael Clayton was brilliantly structured as he briefly tore away the layers of each character to reveal their true nature. In brief the film sees Clayton called to action by the head of the law firm for which he works when one of their senior litigators has a breakdown during a high profile deposition. Although the troubled Arthur Eden had been dealing with bipolar disorder, Clayton believes that his latest outburst is bigger than simply his illness. Gilroy later reveals that Arthur's paranoid suspicions are valid as he is being followed by goons hired by U-North; the agricultural company that the legal firm were defending. Halfway through the film Arthur is murdered however everyone bar Michael believes that he took his own life. From that point on, the film becomes a conspiracy thriller as Clayton tries to follow in Arthur's footsteps whilst evading suspicion from the U-North group. The unscrupulous U-North is represented by Karen Holder, a brusque general counsel who herself is suffering from mental difficulties. Events come to a head during the film's most iconic scene in which Michael's life is essentially saved by a group of horses. Although the film's ending is a little too neat, I did enjoy the fact that Michael decided to opt on the side of self-preservation while at the same time revealing the truth about the villainous U-North.
Usually I don't like dramas which start halfway through before flashing back to the beginning of the tale. However, in the case of Michael Clayton I think this worked as Gilroy makes the audience anticipate the events that we witnessed during the opening ten minutes. Gilroy's script is perfectly paced as he takes his time to let us get to know the characters before plunging us into the world of conspiracy. The character of Clayton himself isn't every inch the smooth-talking charmer that Clooney had been known for portraying up to this point. Indeed he has his demons which include a serious gambling habit and a recent bankruptcy caused by a bad investment in a bar. Clooney is great at portraying the infallible nature of the character as well as he is when conveying the cool, calm and collected part of Clayton's personality. Giving a similarly brilliant turn was Tom Wilkinson as the troubled Arthur Eden, who may be more sensible then everyone gives him credit for. Wilkinson seemed to be having an absolute hoot playing Arthur, especially when he went off the rails and stripped naked at the deposition. Wilkinson's ability to make us care for Arthur before his eventual demise meant that we then were rooting for Clayton to expose the truth behind his murder. Oddly, although both Clooney and Wilkinson were nominated for Oscars, the only winner on the night was Tilda Swinton. This decision struck me as a little odd as Swinton didn't make any big impression on me mainly as her character Karen Holder isn't on screen for a great deal of time. It almost felt if the Academy were honouring the film as a whole by letting Swinton win one of the seven categories in which Michael Clayton was nominated. Even though I've watched Michael Clayton before it didn't make as big an impression on me as it did this time round. I found it to be an intensely gripping thriller that revealed its hand gradually and was all the better for doing so. However I'm not shocked that it didn't win Best Picture and in a way I'm surprised that it was even nominated in the first place.
Next time we look at a film that occurs over three different timelines that are linked by one specific piece of literary work.
Wednesday, 25 March 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 405-406: Cowboys and Indians
People who've followed this journey from the beginning will know that, when I can, I like to group two or three nominees together. This time the films in the double bill have certain things in common such as their romantic nature and the fact that they netted Best Director and Best Score Oscars at their respective ceremonies. However, if I'm honest, the reason that Brokeback Mountain and Slumdog Millionaire are in the same entry is due to the fact that I liked the title of the post.
We start with Brokeback Mountain whose lead characters Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar are technically sheep herders rather than cowboys but lets not bogged down in semantics. Even if they haven't seen the film most people will have an idea about Brokeback Mountain's plot as the film's title has become synonymous with dubious male relationships. What I can say about Brokeback Mountain is that it has incredibly slow start in which Jack and Ennis meet herding sheep upon the eponymous rock. Eventually realising their feelings for one another, Jack and Ennis begin sleeping together before they go their separate ways over the summer. Where the film got more interesting for me was in director Ang Lee's portrayal of the years following the couple's first meeting where they had to handle their secret whilst trying to go about a normal daily routine. The more reserved Ennis started got married quite early and started a family with the likeable Alma. Meanwhile, Jack took to the rodeo circuit eventually marrying the daughter of a wealthy farming supplies company. However, the pair participated in a number of lengthy fishing trips in which they reigniting their passion for one another. Although Jack wanted to start a new life on a ranch with Ennis he wasn't convinced and was worried that he'd eventually be caught out for his feelings towards a fellow man. Eventually the meetings became more infrequent and the final scenes revealed that Jack died possibly due as the result of a beating. However, the film's closing shot was beautifully realised as Ennis realised that he couldn't let Jack go even in death.
At the time Brokeback Mountain was released on DVD I was working at a video store and rented it out several times but I have to admit that I was never really as crazy about it as other critics. But watching with my 2015 eyes I appreciated the beauty of the film a lot more and feel it was almost criminal that cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto didn't win an award for his capturing of the Canadian landscape. That being said I still hold that the sheep herding scenes were quite slow and I feel that I would've still understood that Jack and Ennis' work was incredibly dull without having to witness it myself. However, I liked following the characters over a number of years and I also enjoyed how the timeline could be best ascertained by how old Ennis' daughters were as well as by the size of Anne Hathaway's hair. The fact that we didn't know exactly what year we were in helped screenwriters Diana Ossana and Larry McMurty to create a timelessness to Ennis and Jack's relationship with their fishing trips becoming more and more infrequent. On this viewing of Brokeback Mountain I really began to understand the characters and their differences between the quiet brooding Ennis and the boisterous Jack. This understanding was bolstered by a duo of fantastic turns from the late Heath Ledger as Ennis and Jake Gyllenhaal as Jack. Interestingly Ledger was nominated as Best Actor whilst Gyllenhaal was in the Supporting category however I think that both should have been put on equal pegging. That being said I feel that Ledger's performance was better as he perfectly portrayed the feelings of a man who said very few words. Michelle Williams was also given a Supporting Actress nomination as Ennis' heartbroken wife Alma; a role that cemented the actress' standing in Hollywood.
All in all Brokeback Mountain won three Oscars including ones for Ossana and McMurty's adapted screenplay and Ang Lee's fantastic direction. Also honoured was the Gustavo Santaolalla's iconic score which is one of the most memorable elements of the film. Going in to that year's Oscar ceremony, which I stayed up to watch live, Brokeback Mountain was the clear favourite to scoop Best Picture. There was surprise then when it went to rank outsider Crash; a film that hadn't even been nominated for a Best Picture Golden Globe the month before. Upon watching both films in quick succession, I have to concede that Brokeback is the better film however I'm not sure if I agree with the conspiracy theorists who blame the right-wing leanings of the Academy members on that year's Best Picture result. However, maybe neither film deserved to win and instead Crash triumphed over a more deserving nominee. Whilst you'll have to wait a bit longer to find out my verdict on the result as a whole, there's no denying that Brokeback Mountain is a beautifully constructed film about unrequited relationships. To me I don't think it mattered too much that the lead characters were gay but instead that these were two people who clearly loved each other deeply. Jack's line 'I Wish I Knew How to Quit You' perfectly sums up the film's central relationship in which neither member could escape their feelings for the other even after death.
While Brokeback Mountain didn't triumph in the Best Picture category the other film in this double bill, Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire, garnered the big prize during the last Oscar ceremony of the noughties. As well as winning multiple Oscars, both films have an episodic structure in which they follow the lead characters over a number of years. Both are also based on best-selling novels, with Slumdog's source material being the book Q&A by Vikras Swarup. It was the interest in adapting Swarup's book that first got Simon Beaufoy interested in the idea and he later took several trips to India; where the film is set. Eventually teaming up with director Danny Boyle the two set about creating a film that has a very complicated narrative structure. The modern day part of the story sees the adult Jamal Malik being questioned by detectives after being suspected of cheating whilst taking part in the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? The film then uses the police interrogation as the basis for a series of flashbacks as Jamal explains in detail why he knew the answer to each individual question. I think the level of enjoyment one gets from Slumdog Millionaire comes from how easy you find it to suspend your disbelief. For example it's interesting how the order of the questions allow Jamal to tell his story in a chronological manner. Despite being a contrived story, Slumdog Millionaire at least tells a powerful tale of street children, prostitution and organised crime. At the time one review described Slumdog Millionaire as 'a feelgood film' which is laughable in a movie that contains a cavalcade of bleak moments. However, the film does have an incredibly feelgood ending before concluding with a Bollywood dance routine that feels out of place.
I think it was almost impossible for Danny Boyle to make a film about Indian slums without garnering some criticism from the country itself and indeed that's exactly what happened. Many members of the Indian film industry have criticised Boyle for presenting a westernised view of their country. It's true that at time Slumdog Millionaire does resemble an advert from the Indian tourist board however I do think that Boyle tried his best to create a somewhat accurate depiction of the country. What I really care about when watching these films is how well they're made and if they entertained me sufficiently. I think Slumdog Millionaire did both as Chris Dickens deftly edited the multiple timelines together whilst Anthony Dod Mantle's cinematography was utterly breathtaking at points. The plot structure, in which each part of the film is divided into an explanation of Jamal's reason for knowing a certain answer, didn't bother me as much as it did some others. I also found the character of Jamal an endearing one and therefore his various traumas were easy to sympathise with. In the lead role of the adult Jamal, I think that relative newcomer Dev Patel did his best to anchor the film as he brought a certain naivety to the character. Seasoned professionals such as Anil Kapoor and Irrfan Khan were on hand to bring a bit of experience to the film as the quiz show's host and the lead detective respectively. Praise must also go to the young actors who were absolutely brilliant as the younger versions of Jamal, his brother Salim and the love of his life Latika. Although it possibly dilutes a lot of the issues that it focuses on, Slumdog Millionaire is an entertaining film that's easy to watch. Well-shot, directed and edited with a strong storyline to boot I can't help but admit that I thoroughly enjoyed the film even it doesn't quite have that quality that I believe a Best Picture winner should contain.
Next time we focus on an actor who found success on both sides of the camera.
We start with Brokeback Mountain whose lead characters Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar are technically sheep herders rather than cowboys but lets not bogged down in semantics. Even if they haven't seen the film most people will have an idea about Brokeback Mountain's plot as the film's title has become synonymous with dubious male relationships. What I can say about Brokeback Mountain is that it has incredibly slow start in which Jack and Ennis meet herding sheep upon the eponymous rock. Eventually realising their feelings for one another, Jack and Ennis begin sleeping together before they go their separate ways over the summer. Where the film got more interesting for me was in director Ang Lee's portrayal of the years following the couple's first meeting where they had to handle their secret whilst trying to go about a normal daily routine. The more reserved Ennis started got married quite early and started a family with the likeable Alma. Meanwhile, Jack took to the rodeo circuit eventually marrying the daughter of a wealthy farming supplies company. However, the pair participated in a number of lengthy fishing trips in which they reigniting their passion for one another. Although Jack wanted to start a new life on a ranch with Ennis he wasn't convinced and was worried that he'd eventually be caught out for his feelings towards a fellow man. Eventually the meetings became more infrequent and the final scenes revealed that Jack died possibly due as the result of a beating. However, the film's closing shot was beautifully realised as Ennis realised that he couldn't let Jack go even in death.
At the time Brokeback Mountain was released on DVD I was working at a video store and rented it out several times but I have to admit that I was never really as crazy about it as other critics. But watching with my 2015 eyes I appreciated the beauty of the film a lot more and feel it was almost criminal that cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto didn't win an award for his capturing of the Canadian landscape. That being said I still hold that the sheep herding scenes were quite slow and I feel that I would've still understood that Jack and Ennis' work was incredibly dull without having to witness it myself. However, I liked following the characters over a number of years and I also enjoyed how the timeline could be best ascertained by how old Ennis' daughters were as well as by the size of Anne Hathaway's hair. The fact that we didn't know exactly what year we were in helped screenwriters Diana Ossana and Larry McMurty to create a timelessness to Ennis and Jack's relationship with their fishing trips becoming more and more infrequent. On this viewing of Brokeback Mountain I really began to understand the characters and their differences between the quiet brooding Ennis and the boisterous Jack. This understanding was bolstered by a duo of fantastic turns from the late Heath Ledger as Ennis and Jake Gyllenhaal as Jack. Interestingly Ledger was nominated as Best Actor whilst Gyllenhaal was in the Supporting category however I think that both should have been put on equal pegging. That being said I feel that Ledger's performance was better as he perfectly portrayed the feelings of a man who said very few words. Michelle Williams was also given a Supporting Actress nomination as Ennis' heartbroken wife Alma; a role that cemented the actress' standing in Hollywood.
All in all Brokeback Mountain won three Oscars including ones for Ossana and McMurty's adapted screenplay and Ang Lee's fantastic direction. Also honoured was the Gustavo Santaolalla's iconic score which is one of the most memorable elements of the film. Going in to that year's Oscar ceremony, which I stayed up to watch live, Brokeback Mountain was the clear favourite to scoop Best Picture. There was surprise then when it went to rank outsider Crash; a film that hadn't even been nominated for a Best Picture Golden Globe the month before. Upon watching both films in quick succession, I have to concede that Brokeback is the better film however I'm not sure if I agree with the conspiracy theorists who blame the right-wing leanings of the Academy members on that year's Best Picture result. However, maybe neither film deserved to win and instead Crash triumphed over a more deserving nominee. Whilst you'll have to wait a bit longer to find out my verdict on the result as a whole, there's no denying that Brokeback Mountain is a beautifully constructed film about unrequited relationships. To me I don't think it mattered too much that the lead characters were gay but instead that these were two people who clearly loved each other deeply. Jack's line 'I Wish I Knew How to Quit You' perfectly sums up the film's central relationship in which neither member could escape their feelings for the other even after death.
While Brokeback Mountain didn't triumph in the Best Picture category the other film in this double bill, Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire, garnered the big prize during the last Oscar ceremony of the noughties. As well as winning multiple Oscars, both films have an episodic structure in which they follow the lead characters over a number of years. Both are also based on best-selling novels, with Slumdog's source material being the book Q&A by Vikras Swarup. It was the interest in adapting Swarup's book that first got Simon Beaufoy interested in the idea and he later took several trips to India; where the film is set. Eventually teaming up with director Danny Boyle the two set about creating a film that has a very complicated narrative structure. The modern day part of the story sees the adult Jamal Malik being questioned by detectives after being suspected of cheating whilst taking part in the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? The film then uses the police interrogation as the basis for a series of flashbacks as Jamal explains in detail why he knew the answer to each individual question. I think the level of enjoyment one gets from Slumdog Millionaire comes from how easy you find it to suspend your disbelief. For example it's interesting how the order of the questions allow Jamal to tell his story in a chronological manner. Despite being a contrived story, Slumdog Millionaire at least tells a powerful tale of street children, prostitution and organised crime. At the time one review described Slumdog Millionaire as 'a feelgood film' which is laughable in a movie that contains a cavalcade of bleak moments. However, the film does have an incredibly feelgood ending before concluding with a Bollywood dance routine that feels out of place.
I think it was almost impossible for Danny Boyle to make a film about Indian slums without garnering some criticism from the country itself and indeed that's exactly what happened. Many members of the Indian film industry have criticised Boyle for presenting a westernised view of their country. It's true that at time Slumdog Millionaire does resemble an advert from the Indian tourist board however I do think that Boyle tried his best to create a somewhat accurate depiction of the country. What I really care about when watching these films is how well they're made and if they entertained me sufficiently. I think Slumdog Millionaire did both as Chris Dickens deftly edited the multiple timelines together whilst Anthony Dod Mantle's cinematography was utterly breathtaking at points. The plot structure, in which each part of the film is divided into an explanation of Jamal's reason for knowing a certain answer, didn't bother me as much as it did some others. I also found the character of Jamal an endearing one and therefore his various traumas were easy to sympathise with. In the lead role of the adult Jamal, I think that relative newcomer Dev Patel did his best to anchor the film as he brought a certain naivety to the character. Seasoned professionals such as Anil Kapoor and Irrfan Khan were on hand to bring a bit of experience to the film as the quiz show's host and the lead detective respectively. Praise must also go to the young actors who were absolutely brilliant as the younger versions of Jamal, his brother Salim and the love of his life Latika. Although it possibly dilutes a lot of the issues that it focuses on, Slumdog Millionaire is an entertaining film that's easy to watch. Well-shot, directed and edited with a strong storyline to boot I can't help but admit that I thoroughly enjoyed the film even it doesn't quite have that quality that I believe a Best Picture winner should contain.
Next time we focus on an actor who found success on both sides of the camera.
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 404: A Star-Studded Murder Mystery
Even though he'd been working constantly in the decades since we met him last, it's odd to think that we haven't seen director Robert Altman on the blog since the 1970s. Although he continued to make ensemble pieces that were critically lauded, the Academy never honoured one of his films after Nashville. That was until the 2002 ceremony when one of Altman's final movies was nominated for several Oscars and even picked up a Best Screenplay award. However, if you didn't know who was calling the shots, you may be mistaken for not knowing that Gosford Park was an Altman film at all.
That's because, unlike the Altman films I've seen up to this point, Gosford Park was a very British movie set in the titular estate. The film began life as an idea that actor Bob Balaban, one of the only Americans in the cast, had and pitched it to Altman. After introducing Altman to screenwriter Julian Fellowes; the three decided to create an Agatha Christie-style murder mystery. Like previous Christie adaptations; Fellowes' film featured plenty of characters who had motivations to finish off the arrogant Sir William McCordle. Those on the guest list include his aunt Duchess Trentham, his sisters and brother-in-laws as well as his daughter's suitor. What makes Fellowes' country house script stand out from the crowd is that it follows the downstairs servants as much as it does their masters. As Sir William had a penchant for affairs with his maids there were one or two grudges leaking below stairs so it's no surprise when he's found poisoned and stabbed at the end of the film's second act. Whilst the oafish Inspector Thompson attempts to solve the murder; Duchess Trentham's lady's maid Mary does a better job herself. From the start of the film, Mary becomes our surrogate as she is new to the service industry and doesn't know her way around Gosford Park. However, mainly based on listening in to various pieces of gossip, Mary works out who it was that both poisoned and stabbed the victim. Whilst we don't ultimately know whether the culprits will get arrested, I found the ending to be an interesting twist where the murderer was presented in a more sympathetic light than the victim.
Although the two share no similarities when it comes to their setting, both Nashville and Gosford Park had similar story structures. Both feature numerous subplots that tie together by the end of the film which, in the case of Gosford Park, happens when the murderer is revealed. Like Nashville, not all of Gosford Park's side stories work and as a result some of the characters were surplus to requirements. I got the feeling that Fellowes and Altman had a lot more time for the servants than they did for their masters. That's why I felt that Helen Mirren's housekeeper, Eileen Atkin's cook and the two maids played by Emily Watson and Kelly MacDonald were possibly the most sympathetic characters of the bunch. Mirren gave a particularly memorable turn as the housekeeper who had given up everything in order to be the perfect servant. Mirren was nominated in the Supporting Actress category alongside co-star Maggie Smith who looked like she was having a hoot at portraying Duchess Trentham. However some of the other members of the cast were less lucky with the parts they were handed with Derek Jacobi, Charles Dance and Richard E. Grant three examples of actors with thankless roles. Fellowes' script was nicely paced with the suspects being build up gradually until the murder itself finally occurred. One element of the film I didn't like was the introduction of Stephen Fry's incompetent detective who threatened to turn a likeable drama into a farce. I'm not sure why Altman and Fellowes thought that they needed to change the tone of the film but Thompson's arrival did nothing for me. What makes Gosford Park so likeable is its witty script coupled with some lovely shots of the British countryside by cinematographer Andrew Dunn. Whilst it never has any particular Earth-shattering revelations to make, Gosford Park is still an entertaining watch that includes a fine ensemble cast. It's just a shame that Altman isn't still around making films like this as he sadly passed away in 2006.
Next an odd double bill of films that both earned wins for Best Director and Best Original Score.
Tuesday, 24 March 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 402-403: Michael and Peter's True-Life Tales
In 2003; actor Michael Sheen, director Stephen Frears and screenwriter Peter Morgan all worked together on a TV film called The Deal. Sheen starred as Tony Blair in the story of the future Prime Minister's infamous deal with his eventual deputy Gordon Brown. Three years later Sheen reprised his role as Blair for another film, this time on the big screen, which again was directed by Frears and written by Morgan.
That film was The Queen; a dramatic account of the royal family's reaction to the death of Princess Diana on the 31st August 1997. Although a lot of films I've watched so far have touched on modern history I can't really relate to them as I have no recollection of the events. This isn't true of most of what happened in The Queen as at the time I had a paper round and had to deliver the updated papers that carried the news of Diana's death. Morgan's script looks specifically at how the Royals wanted a private funeral whilst the general public instead wanted to mourn the woman that they'd taken to their hearts. In the middle was the newly elected Tony Blair who appreciated The Queen's wishes but at the same time was keen to offer a sympathetic message himself. The famous 'People's Princess' line is one of the many moments in the film that I remember seeing on TV at the time. Although at the same time I can't remember the reaction to the royal silence being so bad that there were calls to abolish the monarchy all together. What I liked about Morgan's script was the fact that neither Blair nor The Queen were portrayed as the villain of the piece. Both were doing what they thought was best and Blair in particular was eager to stick up for a woman who he had great respect for. Instead the evil forces were instead the members of the press who used the public grief to stir up outrage among the general public. The film's finale is the hint that one day the same thing that happened to Queen Elizabeth in this film would happen to Blair himself. This was obviously a knowing line as Blair was suffering press scrutiny at the time of the film's release and stepping down as Prime Minister soon after The Queen was released.
The fact that The Queen was co-produced by ITV studios suggests to me that the original plan was for it to be screened on the TV. There is in fact very little about The Queen that is particularly cinematic save a couple of nice shots of the Scottish countryside and an iconic shot of the monarch and a deer. My theory about why the film was eventually put on the big screen can be summed up in two words; Helen Mirren. Mirren's performance as Queen Elizabeth was so fantastic that I'm sure someone quickly noticed that it would garner a multitude of awards if it was screened in cinemas. This notion is completely understandable as Mirren's turn is one of the best Best Actress performances of all time and one that was destined to earn the star as many gongs as possible. Mirren's skill is to totally convince us the audience that she is Queen Elizabeth and I think she pulls it off expertly. Not for one moment did I feel like I was watching Mirren on screen and felt she delivered a brave portrayal of a woman during a week in which she'd felt she'd lost everything. I wasn't so convinced by the actors who were playing her other family members, most notably American star James Cromwell who appeared to be an odd casting choice as Prince Philip. Luckily Michael Sheen was on hand to deliver a similarly stellar performance as the ambitious yet thoughtful Prime Minister who was forced to make his first monumental decision. Just like Mirren, Sheen never lets his performance as Blair slip into caricature and as a result turns the Prime Minister into a three-dimensional character. The combination of Mirren and Sheen's performances, Morgan's measured script and Frears' assured direction turns The Queen into an enjoyable factual drama. At the same time there was nothing particularly remarkable about it perhaps aside from the tour de force performance given by its lead actress.
Four years later, Sheen and Morgan would team up again for the final part in the informal Blair trilogy, 'The Special Relationship' which explored the Prime Minister's friendship with Bill Clinton. However, Morgan and Sheen would also team up for Frost/Nixon; initially a play exploring David Frost's infamous set of interviews with disgraced President Richard Nixon. The play was so successful on both sides of the Atlantic that it was eventually made into a film which starred Sheen and the play's other lead actor Frank Langella. Unlike with the events in The Queen, I knew little about the basis of Frost/Nixon so had to take Morgan's words as fact. The way Morgan presented the interviews they seemed more like a set of sporting fixtures or boxing matches that would be the breaking point for one of their participants. Having funded the interviews almost single-handedly, Frost would lose his reputation and go bankrupt if the broadcasts didn't go his way. Meanwhile Nixon, who never formally apologised for his actions during the Watergate Scandal, was conscious that Frost would try to go for the jugular. Both surrounded themselves with crack teams however Frost's big mistake was in underestimating Nixon who run rings round him in the first couple of interviews. The film's turning point is a very odd late night call about cheeseburgers which is quite evidently a work of fiction but is a nice narrative move by Morgan as it changes the whole tone of the film. Obviously with a film that has quite a dry subject matter, Morgan has had to be quite liberal with the facts and reading round the subject it appears that he has done just that. It's certainly clear to see that, aside from Frost and Nixon; all of the other characters are quite broadly drawn and wear their political leanings firmly on their sleeve. Thankfully Morgan's crafting of the titular characters and the performances by the leading actors save the film being too clichéd.
I found Sheen to be even better as David Frost than he was as Tony Blair as he delivered another barnstorming performance. He played Frost as a jovial sort of chap who didn't take anything at all seriously but was secretly harbouring a fair amount of insecurities. Sheen conveyed Frost's fears perfectly as for the most part he let his character be as animated as possible but every now and then the smile slipped. However, just like with The Queen, it was his co-star that was given all the plaudits whereas Sheen was left without a nomination. I think in terms of both films the Academy struggled to know where to place Sheen especially with Frost/Nixon where he shared equal billing with Langella. I personally wouldn't have minded if both men had been nominated for Best Actor as they deserved it more than Brad Pitt for his make-up aided turn in Benjamin Button. However it was Langella who gave the flashier turn albeit one that showed a more sensitive side to the once great president. It was quite easy to tell that Frost/Nixon had started life as a stage play as at times it did feel as if Howard had just brought a camera to the theatre. The majority of the film, especially the portion of it that focuses specifically on the interviews, was very dry and was only slightly spiced up by the actors. Therein lies my major problem with Frost/Nixon as I don't believe that it should ever have been turned into a film in the first place as the story really doesn't suit the cinema screen. Whilst I feel it's an interesting story, it doesn't make for a particularly entertaining film and Howard certainly doesn't utilise the cinema screen to its fullest potential. However, due to the fact that it covers a major event in U.S. history, it's still easy to see why the Academy heaped five nominations upon Frost/Nixon. While it's not necessarily a bad film it's not one that ever drew me into its story and the only really compelling elements of it were the performances given by both Langella and the sadly overlooked Sheen.
Next time we travel back to Britain where an array of famous faces are suspected of murder.
That film was The Queen; a dramatic account of the royal family's reaction to the death of Princess Diana on the 31st August 1997. Although a lot of films I've watched so far have touched on modern history I can't really relate to them as I have no recollection of the events. This isn't true of most of what happened in The Queen as at the time I had a paper round and had to deliver the updated papers that carried the news of Diana's death. Morgan's script looks specifically at how the Royals wanted a private funeral whilst the general public instead wanted to mourn the woman that they'd taken to their hearts. In the middle was the newly elected Tony Blair who appreciated The Queen's wishes but at the same time was keen to offer a sympathetic message himself. The famous 'People's Princess' line is one of the many moments in the film that I remember seeing on TV at the time. Although at the same time I can't remember the reaction to the royal silence being so bad that there were calls to abolish the monarchy all together. What I liked about Morgan's script was the fact that neither Blair nor The Queen were portrayed as the villain of the piece. Both were doing what they thought was best and Blair in particular was eager to stick up for a woman who he had great respect for. Instead the evil forces were instead the members of the press who used the public grief to stir up outrage among the general public. The film's finale is the hint that one day the same thing that happened to Queen Elizabeth in this film would happen to Blair himself. This was obviously a knowing line as Blair was suffering press scrutiny at the time of the film's release and stepping down as Prime Minister soon after The Queen was released.
The fact that The Queen was co-produced by ITV studios suggests to me that the original plan was for it to be screened on the TV. There is in fact very little about The Queen that is particularly cinematic save a couple of nice shots of the Scottish countryside and an iconic shot of the monarch and a deer. My theory about why the film was eventually put on the big screen can be summed up in two words; Helen Mirren. Mirren's performance as Queen Elizabeth was so fantastic that I'm sure someone quickly noticed that it would garner a multitude of awards if it was screened in cinemas. This notion is completely understandable as Mirren's turn is one of the best Best Actress performances of all time and one that was destined to earn the star as many gongs as possible. Mirren's skill is to totally convince us the audience that she is Queen Elizabeth and I think she pulls it off expertly. Not for one moment did I feel like I was watching Mirren on screen and felt she delivered a brave portrayal of a woman during a week in which she'd felt she'd lost everything. I wasn't so convinced by the actors who were playing her other family members, most notably American star James Cromwell who appeared to be an odd casting choice as Prince Philip. Luckily Michael Sheen was on hand to deliver a similarly stellar performance as the ambitious yet thoughtful Prime Minister who was forced to make his first monumental decision. Just like Mirren, Sheen never lets his performance as Blair slip into caricature and as a result turns the Prime Minister into a three-dimensional character. The combination of Mirren and Sheen's performances, Morgan's measured script and Frears' assured direction turns The Queen into an enjoyable factual drama. At the same time there was nothing particularly remarkable about it perhaps aside from the tour de force performance given by its lead actress.
Four years later, Sheen and Morgan would team up again for the final part in the informal Blair trilogy, 'The Special Relationship' which explored the Prime Minister's friendship with Bill Clinton. However, Morgan and Sheen would also team up for Frost/Nixon; initially a play exploring David Frost's infamous set of interviews with disgraced President Richard Nixon. The play was so successful on both sides of the Atlantic that it was eventually made into a film which starred Sheen and the play's other lead actor Frank Langella. Unlike with the events in The Queen, I knew little about the basis of Frost/Nixon so had to take Morgan's words as fact. The way Morgan presented the interviews they seemed more like a set of sporting fixtures or boxing matches that would be the breaking point for one of their participants. Having funded the interviews almost single-handedly, Frost would lose his reputation and go bankrupt if the broadcasts didn't go his way. Meanwhile Nixon, who never formally apologised for his actions during the Watergate Scandal, was conscious that Frost would try to go for the jugular. Both surrounded themselves with crack teams however Frost's big mistake was in underestimating Nixon who run rings round him in the first couple of interviews. The film's turning point is a very odd late night call about cheeseburgers which is quite evidently a work of fiction but is a nice narrative move by Morgan as it changes the whole tone of the film. Obviously with a film that has quite a dry subject matter, Morgan has had to be quite liberal with the facts and reading round the subject it appears that he has done just that. It's certainly clear to see that, aside from Frost and Nixon; all of the other characters are quite broadly drawn and wear their political leanings firmly on their sleeve. Thankfully Morgan's crafting of the titular characters and the performances by the leading actors save the film being too clichéd.
I found Sheen to be even better as David Frost than he was as Tony Blair as he delivered another barnstorming performance. He played Frost as a jovial sort of chap who didn't take anything at all seriously but was secretly harbouring a fair amount of insecurities. Sheen conveyed Frost's fears perfectly as for the most part he let his character be as animated as possible but every now and then the smile slipped. However, just like with The Queen, it was his co-star that was given all the plaudits whereas Sheen was left without a nomination. I think in terms of both films the Academy struggled to know where to place Sheen especially with Frost/Nixon where he shared equal billing with Langella. I personally wouldn't have minded if both men had been nominated for Best Actor as they deserved it more than Brad Pitt for his make-up aided turn in Benjamin Button. However it was Langella who gave the flashier turn albeit one that showed a more sensitive side to the once great president. It was quite easy to tell that Frost/Nixon had started life as a stage play as at times it did feel as if Howard had just brought a camera to the theatre. The majority of the film, especially the portion of it that focuses specifically on the interviews, was very dry and was only slightly spiced up by the actors. Therein lies my major problem with Frost/Nixon as I don't believe that it should ever have been turned into a film in the first place as the story really doesn't suit the cinema screen. Whilst I feel it's an interesting story, it doesn't make for a particularly entertaining film and Howard certainly doesn't utilise the cinema screen to its fullest potential. However, due to the fact that it covers a major event in U.S. history, it's still easy to see why the Academy heaped five nominations upon Frost/Nixon. While it's not necessarily a bad film it's not one that ever drew me into its story and the only really compelling elements of it were the performances given by both Langella and the sadly overlooked Sheen.
Next time we travel back to Britain where an array of famous faces are suspected of murder.
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 401: A Deathly Twist (Spoilers)
Over the 400 plus films I've seen some of them have included some memorable twists including the revelation of Rosebud as a sleigh or the fact that the majority of the characters in A Beautiful Mind. But of all the great movie twists one stands head and shoulders above the rest, that being the final revelation in The Sixth Sense. Obviously to talk about in some detail would require some plot spoiling so if you haven't seen this film that was released over fifteen years ago then I suggest you either watch it or move on.
The Sixth Sense stars Bruce Willis who was on a second career resurgence following his downward trajectory post-Pulp Fiction. Willis plays Dr. Malcolm Crowe, a child psychologist who is shot in the opening scene by a former patient who believed that his former doctor failed him. Several months later Dr. Crowe is tasked with taking on a new case in the form of nine-year-old Cole Sear. From the outset, writer/director M. Night Shyamalan presents Cole as an outsider by having picked on at school both by the pupils and the teachers. Meanwhile Cole's mother Lynn starts to worry about her son's state of mind and starts experiencing odd occurrences in the house. Things come to a head in a classic scene where Cole informs Crowe that he sees dead people. From this moment on we get to see things from Cole's perspective and learn that he tries to help people cross over to the other side by helping them in some way. This is seen via a subplot involving a dead girl who wants her father to know that her stepmother's poisoning was the reason she passed away. Although the hints were there, Shyamalan eventually lets the audience in on the film's major twist; that Malcolm himself is actually dead. His reason for staying on Earth is to understand how he failed the man who fatally shot and also to make sure his wife knew that he loved her. I think, in the year's since its release The Sixth Sense has sort of become synonymous with this twist ending. That's why I tried to be more subjective in my judgement of the movie and looked at it as a whole.
For a movie that is essentially a psychological thriller with elements of a horror film, I'm surprised that The Sixth Sense garnered a Best Picture nomination to begin with. This surprise comes from the fact that the film is set in the present day, features no 'issue-based' characters and doesn't contain any flashy set pieces. Instead, it's quite a traditional character-led piece that has several chiller-esque elements which build up to the big reveal. I can't remember if I actually spotted the twist the first time round, but every repeat view of The Sixth Sense makes it more and more obvious that Malcolm is a ghost. Disregarding the twist, I think that Shyamlan's script is at its strongest when we follow the tortured Cole; who is one of the best written young characters that I've encountered so far. The portrayal of Cole is enhanced due to the outstanding performance by Haley Joel Osment; who was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role. Osment gives an incredibly tender portrayal of a boy who is struggling in his personal life due to his extraordinary ability to communicate with the other side. Despite its silly premise, I don't think The Sixth Sense ever really loses any credibility and instead the latter scenes fill in the gaps of Cole's character. Alongside Osment, Toni Collette also was nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar for her assured turn as Cole's worried mother. Bruce Willis anchored the whole film together well and, as someone who's best known for his action roles, I found him perfectly convincing as a mild-mannered child psychologist. Shymalan showed throughout The Sixth Sense that he knew how to perfectly build-up to a killer reveal and he punctuated the film's many shocks with some real human emotion. Unfortunately, with the exception of his second feature Unbreakable, every Shyamlan film has significantly dipped in quality with his latest offering After Earth being a prime example. However, The Sixth Sense does demonstrate how good a storyteller Shyamlan was when he first appeared on the scene and I'm hoping that one day we'll see this brilliance at work once again.
Next time we see a British actor and writer team up for two true life tales that garnered numerous nominations at separate Oscar ceremonies.
The Sixth Sense stars Bruce Willis who was on a second career resurgence following his downward trajectory post-Pulp Fiction. Willis plays Dr. Malcolm Crowe, a child psychologist who is shot in the opening scene by a former patient who believed that his former doctor failed him. Several months later Dr. Crowe is tasked with taking on a new case in the form of nine-year-old Cole Sear. From the outset, writer/director M. Night Shyamalan presents Cole as an outsider by having picked on at school both by the pupils and the teachers. Meanwhile Cole's mother Lynn starts to worry about her son's state of mind and starts experiencing odd occurrences in the house. Things come to a head in a classic scene where Cole informs Crowe that he sees dead people. From this moment on we get to see things from Cole's perspective and learn that he tries to help people cross over to the other side by helping them in some way. This is seen via a subplot involving a dead girl who wants her father to know that her stepmother's poisoning was the reason she passed away. Although the hints were there, Shyamalan eventually lets the audience in on the film's major twist; that Malcolm himself is actually dead. His reason for staying on Earth is to understand how he failed the man who fatally shot and also to make sure his wife knew that he loved her. I think, in the year's since its release The Sixth Sense has sort of become synonymous with this twist ending. That's why I tried to be more subjective in my judgement of the movie and looked at it as a whole.
For a movie that is essentially a psychological thriller with elements of a horror film, I'm surprised that The Sixth Sense garnered a Best Picture nomination to begin with. This surprise comes from the fact that the film is set in the present day, features no 'issue-based' characters and doesn't contain any flashy set pieces. Instead, it's quite a traditional character-led piece that has several chiller-esque elements which build up to the big reveal. I can't remember if I actually spotted the twist the first time round, but every repeat view of The Sixth Sense makes it more and more obvious that Malcolm is a ghost. Disregarding the twist, I think that Shyamlan's script is at its strongest when we follow the tortured Cole; who is one of the best written young characters that I've encountered so far. The portrayal of Cole is enhanced due to the outstanding performance by Haley Joel Osment; who was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role. Osment gives an incredibly tender portrayal of a boy who is struggling in his personal life due to his extraordinary ability to communicate with the other side. Despite its silly premise, I don't think The Sixth Sense ever really loses any credibility and instead the latter scenes fill in the gaps of Cole's character. Alongside Osment, Toni Collette also was nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar for her assured turn as Cole's worried mother. Bruce Willis anchored the whole film together well and, as someone who's best known for his action roles, I found him perfectly convincing as a mild-mannered child psychologist. Shymalan showed throughout The Sixth Sense that he knew how to perfectly build-up to a killer reveal and he punctuated the film's many shocks with some real human emotion. Unfortunately, with the exception of his second feature Unbreakable, every Shyamlan film has significantly dipped in quality with his latest offering After Earth being a prime example. However, The Sixth Sense does demonstrate how good a storyteller Shyamlan was when he first appeared on the scene and I'm hoping that one day we'll see this brilliance at work once again.
Next time we see a British actor and writer team up for two true life tales that garnered numerous nominations at separate Oscar ceremonies.
Friday, 20 March 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 401-402: A Musical Revival
Back on Day 290 of the Oscar Challenge I looked at the last live action musical that was nominated for an Academy Award, that being All that Jazz. Since then the only musical film to bother the Best Picture category has been the animated Disney classic Beauty and The Beast. However, in the early 21st Century, the musical suddenly became cool again although the first entry into this double bill would hardly be recognisable to fans of the classic movie musical.
That film was Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge which received eight nominations at the 2002 Academy Awards. It's no surprise that Moulin Rouge's two wins were in the production and costume design categories as it's a film that's been styled within an inch of its life. Lurhmann's aim was to recreate what it felt like to be in the titular French venue during the late 1890s. To do so he used a cavalcade of contemporary pop tunes and framed the majority of the film's numbers so they looked like music videos. With a variety of recognisable songs littered throughout Moulin Rouge, Lurhmann spent almost two years securing the rights to the soundtrack which included a tango version of The Police's 'Roxanne' and a high-kicking musical imagining of Madonna's 'Like a Virgin'. As with the majority of the musicals I've covered on this blog, Moulin Rouge's story is very slight indeed. It's told from the point-of-view of penniless writer Christian who is reflecting on his brief romance with the Moulin Rouge's star turn Satine. Satine and Christian fall in love over one night as he convinces her to star in a musical which is very much based around their own story. Standing in the way of the young couple's romance is a pompous duke who wishes to be Satine in order to give the Moulin Rouge's owner Howard Zidler the funding to turn his club into a theatre. Although it features plenty of plush musical scenes, the content of Moulin Rouge is quite dark as it deals with themes of prostitution, rape and terminal illness. The final twenty minutes, all based around the show within a show, are a dazzling treat for both the ears and the eyes and sort of distract from the film's many minor problems.
Moulin Rouge is definitely an enjoyable movie and you can't help but like a film that plays around with the very idea of the musical itself. Every scene, costume and character is well-designed with Donald M. McAlpine's cinematography varying throughout the piece. Nicole Kidman's performance as Satine was the only turn in the film to be nominated for an Oscar and I think it was more than deserved. Kidman's balanced Satine's on-stage persona brilliantly with the more fragile elements of the character's personality and she really made me care about her deteriorating health. As Harold Zidler, I found Jim Broadbent to be utterly magnificent as at times his character was very dark and at other times provided some great comic moments. Similarly great was John Leguizamo as Toulouse-Letrec; the character who the 1950s film version of Moulin Rouge was based upon. On the other hand I didn't think Ewan McGregor had the requisite amount of passion to play Christian and I don't believe he and Kidman sparkled on screen as much as they could. The biggest issue though was the character of The Count who felt like something out of a pantomime whilst actor Richard Roxbrough didn't just chew the scenery but devoured it as a three course meal. However I don't think this ultimately mattered in a film that is so joyous and basically reintroduced the musical for a modern audience. If Moulin Rouge hadn't been as successful as it was I don't believe that recent film musicals would've made such a big impact at the box office. But thankfully Luhrmann's vision struck a chord with movie-going audiences around the world and this montage of music videos strung together by a loose plot became one of the best films of the year.
Even with Moulin Rouge's success I don't think many would've predicted that a musical would win Best Picture the following year. Rather than another film crafted in the same postmodern style of Moulin Rouge, it was a rather traditional musical that ended up claiming the big prize at the 2003 awards. The film in question was a screen adaptation of popular Broadway show Chicago; which was actually the show that Roy Scheider's director was working on in All that Jazz. Though it's structure is very much in the style of an old-fashioned musical, Chicago does share similarities with Moulin Rouge in the way that it lays out it's numbers. Each performance is laid out as if the characters were singing directly to an audience and are strung together by introductions by Taye Diggs' piano player. In fact Diggs' supporting turn put me in mind of Joel Grey's Emcee in Cabaret as both serve a similar purpose. However, each performance in the film is intertwined with characters acting out the plot whether it be a press conference or a murder trial. The basic plot of Chicago revolves around Roxie Hart; a naive Chicago residence who dreams of being a star and who kills her lover after he insults her lack of talent. Roxie's subsequent arrest puts her in Cook County Prison alongside her idol and fellow murderess Velma Kelly. The rest of the film then becomes a power struggle between Roxie and Velma as both try to garner the interest of the press ahead of their respective trials. Playing both women against each other is slick lawyer Billy Flynn, whose titular 'Razzle Dazzle' style is the focus of one of the musical's more famous tunes. Just like Moulin Rouge, Chicago uses its stylish musical numbers to cover up rather dark subject matter in this case infidelity and murder. However, in my opinion, Chicago doesn't really warm the heart in the way that Moulin Rouge does.
I feel part of the reason for this is due to Renee Zellweger's central turn as Roxie as I never really cared about her in the way I did Kidman's Satine. In fact Chicago suffers from a lack of sympathetic characters with the only person who deserved any sort of sympathy being Roxie's cuckolded husband Amos. The ubiquitous John C Reilly was absolutely great as the almost invisible Amos and particularly shone during his character's 'Mr. Cellophane' number. Earning the Best Supporting Actress award for her performance in the film, Catherine Zeta-Jones gave a deliberately over-the-top turn as the pampered Velma. Zeta-Jones at least went for it full throttle though in a way that I don't think Zellweger ever did. Meanwhile Queen Latifah added a bit of musical depth as Cook County's matron Mama Morton and Richard Gere looked like he was enjoying himself as Billy Flynn. Whilst some of the musical numbers most notably 'The Cell Block Tango' and the finale hit the mark others did nothing for me. I did however like the way that each number was introduced and found that director Rob Marshall laid everything out perfectly. But Chicago's ultimate problem was that there wasn't a lot going on beneath the surface and this was a film whose only purpose seemed to be to entertain. I certainly don't think the film has taken on classic status since its release and it never screamed out Best Picture winner to me when I watched it at the cinema the first time round. That's not a knock against a very fun and enjoyable musical but instead against the Academy who felt that this was more deserving of the big prize than some of the better films that were released in the same year.
Next time we look at a film which contains one of the most famous movie twists of all time.
That film was Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge which received eight nominations at the 2002 Academy Awards. It's no surprise that Moulin Rouge's two wins were in the production and costume design categories as it's a film that's been styled within an inch of its life. Lurhmann's aim was to recreate what it felt like to be in the titular French venue during the late 1890s. To do so he used a cavalcade of contemporary pop tunes and framed the majority of the film's numbers so they looked like music videos. With a variety of recognisable songs littered throughout Moulin Rouge, Lurhmann spent almost two years securing the rights to the soundtrack which included a tango version of The Police's 'Roxanne' and a high-kicking musical imagining of Madonna's 'Like a Virgin'. As with the majority of the musicals I've covered on this blog, Moulin Rouge's story is very slight indeed. It's told from the point-of-view of penniless writer Christian who is reflecting on his brief romance with the Moulin Rouge's star turn Satine. Satine and Christian fall in love over one night as he convinces her to star in a musical which is very much based around their own story. Standing in the way of the young couple's romance is a pompous duke who wishes to be Satine in order to give the Moulin Rouge's owner Howard Zidler the funding to turn his club into a theatre. Although it features plenty of plush musical scenes, the content of Moulin Rouge is quite dark as it deals with themes of prostitution, rape and terminal illness. The final twenty minutes, all based around the show within a show, are a dazzling treat for both the ears and the eyes and sort of distract from the film's many minor problems.
Moulin Rouge is definitely an enjoyable movie and you can't help but like a film that plays around with the very idea of the musical itself. Every scene, costume and character is well-designed with Donald M. McAlpine's cinematography varying throughout the piece. Nicole Kidman's performance as Satine was the only turn in the film to be nominated for an Oscar and I think it was more than deserved. Kidman's balanced Satine's on-stage persona brilliantly with the more fragile elements of the character's personality and she really made me care about her deteriorating health. As Harold Zidler, I found Jim Broadbent to be utterly magnificent as at times his character was very dark and at other times provided some great comic moments. Similarly great was John Leguizamo as Toulouse-Letrec; the character who the 1950s film version of Moulin Rouge was based upon. On the other hand I didn't think Ewan McGregor had the requisite amount of passion to play Christian and I don't believe he and Kidman sparkled on screen as much as they could. The biggest issue though was the character of The Count who felt like something out of a pantomime whilst actor Richard Roxbrough didn't just chew the scenery but devoured it as a three course meal. However I don't think this ultimately mattered in a film that is so joyous and basically reintroduced the musical for a modern audience. If Moulin Rouge hadn't been as successful as it was I don't believe that recent film musicals would've made such a big impact at the box office. But thankfully Luhrmann's vision struck a chord with movie-going audiences around the world and this montage of music videos strung together by a loose plot became one of the best films of the year.
Even with Moulin Rouge's success I don't think many would've predicted that a musical would win Best Picture the following year. Rather than another film crafted in the same postmodern style of Moulin Rouge, it was a rather traditional musical that ended up claiming the big prize at the 2003 awards. The film in question was a screen adaptation of popular Broadway show Chicago; which was actually the show that Roy Scheider's director was working on in All that Jazz. Though it's structure is very much in the style of an old-fashioned musical, Chicago does share similarities with Moulin Rouge in the way that it lays out it's numbers. Each performance is laid out as if the characters were singing directly to an audience and are strung together by introductions by Taye Diggs' piano player. In fact Diggs' supporting turn put me in mind of Joel Grey's Emcee in Cabaret as both serve a similar purpose. However, each performance in the film is intertwined with characters acting out the plot whether it be a press conference or a murder trial. The basic plot of Chicago revolves around Roxie Hart; a naive Chicago residence who dreams of being a star and who kills her lover after he insults her lack of talent. Roxie's subsequent arrest puts her in Cook County Prison alongside her idol and fellow murderess Velma Kelly. The rest of the film then becomes a power struggle between Roxie and Velma as both try to garner the interest of the press ahead of their respective trials. Playing both women against each other is slick lawyer Billy Flynn, whose titular 'Razzle Dazzle' style is the focus of one of the musical's more famous tunes. Just like Moulin Rouge, Chicago uses its stylish musical numbers to cover up rather dark subject matter in this case infidelity and murder. However, in my opinion, Chicago doesn't really warm the heart in the way that Moulin Rouge does.
I feel part of the reason for this is due to Renee Zellweger's central turn as Roxie as I never really cared about her in the way I did Kidman's Satine. In fact Chicago suffers from a lack of sympathetic characters with the only person who deserved any sort of sympathy being Roxie's cuckolded husband Amos. The ubiquitous John C Reilly was absolutely great as the almost invisible Amos and particularly shone during his character's 'Mr. Cellophane' number. Earning the Best Supporting Actress award for her performance in the film, Catherine Zeta-Jones gave a deliberately over-the-top turn as the pampered Velma. Zeta-Jones at least went for it full throttle though in a way that I don't think Zellweger ever did. Meanwhile Queen Latifah added a bit of musical depth as Cook County's matron Mama Morton and Richard Gere looked like he was enjoying himself as Billy Flynn. Whilst some of the musical numbers most notably 'The Cell Block Tango' and the finale hit the mark others did nothing for me. I did however like the way that each number was introduced and found that director Rob Marshall laid everything out perfectly. But Chicago's ultimate problem was that there wasn't a lot going on beneath the surface and this was a film whose only purpose seemed to be to entertain. I certainly don't think the film has taken on classic status since its release and it never screamed out Best Picture winner to me when I watched it at the cinema the first time round. That's not a knock against a very fun and enjoyable musical but instead against the Academy who felt that this was more deserving of the big prize than some of the better films that were released in the same year.
Next time we look at a film which contains one of the most famous movie twists of all time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)