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.
As we're nearing the end of another decade's worth of films I thought it was time for a quick holiday so I decided for a three-movie long tour of Asia. Two of the films in this triple bill are historical pieces, shot in the country's native tongue and featuring subtitles for Western viewers such as myself. The third film, for the most part, is in the English Language although the scenes in other languages aren't subtitled, but then again that's kind of the point.
We start in China in the year 1779 for some high-flying martial arts courtesy of Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. The film tells the story of the sword 'The Green Destiny' and the way it unites all four of the movie's central characters. The sword initially belongs to retired warrior Li Mu Bai who gives it to his friend and fellow warrior Yu Shu Lien so that she may deliver it as a gift to their mutual acquaintance Sir Te. One of the threads running throughout Crouching Tiger is the unrequited romance between Mu Bai and Shu Lien, which is a classic cinematic love that will never speak its name. Just as Shu Lien is about to present the sword to Sir Te; it is stolen by a female warrior believed to be the elusive Jade Fox. Years before, Fox murdered Mu Bai's master and he's now out for revenge however it later transpires that his nemesis has a pupil in the form of noblewoman Jen. Jen is initially presented as the courteous daughter from a respected family but its later revealed that Fox was training her up to be another deadly warrior. Jen's other story involves desert warrior Lo, a man who she originally met after he stole her fan. The flashbacks, in which Jen and Lo's romance is detailed, signalled the moment where the film ground to a halt for me. I did feel that Lee and the three screenwriters took too long with this particular part of the story and to an extent the narrative never recovered. Thankfully Crouching Tiger's final act was full of action and emotion as the stage was set for Jen's wedding and the final showdown between Mu Bai and Jade Fox.
I remember watching Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon on VHS soon after it was released and at the time I think I rather enjoyed it. However, this time round, I did feel the film was a little patchy especially from a storytelling perspective. As I previously alluded to the pacing of the story varies throughout the film's two hour running time. Starting off at a brisk jog, things slow to a halt during the Jen/Lo flashbacks before kicking into full throttle towards the end. That being said there were several elements of the story I liked from the romance between Su Lien and Mu Bai; to Jen's attempts to get the upper hand on all the other characters. Indeed, one of the great things about Crouching Tiger is the fact that there are two strong central female characters who are well-rounded and can stand up for themselves even against the men. Whilst narratively the film may have a few issues, visually it's one of the most spectacular movies I've watched since I began. The martial arts scenes in particular are stunning especially those involving the high-flying Jen. Jen and Su Lien's final battle is especially breathtaking and I think that Lee is brilliant at capturing these battles on screen. I'm not surprised that cinematographer Peter Pau won an award for his brilliant camera work on the film whilst further honours went to Crouching Tiger's soaring score and its fantastic period art direction. Even though it didn't win the big prize, Lee's film did pick up the award for Foreign Language Feature, an honour that I'm sure it deserved. Although it did have its problems, I enjoyed the fact that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was even nominated for the Best Picture prize in the first place. Overall it was a stunningly gorgeous film to watch and one that I'm glad is soon to get a long-awaited sequel.
Moving across the continent and through time we find ourselves in modern day Japan for a film that follows two Americans who are stuck in Tokyo. The film is Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation which focuses on a young photographer's wife and a washed-up actor who find themselves flummoxed by Japanese culture in general. It helps that actor Bob Harris, who is in Tokyo to film a whisky commercial, is played by the brilliant Bill Murray. Murray perfectly encapsulates a middle-aged man abroad especially when he tries to negotiate his way around a power shower or a piece of gym equipment. But Bob is also lost in a different way and that's what makes him navigate to Charlotte; a recent college graduate who is tagging along with her husband who has a work assignment in the city. Coppola builds up to Bob and Charlotte's first meeting by following their individual stories with the former shooting his ad whilst the latter wanders aimlessly around Tokyo's various landmarks. They eventually meet about half an hour into the film and then a very polite romance begins which includes a karaoke party and a trip to the hospital. Lost in Translation is very subtle in the way it deals with Bob and Charlotte's relationship as they are two disparate people who've found each other at the right time. One element I wasn't sure about was the conflict that Coppola creates between the pair when Bob has a one-night-stand with the hotel's cabaret singer. This moment is also only dwelt upon briefly before the iconic final scene in which our couple embrace in the centre of Tokyo and incoherently whisper in each other's ear.
I first went to see Lost in Translation at an early morning screening in January of 2004 and ever since then it's been one of my favourite films. As you can probably ascertain by now I love films that are based around characters rather than plot and that describes Lost in Translation in a nutshell. When I first watched it I identified with Charlotte, as I myself was about to graduate from university and was having one of those 'what does it all mean?' phases. Now I'm getting to the stage where I'm hoping I don't end up like Bob trapped in a marriage with a woman who is more concerned with carpet colours than she is the welfare of her husband. The film would be nothing without the performances from both Murray and Scarlett Johansson; the latter of whom was just eighteen when filming took place. I was utterly impressed how convincing Johansson was as a character who was five years older than her and she was able to carry off the extra life experience with no problem. Murray meanwhile balanced the slapstick he's been known for with a more measured, world-weary tone that he's employed in several films since. Murray and Johansson also share perfect chemistry as there's smiles and small looks at each other are the basis of what makes Bob and Charlotte's relationship work so well. Aside from Bob and Charlotte, the other big character in Lost in Translation is Tokyo itself which comes alive in several scenes in which the couple race across the city. Cinematographer Michael Accord brilliantly differentiates between the cold machine-like interior of the hotel with the exciting, bustling world outside. Sofia Coppola was nominated for both her direction and screenplay, rightfully scooping the latter award for her tender writing. However the biggest miscarriage of justice was that Bill Murray lost out on his deserved Best Actor award. Whilst the eventual winner Sean Penn did deliver a fine turn in Mystic River it wasn't nearly as good as Murray's subtle and humanistic portrayal of a man lost in himself and in a foreign country. Lost in Translation definitely hasn't lost any of its warmth or lightness of touch and I still love it as much as I did the first time I saw it over eleven years ago.
Staying in Japan now but moving back in time to the Second World War and a film that I've never seen before in Letters from Iwo Jima. This 2007 nominee also reunites us with Clint Eastwood although unusually for the director this is a film that has very few lines of dialogue that are in the English language. That's because Letters from Iwo Jima is in fact a companion piece to Eastwood's Flags of our Fathers; a film which tells the story of the battle of Iwo Jima from the point-of-view of the Americans. Whilst Flags of Our Fathers was meant to be the big event film it was Letters from Iwo Jima that actually garnered more acclaim and did slightly better at the Box Office. I feel the point of Letters from Iwo Jima is to tell the audience that there are two sides to every story and that those who fought on the Japanese side were equally as worthy of praise as the American soldiers. The film follows the fortunes of Private Saigo; a baker who is conscripted and leaves his heavily pregnant wife to fight on the island. Saigo often finds himself tortured by his superiors but on the day in which the U.S. Marines start to attack he is the only to keep a level-head. Evading being shot by those in charge several times, Saigo later earns the respect of General Kuribayashi and ultimately being the only one to survive the horrors of the battle. The most striking thing about Letters from Iwo Jima as a whole was the fact that many of the Japanese soldiers took their own lives when they thought that there was no way back. One of the scenes that will stick with me the most from Letters from Iwo Jima is the one in which the majority of Saigo's platoon blow themselves up with grenades. It's these moments that hit home the horrific conditions that the Japanese had to deal with and I do applaud Eastwood for trying to honour them in this way.
It did take me a while to truly lose myself in Letters from Iwo Jima and I felt the film only came alive in its latter scenes which was when the action really kicked off. The cast of the movie were all utterly believable in their roles with Kazunari Ninomiya being particularly effective as Saigo. The only familiar face amongst the cast, Ken Watanabe, was perfectly believable as the sensitive Kuribayashi; who at times was the only level-headed member of the military left on the island. Similarly to Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima is shot in a faded manner which at times makes it look almost like documentary footage. Although I've not seen Flags of Our Fathers it was interesting to spot the scenes in which the two nations intersected and I'm assuming there are moments that appear in both films. I felt it was particularly brave of Eastwood to portray the Americans as the antagonists particularly in one heart-wrenching scene when a brutish soldier executes two Japanese soldiers who have surrendered. Letters from Iwo Jima was in fact a surprise entrant in the 2007 Best Picture field with many expecting the fifth nominee to be the musical Dreamgirls. However, I think it was good that the academy honoured a subtitled film which actually bucked the trend for war films by focusing on the foreign army. While I can't say I was a compelled by the film as I possibly should have been there are certain moments of it that will stick with me for years to come.
Next time we'll travel back to the States for the final film in the noughties section of the blog.
In the last post I mentioned how Morgan Freeman's participation in Million Dollar Baby was partly to do with the fact that he could provide a similarly stirring voiceover to the one he delivered in The Shawshank Redemption. That film also has a lot in common with our next nominee The Green Mile, not least because it has the same director in Frank Darabont and is based on a novel by Steven King.
In addition The Green Mile is also set in a prison, albeit a small one on death row in which several inmates await the electric chair. The story is narrated by Paul Edgecomb, who was a guard on death row in the 1930s and is currently living in a retirement home. In a nice little bit of symmetry, the first film I ever watched for the challenge; Top Hat, is referenced several times throughout The Green Mile. The film itself gets the title from the colour of tarpaulin that the prisoners walk their final mile on before they get to the chair. The main focus of the story is on the arrival of a new prisoner John Coffey, a mountain of a man who is accused of raping and murdering two young girls. Despite his hulking stature, Coffey has almost a childlike demeanour and is even scared of the dark. As the film goes on it transpires that Coffey has magical powers which allow him to cure Paul of his urinary infection, bring a dead mouse back to life and later remove the brain tumour from the wife of the head guard. I felt that Darabont balanced the fantastical elements of the story nicely with the more unsavoury nature of some of the characters. One thing he does do is set a fine line between the heroes and villains of the piece meaning that there are very few shades of grey in the film. For example both sadistic prison guard Percy and psychopathic inmate 'Wild Bill' Wharton are painted as pure villains and neither have any redeeming features to speak of. Both also get their comeuppance at the end of the film with Wharton being revealed as the man who was involved in the crime that Coffey was charged with. What I did like about The Green Mile was its final chapter in which the redemption that happened in Shawshank doesn't occur for Paul. Instead he has been given almost a curse by Coffey and as a result has had to see his loved ones die gradually over the space of fifty years.
Even though I've seen The Green Mile before I didn't quite remember the ending where we learn just what sort of effect John Coffey had on Paul. I also don't remember the film being quite as long as it was, just over three hours, however the time seemed to past relatively quickly. The fact that I was never bored is a testament to both Darabont's direction and his adaptation of King's source novel. One part of the film I did like was the fact that John Coffey was never overused and his magical powers were littered throughout the film making them more special when they did appear. Instead, Darabont's focus on the mundane nature of the mile meant that you got a real sense of what it was like to be working on death row. Tom Hanks was the perfect choice to play Paul Edgecomb as he has the everyman quality that the role requires. Hanks is surrounded by a bunch of character actors who play his colleagues including Barry Pepper, David Morse and James Cromwell. I particularly admired Sam Rockwell's performance as the certifiable Wharton as he added an extra element of crazy to an already deranged character. Meanwhile, Doug Hutchinson did his best to make the audience detest the weasel-like Percy and I felt he pulled it off admirably. However, the best performance for me came from relative newcomer Michael Clarke Duncan, who sadly passed away a couple of years ago. Cinematographer David Tattersall goes to great lengths to capture the size of Duncan on screen but I felt the actor did great at portraying his character's softer side. Duncan was in fact the only member of the cast to be nominated for his role in a film which also picked up another three nominations. Although at times The Green Mile makes you suspend your disbelief I feel you're rewarded for doing so by a magical film which is ably written and directed and that contains a number of fine performances.
Next time you'll have to grab your passports as we go on a whistle-stop tour around Asia
Back on Day 309, I mentioned how Clint Eastwood had gone unrecognised by Oscar until winning the Best Picture prize in 1993 for Unforgiven. Oscar's love affair with Eastwood carried into the next decade with three of his films being nominated for Best Picture during the ten year stretch. This post will look at two of those three movies with the third to be covered at a later date.
We kick off with a film that Clint directed but never appeared however fact fans may want to know that Mystic River was the first movie that Eastwood scored himself. Eastwood's score is just one of the many positive elements of Mystic River; a film that I enjoyed immensely on this second viewing. This Boston-set crime thriller revolves around three childhood friends; Jimmy, Sean and Dave all of whom are effected by an event from their past. The event itself is played out in the film's first three minutes in which Dave is abducted by two men that three boys believe to be cops. Flash forward twenty-eight years later and Dave's abduction and subsequent abuse have caused him to become quite a slow-witted man. Although it's clear he loves his son and wife, he's prone to moments of absence and comes home one night covered in blood. That night happens to be the same one on which Jimmy's nineteen-year-old daughter goes missing and is eventually found murdered. Jimmy, who is now one of the town's most respected citizens, uses underhanded tactics to try and discover who the perpetrator was. This annoys Sean who just happens to be the investigating officer on the case and who isn't willing to believe his partner when he suggests Dave might be the killer. Screenwriter Brian Helgeland's adaptation of Dennis Lehane's novel perfectly ups the tension as the audience have to wait till the end of the film to learn who the murderer actually is. Therefore Eastwood and Helgeland create a sense of unease which I believe help to make us sympathise with the characters who aren't quite sure who to trust. This also means that Mystic River's final twenty minutes are incredibly emotional as revelation after revelation pours out and by the end I was personally left with my heart broken.
As I previously mentioned this is my second time watching Mystic River but, just like a lot of films in this decade, it's not one that I particularly remember. I'm not quite sure why that is as everything about Mystic River is perfectly delivered from Eastwood's aforementioned score to Tom Stern's cinematography which allows the small town to become a character itself. Helegland does a good job of getting through the history between the three characters quite quickly to the extent that we understand why they are how they are. The more sympathetic character is definitely Dave, who has remained almost in a childlike state since his trauma at a young age. Tim Robbins is absolutely great as Dave, capturing the essence of the character beautifully and delivering a particularly stunning turn towards the end of the film. Sean Penn meanwhile gives Jimmy a terrifying demeanour but couples this with a softer side which is on view in the scene where his character learns of the death of his daughter. This scene is particularly iconic thanks to Stern's framing of the piece and the image of Penn being held back by numerous cops. Both Penn and Robbins won Oscars for their roles in the film but I feel a little sorry for Kevin Bacon who had the job of playing the less flashy role of Sean. I felt that Bacon deserved to at least be recognised for playing an intelligent police officer who occasionally let his heart get in the way of doing his job. Also nominated at the ceremony was Marcia Gay Harden who delivered a memorable supporting performance as Dave's frightened wife. I also personally liked Laura Linney as Jimmy's wife who becomes almost like a Lady Macbeth figure in the film's final ten minutes. Absorbing from beginning to end; Mystic River works as a thriller, a character study and a mystery all at the same time.
One year later Eastwood found himself in the same position as he did twelve years earlier as he picked up Best Director and Best Picture for his boxing movie Million Dollar Baby. Here Clint was back in front of the camera as grizzled boxing trainer Frankie Dunn, a man who was living with many regrets. Frankie was presented as the kind of man who put in all the work on a fighter only to be left behind when the boxer wanted to go for the title. His only true friends were the local pastor and Eddie 'Scrap-Iron' Dupris; a former fighter who now lives and works at Frankie's gym. In an Unforgiven reunion, Eddie is played by Morgan Freeman who seems to have been hired purely to give a Shawshank Redemption-like voiceover to the film. However, if you're going to get somebody to provide a thoughtful voiceover to a film then Freeman's your man and I felt he gave Million Dollar Baby that special quality. The bulk of the film is devoted to Frankie's training of Hilary Swank's Maggie Fitzgerald; an older female boxer that he was reluctant to take on as he doesn't coach girls. However, as the film goes on the pair develop an interesting working relationship which allows Maggie to thrive in the ring. I found that Paul Haggis' script made Million Dollar Baby feel classier than your average sporting film and Maggie's fights were split up with plenty of emotional scenes between Frankie and Maggie. One brilliant set piece sees Maggie return home to surprise her mother with a new house only to find her lovely gesture spat back in her face. The element of Million Dollar Baby that I remember the most is the film's final act in which Maggie finds herself paralysed after an accident in a title match. Here I felt that Haggis over-egged the pudding a little bit as Million Dollar Baby became a different film altogether especially after Maggie asks Frankie to help her end her own life. Although I knew the ending was coming, I still found it shocking to watch and I think this sensitive storyline helped Million Dollar Baby to win Best Picture.
Alongside Eastwood's awards for Directing and Best Picture both Swank and Freeman picked up awards for their performances. Swank gave a good portrayal of an every woman who was fighting to achieve her goal however for the most part I found it to be rather unremarkable. I think that the reason she was given the award was due to the final act as Maggie finds herself unable to fight the inevitable. Freeman's wise narration was coupled with a number of fine scenes in which he finally got to have the one fight that had been eluding him all these years. Whilst Freeman did a good job in this film I feel he's been better elsewhere especially in The Shawshank Redemption and Seven. If anybody should have won an Oscar for acting in the film I believe it should have been Eastwood himself as he perfectly conveyed the evolution in the character of Frankie. Clint played to his strengths for the most part but he still conveyed Frankie's growing fatherly feelings towards Maggie. As he had done in Mystic River, Clint also provided a suitable score for Million Dollar Baby which again enhanced the overall mood of the film. I personally felt that Million Dollar Baby took a while to get going and it was only when Frankie took Maggie under his wing that the pace of the film picked up. A subplot involving the simple fighter Danger didn't do anything for me and instead proved that Paul Haggis sometimes adds too many elements to his story as he did the year later with his script for Crash. Although a solid drama, I think it's Million Dollar Baby's mawkish third act that lets it down, although I'm sure this is why the academy ultimately gave it the Best Picture award. Ultimately there's a lot to like about Million Dollar Baby, especially the performances and Eastwood's assured direction, but it just doesn't have that extra special something that a Best Picture winner truly needs.
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.
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.
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.
