Occasionally I find that some films are screened at the cinemas specifically for the purpose of being nominated for Oscars and other awards. For example, back when I reviewed The Queen, I noted how it seemed that the production was originally going to air on TV before Mirren's performance started to look Oscar-worthy.
The same could definitely be said for Philomena, which is based on Martin Sixsmith's book about his assistance in the search for the forcibly adopted son of an old Irish lady. Just like The Queen, Philomena is directed by Stephen Frears and to further my suspicions it has been produced by BBC Films. Meanwhile, Sixsmith's book has been adapted here by veteran TV screenwriter Jeff Pope alongside Steve Coogan; who portrays the former journalist in the film. Although Pope and Coogan's script received a nomination at the Oscars, it was Judi Dench's central turn as Philomena herself that was main draw for the Academy. Philomena saw Dench play against type, as her character is a rather vulnerable old lady who is full of regret about an event in her life that she's kept secret for fifty years. Dench so often portrays strong older women, such as M. in James Bond, that it was odd to see her play such a different character. As the film progresses, Philomena and Martin learn that her son was sold to an American couple by the nuns at the Irish convent in which the baby was born. The scenes in America are perfectly written as Philomena learns that her son had died years earlier and that Martin had actually briefly met him. The final discoveries the pair make are that Anthony, who was renamed Michael, was gay and that he'd actually visited Ireland with the purpose of trying to find his birth mother. This heartbreaking revelation leaves Martin feeling angry but at the same time demonstrates the strength of Philomena's character by allowing her the chance to forgive the nuns who wronged her.
I'm actually quite surprised that Philomena did as well in America as it did seeing as it attacks two of its favourite institutions; The Republican Party and The Catholic Church. Indeed, there had been accusations that the film was simply a ninety-minute attack of the Catholic Church but I didn't feel this was true. For example Philomena's faith is completely unwavering and in fact it allows her to forgive those who have wronged her. The trade of journalism doesn't come off too well either especially when Martin's editor forces him to stay in America just after he and Philomena had discovered that Michael had passed away. There were also criticisms of the dramatic license that Pope and Coogan took with their script even though almost every biopic does the same thing. The biggest change between the book and the film is that Philomena never went to America with Martin but I personally don't think the film would've worked if she'd have stayed in the UK. In fact one of Philomena's best qualities was the odd couple relationship between the wise Irish woman and the cynical former spin doctor. Judi Dench is fantastic in the role of a woman who isn't as stupid as everyone believes she is whilst Steve Coogan plays to his strengths utilising a mixture of comedy and drama as the sneering Sixsmith. My biggest shock about Philomena is the amount of controversy that it caused as; at the end of the day it's an enjoyable run-of-the-mill biographical drama that I found to be an easy watch. Though I didn't get as emotional watching Philomena as I did the first time, it's still a thought-provoking film to sit through even if I don't believe it would've made it on to the big screen had it not been for Dench's Oscar-nominated central turn.
Next time we concentrate on the career of an actor we previously looked in on during the first decade of the 21st century.
Monday, 4 May 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 443-444: Let's Get Animated
As I discussed in the last post, foreign language films are very unlikely to ever receive a nomination for Best Picture. However, one type of film that has even less chance of making its way into the Best Picture shortlist is the animated movie. Up until now only one fully animated film has made it into the Best Picture category, that being Beauty and the Beast. The Academy attempted to redress this balance by introducing a Best Animated Feature category in the early 21st century. However, by extending the Best Picture category to a potential ten nominees, animated films were finally given their dues by the Academy.
Interestingly both of the animated features nominated for the Best Picture prize came from one studio, that being the much-acclaimed Pixar. Pixar, who partnered with Disney, had delivered plenty of films that had won the Best Animated Feature prize including Ratatouille and the fantastic Wall-E. One year after Wall-E they released Up which won the Best Animated Feature prize as well as scooping a deserving Best Picture nod. I think Up is a film that is most famous for its first ten minutes in which we go through the life of Carl Fredricksen, a young wimpy kid who grows thanks to the love of his eventual wife Ellie. Director Pete Docter is responsible for plenty of tears with a five minute montage that includes Carl and Ellie's wedding, the discovery they can't have children, their planned trip to South America and her eventual death. These scenes are accompanied by Michael Giacchino's memorable score which itself went on to win an Oscar. After this emotional opening, the rest of Up looks at Carl's new adventure as he straps balloons to his house and flies away in order to avoid going into a retirement home. The problem is that Carl has taken young Adventure Scout Russell along for the ride and over the course of the film his young companion goes from unwanted nuisance to surrogate grandchild. Whilst the relationship between Carl and Ellie plays more to the adult audience, Docter makes sure there's something for the kids in the form of a colourful bird and dogs with talking collars. The more manic part of the film sees Carl attempt to protect the aforementioned bird by taking on his childhood hero; adventurer and subsequent madman Charles F. Muntz. After several madcap sequences, Up returns to its emotional core as the final scene brings home how much Russell and Carl now mean to each other.
It always amazes me just how much work goes into making a Pixar movie especially after learning that Docter started writing the script five years before Up was finally released. The lead character of Carl is an interesting one for an animation as he's not somebody who you'd particularly want to root for. But Docter makes him likeable by including that opening montage as well as adding aspects of famous film curmudgeons including Spencer Tracy and Walter Matthau. Carl is voiced brilliantly by Edward Asner who is able to bring out both his character's gruffness and kindness of spirit. Until researching this blog post, I hadn't realised that the character of Russell was an Asian American and that casting a youngster from this ethnic background garnered praise from the local community. After moaning about annoying child stars recently it was great to hear Jordan Nagai's endearing vocals as the wonderfully innocent Russell. Nagai didn't actually audition for the role but his energy was noted by Docter whilst he was waiting for a brother who was up for the role. Every single frame of the feature has been lovingly created, with some of Pixar's animators spending ages in South America to get the features of Paradise Falls completely right. Upon this viewing of Up, which must be my third or fourth, there were several problems I had with the narrative. As a more mature viewer I got a little bit bored in the sections that weren't for me and I didn't particularly care for Kevin the Bird as I found him to be a bit irritating. But with a fine beginning and end, two great voice actors and wonderful animation, Up is a modern classic that will be watched by current and future generations for centuries to come.
Despite producing many incredibly popular animated features, Pixar will always be most famous for the Toy Story films. This is primarily because Toy Story was the studio's first full feature when it was released in 1995. Four years later the sequel was released to even more acclaim but audiences were then made to wait another eleven years for the conclusion to the trilogy. Toy Story 3's main plot saw Woody, Buzz and the gang realise that seventeen-year-old Andy now didn't want to play with them particularly as he was just about to head off to college. The predicament about what to do with our childhood toys is one that all of us have gone through and seeing this through the eyes of the toys themselves is quite unique. Whilst Andy decides to take Woody to college, a choice that I still find odd to this day, the other toys are destined for the attic. However, due to some miscommunication, they end up believing they were destined for the garbage and therefore take matters into their own hands. With Woody splitting himself from the gang, they arrive at Sunnyside Daycare believing that they will find children who'll play with them properly. However, they quickly learn that Daycare is manipulated by the cute-looking but evil-minded Lotso who believes that every toy at the institution has been discarded by a child. I think that screenwriter Michael Arndt did a great job at turning the middle chunk of Toy Story 3 into a prison movie spoof. There were some great scenes in which the returning Woody learnt of the security at the centre and how he would best be able to sneak his friends out. The final scenes of the film though were the most touching, and to me rivalled anything in Up, as the toys believed they were to be incinerated and held hands to face the inevitable. This emotion lasted on to the scene in which Andy finally set a heartfelt goodbye to Woody and friends in a moment that evoked memories of the final moments of Winnie the Pooh.
I think enlisting Arndt to write the script for Toy Story 3 was a masterstroke and one that more that paid off. Arndt, who previously won an Oscar for penning Little Miss Sunshine, knew that the key to the film's charm was the relationship between the toys and therefore based the story around their closeness. The scene in the incinerator still makes me well up when I think about it and that scene where the toys link hands one-by-one is particularly poignant. I found the structure of the film allowed the old characters to shine while at the same time introducing new memorable supporting players. Obviously some of the most memorable scenes in Toy Story 3 belong to Ken, who is superbly voiced here by Michael Keaton, a character who goes from sleazy enforcer to groovy manager of the daycare thanks in part to his relationship with Barbie. Despite the film being about talking toys, Toy Story 3 is a film that feels incredibly close to real life and the fact that it touches on themes of moving on means that it resonates with every member of the audience. I think what makes the Pixar films so great is that they never insult their audience in the way other animated movies seem to. Both in Up and Toy Story 3 the stories are quite complex and contain something for every member of the family. In fact the two films I've watched for this particular post are better written than a lot of the other Oscar-nominated movies that I've talked about recently. The only minus point in Toy Story 3's favour is the fact that Pixar have now announced a fourth film which won't follow on from this classic. Instead it has been announced as a stand-alone sequel which leads me to believe that it's simply an attempt to cash in on the franchise's success. But disregarding that fact I think it's fair to say that Toy Story 3 caps off what is arguably the most consistent and well-rounded film trilogy of all time.
Next time we follow two British national treasures as they go on a trip around America.
Interestingly both of the animated features nominated for the Best Picture prize came from one studio, that being the much-acclaimed Pixar. Pixar, who partnered with Disney, had delivered plenty of films that had won the Best Animated Feature prize including Ratatouille and the fantastic Wall-E. One year after Wall-E they released Up which won the Best Animated Feature prize as well as scooping a deserving Best Picture nod. I think Up is a film that is most famous for its first ten minutes in which we go through the life of Carl Fredricksen, a young wimpy kid who grows thanks to the love of his eventual wife Ellie. Director Pete Docter is responsible for plenty of tears with a five minute montage that includes Carl and Ellie's wedding, the discovery they can't have children, their planned trip to South America and her eventual death. These scenes are accompanied by Michael Giacchino's memorable score which itself went on to win an Oscar. After this emotional opening, the rest of Up looks at Carl's new adventure as he straps balloons to his house and flies away in order to avoid going into a retirement home. The problem is that Carl has taken young Adventure Scout Russell along for the ride and over the course of the film his young companion goes from unwanted nuisance to surrogate grandchild. Whilst the relationship between Carl and Ellie plays more to the adult audience, Docter makes sure there's something for the kids in the form of a colourful bird and dogs with talking collars. The more manic part of the film sees Carl attempt to protect the aforementioned bird by taking on his childhood hero; adventurer and subsequent madman Charles F. Muntz. After several madcap sequences, Up returns to its emotional core as the final scene brings home how much Russell and Carl now mean to each other.
It always amazes me just how much work goes into making a Pixar movie especially after learning that Docter started writing the script five years before Up was finally released. The lead character of Carl is an interesting one for an animation as he's not somebody who you'd particularly want to root for. But Docter makes him likeable by including that opening montage as well as adding aspects of famous film curmudgeons including Spencer Tracy and Walter Matthau. Carl is voiced brilliantly by Edward Asner who is able to bring out both his character's gruffness and kindness of spirit. Until researching this blog post, I hadn't realised that the character of Russell was an Asian American and that casting a youngster from this ethnic background garnered praise from the local community. After moaning about annoying child stars recently it was great to hear Jordan Nagai's endearing vocals as the wonderfully innocent Russell. Nagai didn't actually audition for the role but his energy was noted by Docter whilst he was waiting for a brother who was up for the role. Every single frame of the feature has been lovingly created, with some of Pixar's animators spending ages in South America to get the features of Paradise Falls completely right. Upon this viewing of Up, which must be my third or fourth, there were several problems I had with the narrative. As a more mature viewer I got a little bit bored in the sections that weren't for me and I didn't particularly care for Kevin the Bird as I found him to be a bit irritating. But with a fine beginning and end, two great voice actors and wonderful animation, Up is a modern classic that will be watched by current and future generations for centuries to come.
Despite producing many incredibly popular animated features, Pixar will always be most famous for the Toy Story films. This is primarily because Toy Story was the studio's first full feature when it was released in 1995. Four years later the sequel was released to even more acclaim but audiences were then made to wait another eleven years for the conclusion to the trilogy. Toy Story 3's main plot saw Woody, Buzz and the gang realise that seventeen-year-old Andy now didn't want to play with them particularly as he was just about to head off to college. The predicament about what to do with our childhood toys is one that all of us have gone through and seeing this through the eyes of the toys themselves is quite unique. Whilst Andy decides to take Woody to college, a choice that I still find odd to this day, the other toys are destined for the attic. However, due to some miscommunication, they end up believing they were destined for the garbage and therefore take matters into their own hands. With Woody splitting himself from the gang, they arrive at Sunnyside Daycare believing that they will find children who'll play with them properly. However, they quickly learn that Daycare is manipulated by the cute-looking but evil-minded Lotso who believes that every toy at the institution has been discarded by a child. I think that screenwriter Michael Arndt did a great job at turning the middle chunk of Toy Story 3 into a prison movie spoof. There were some great scenes in which the returning Woody learnt of the security at the centre and how he would best be able to sneak his friends out. The final scenes of the film though were the most touching, and to me rivalled anything in Up, as the toys believed they were to be incinerated and held hands to face the inevitable. This emotion lasted on to the scene in which Andy finally set a heartfelt goodbye to Woody and friends in a moment that evoked memories of the final moments of Winnie the Pooh.
I think enlisting Arndt to write the script for Toy Story 3 was a masterstroke and one that more that paid off. Arndt, who previously won an Oscar for penning Little Miss Sunshine, knew that the key to the film's charm was the relationship between the toys and therefore based the story around their closeness. The scene in the incinerator still makes me well up when I think about it and that scene where the toys link hands one-by-one is particularly poignant. I found the structure of the film allowed the old characters to shine while at the same time introducing new memorable supporting players. Obviously some of the most memorable scenes in Toy Story 3 belong to Ken, who is superbly voiced here by Michael Keaton, a character who goes from sleazy enforcer to groovy manager of the daycare thanks in part to his relationship with Barbie. Despite the film being about talking toys, Toy Story 3 is a film that feels incredibly close to real life and the fact that it touches on themes of moving on means that it resonates with every member of the audience. I think what makes the Pixar films so great is that they never insult their audience in the way other animated movies seem to. Both in Up and Toy Story 3 the stories are quite complex and contain something for every member of the family. In fact the two films I've watched for this particular post are better written than a lot of the other Oscar-nominated movies that I've talked about recently. The only minus point in Toy Story 3's favour is the fact that Pixar have now announced a fourth film which won't follow on from this classic. Instead it has been announced as a stand-alone sequel which leads me to believe that it's simply an attempt to cash in on the franchise's success. But disregarding that fact I think it's fair to say that Toy Story 3 caps off what is arguably the most consistent and well-rounded film trilogy of all time.
Next time we follow two British national treasures as they go on a trip around America.
Sunday, 3 May 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 442: Everlasting Love
As we've learnt, it's quite hard to secure a Best Picture nomination if you're a film in anything other than the English language. In fact being a foreign film in the Best Picture category is quite an exclusive club with the most recent member being Michael Haneke's Amour.
In some ways Amour is quite an ironic title as Haneke's film focuses on an old French couple in their eighties who experience a significant trauma. After an early scene at a concert, the rest of Amour takes place in the apartment of retired piano teachers Anne and Georges. The film's story looks at Anne's increasing reliance on Georges after quietly suffering a stroke and how he reacts to the help provided. Although Haneke spoils the end of the story by putting the final scene at the beginning, it's still interesting to see how the deterioration of this once capable couple. After Anne's stroke, Georges believes she'll recover and the film slowly follows him helping her with her exercises. Unfortunately for him, just when there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel, Anne suffers a second stroke which leaves her unable to talk. After this tragic event, things start to go downhill for Georges as he shuts almost everybody else out as he feels he can care for his wife on his own. He fires a nurse he believes has been abusing Anne and chastises his daughter when she suggests they put her mother in a nursing home. Eventually, Georges does what we know he will do but Haneke makes the moment all the more shocking by preceding it with quite a mundane story. Throughout Amour, Darius Khondji's camera focuses on Anne's expressive face and this final scene is no different. Despite what Georges does we still sympathise with him primarily as we've seen what he's been through and recognise that what happened to the film's central couple could easily happen to any one of us.
Suffice to say Amour is quite a tough watch as Haneke makes you feel like you're watching a real couple suffering through Anne and Georges' plight. This is a testament to actors Emmanuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Trintignant both of whom inhabit the character of Anne and Georges for the film's two hour running time. Riva's performance was widely-acclaimed by critics and her nomination for Best Actress saw her become the oldest woman ever to receive that particular accolade. In my mind there was no way she shouldn't have won for her performance that touched almost every individual who saw the film. From the opening scene in which Khondji's camera picks them up at the theatre, Riva is an engaging screen presence and the compelling nature of her character only continues after Anne suffers her stroke. Riva makes us suffer with her and is particularly outstanding at portraying Anne's emotions after she loses the ability to speak. Trinitignant is no less spectacular, even though his performance didn't receive as much recognition as that of his on screen wife. I feel this is because Trinitignant almost acts as the straight man of the pair as he has the job of explaining the situation to both the audience and the other characters. However I found that he played Georges' frustration perfectly and his descent into despair is perfectly played by the actor. For a film about two music teachers it's interesting that for the most part there is no background music in Amour. This is most evident when we are allowed to hear certain classical pieces, most of which have some sort of resonance to Anne's history. Heartbreaking but at that same time life affirming, Amour is definitely one of the best films I've watched over the last few years. Due to its subject matter and the fact it's in a different language, it's a surprise that it even received a Best Picture nomination. However I'm glad it did as it once again proves that the Academy are broadening their horizons and looking at well-made, thought-provoking films that might not tick all the standard Best Picture sized boxes.
Next time we lighten the mood with two films suitable for all ages.
In some ways Amour is quite an ironic title as Haneke's film focuses on an old French couple in their eighties who experience a significant trauma. After an early scene at a concert, the rest of Amour takes place in the apartment of retired piano teachers Anne and Georges. The film's story looks at Anne's increasing reliance on Georges after quietly suffering a stroke and how he reacts to the help provided. Although Haneke spoils the end of the story by putting the final scene at the beginning, it's still interesting to see how the deterioration of this once capable couple. After Anne's stroke, Georges believes she'll recover and the film slowly follows him helping her with her exercises. Unfortunately for him, just when there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel, Anne suffers a second stroke which leaves her unable to talk. After this tragic event, things start to go downhill for Georges as he shuts almost everybody else out as he feels he can care for his wife on his own. He fires a nurse he believes has been abusing Anne and chastises his daughter when she suggests they put her mother in a nursing home. Eventually, Georges does what we know he will do but Haneke makes the moment all the more shocking by preceding it with quite a mundane story. Throughout Amour, Darius Khondji's camera focuses on Anne's expressive face and this final scene is no different. Despite what Georges does we still sympathise with him primarily as we've seen what he's been through and recognise that what happened to the film's central couple could easily happen to any one of us.
Suffice to say Amour is quite a tough watch as Haneke makes you feel like you're watching a real couple suffering through Anne and Georges' plight. This is a testament to actors Emmanuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Trintignant both of whom inhabit the character of Anne and Georges for the film's two hour running time. Riva's performance was widely-acclaimed by critics and her nomination for Best Actress saw her become the oldest woman ever to receive that particular accolade. In my mind there was no way she shouldn't have won for her performance that touched almost every individual who saw the film. From the opening scene in which Khondji's camera picks them up at the theatre, Riva is an engaging screen presence and the compelling nature of her character only continues after Anne suffers her stroke. Riva makes us suffer with her and is particularly outstanding at portraying Anne's emotions after she loses the ability to speak. Trinitignant is no less spectacular, even though his performance didn't receive as much recognition as that of his on screen wife. I feel this is because Trinitignant almost acts as the straight man of the pair as he has the job of explaining the situation to both the audience and the other characters. However I found that he played Georges' frustration perfectly and his descent into despair is perfectly played by the actor. For a film about two music teachers it's interesting that for the most part there is no background music in Amour. This is most evident when we are allowed to hear certain classical pieces, most of which have some sort of resonance to Anne's history. Heartbreaking but at that same time life affirming, Amour is definitely one of the best films I've watched over the last few years. Due to its subject matter and the fact it's in a different language, it's a surprise that it even received a Best Picture nomination. However I'm glad it did as it once again proves that the Academy are broadening their horizons and looking at well-made, thought-provoking films that might not tick all the standard Best Picture sized boxes.
Next time we lighten the mood with two films suitable for all ages.
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 439-441: A Load of Bullock's
Throughout the last couple of decades Sandra Bullock was mainly seen as an actress who'd fronted a number of successful romantic comedies. That perception slightly changed when she featured in the Best Picture winning Crash and was finally altered for good when she won her only Best Actress Award to date at the 2010 ceremony.
Bullock won her award for The Blind Side, a film which saw her play the kindly but abrupt interior designer Leigh Ann Tuohy. I personally feel though that Bullock isn't the star of the film as this isn't really Leigh Ann's story but rather that of Michael Oher. We first meet 'Big Mike' when his size impresses the coach at the prestigious Wingate Christian School enough to grant him a scholarship. The problem is that Michael can't play for the school football team until his grades improve which is a shame as he doesn't seem to comprehend anything that is being taught to him. At the same time Michael finds himself out on the streets and is rescued by Leigh Ann and her family. The relationship between Leigh Ann and Michael is probably why the film struck a chord with the Academy and why Bullock ultimately received her Oscar. But at the same time I felt this part of the film was rather saccharine as getting to know Michael helped Leigh Ann to grow as a person. Instead I enjoyed watching Michael try attempt to find his place in the world and struggle with the fact that the Tuohy's intentions may not have been all they seemed. Judging from the poster alone, The Blind Side is seemingly about football but there is very little of the sport included in the film. There is only one extended football game in the movie and if you've ever seen a sporting film before you know exactly what to expect. Indeed, The Blind Side isn't very big on surprises but instead is one of those sort of films that Oscar loves to honour that being a 'feel good story'.
Whilst Bullock received all of the praised for The Blind Side I'd instead like to complement Quinton Aaron on his performance as Michael. I felt that he perfectly captured the essence of the gentle giant with Michael having the body of a giant but the mind of a child. I don't think Aaron ever made Michael into a patronising character and instead made him feel incredibly three-dimensional. That's more can be said for Bullock's Academy Award-winning turn in which she seemingly drew inspiration from previous Best Actress performances. Bullock's performance particularly evoked memories of Sally Field in Norma Rae and Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich both of whom won the Oscar for their roles. But while those two characters stood up for something they believed in, all Tuohy did was act as a Good Samaritan for a boy in need. I think my main problem with the role, and the film as a whole, is that there's not much story progression one Michael moves in with the Tuohys. Leigh Ann is definitely a one-note character meaning that Bullock was hard pushed to actually deliver a spot on performance. I believe that Bullock's win was primarily due to the fact that the Academy believed that it was her time to win one. Never mind that there were better performances from less established stars as Bullock was going to win the Oscar regardless of how good she was. The Blind Side's other Oscar-shaped surprise was the fact that it was nominated for Best Picture at all. As I've already mentioned, the 2010 ceremony saw the reintroduction of ten nominees meaning that some mediocre pictures had to be given nods. The Blind Side was one of those films which I believed was simply filling a gap and was one of the reasons that, two years later, the Academy decided to honour between five and ten films rather than a set number.
However, even this new system of picking nominees didn't stop the occasional bad movie turning up and that's just what happened when Bullock's next nominated film turned up. I still remember distinct whooping coming from the audience when Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close's Best Picture nomination was announced to the assembled crowd of press and PR people. This to me signals that one of its main intentions was to garner as many Oscar nominations as possible which is reinforced by the fact it had a limited release during the final week of 2011. The film also includes a ton of familiar faces including Bullock, Tom Hanks, Max Von Sydow, Viola Davis, John Goodman and Jeffrey Jones. Unfortunately for this talented bunch they're simply supporting players with the lead role being taken by Thomas Horn, a young man who had no prior acting experience before being cast in the film's lead role. This to me was one of the key problems with Extremely Loud as the character of Oskar Schell is a tricky one to pull off due to the fact that he suffers from some form of autism. I do feel that even a talented child actor would struggle to make Oskar seem sympathetic so in my opinion Horn was fighting a losing battle. It got to the point that occasionally during the film I just wanted to slap Oskar as Horn wasn't able to convey the fact that his character sometimes spoke out of turn without realising it. As well as including the Academy favourite of a character with a learning difficulty, Extremely Loud's other ace in the hole was that it concentrated on the events of 9/11. Oskar's father Thomas Schell, played by Hanks, was the only person who really understood him and so his son was devastated when he was killed at the World Trade Center. The film centres on Oskar's search to find the lock that fits the key that his father left for him and that had the name Black on it. Although the quest for the mysterious Black is an interesting one, I felt that director Stephen Daldry didn't do enough to make us care about Oskar's end goal.
I personally felt there were only two enjoyable parts of the film the first of which is when Max Von Sydow enters the story as a character simply known as 'The Renter'. The mystery man is renting a house with Oskar's grandmother and cannot speak leading to some interesting odd couple scenes between the pair. It's quite clear that The Renter is Oskar's grandfather as our protagonist starts to notice similarities in the mannerisms between he and his late father. Von Sydow rightfully received Extremely Loud's only nomination although he ultimately lost the Best Supporting Actor fight to Christopher Plummer. I then had to wait until the film's conclusion for something else to grab me namely Sandra Bullock's time to shine as Oskar's mother Linda. Throughout the film Linda had been somewhat of an afterthought but Bullock proved why she'd been cast in the movie during the revelation that her character had been ahead of her son the entire time. The story of Linda's meeting of all of the Blacks was more engaging than anything that Oskar had done during the entire film and it made me wish that we'd have had more of her on screen during the film. Aside from Bullock and Von Sydow everything else about Extremely Loud was felt cloying from the overblown score to the focus on subjects that the producers knew that the Academy loved. I do feel I've been spoilt a bit after watching Hugo, a film with two fine child actors, but I think that if Oskar had been cast more successfully then I would've enjoyed Extremely Loud a little more. Horn had in fact been cast after producer Scott Rudin saw him on a game show and I bet that he regretted his decision after seeing the finished product. Thankfully Horn has now returned to his studies and is putting acting on the back-burner for the time being and let's just hope that his skills have vastly improved if he ever decides to darken the big screen again.
After one film in which I felt she was over-rated and one film in which she wasn't given the chance to shine, I'm glad that Sandra Bullock's talents were finally on display during Gravity. The film is another rare example of the Academy honouring a sci-fi movie, something that still rarely happens despite the increased number of Best Picture nominees. Gravity saw Bullock nominated for her second Best Actress award for playing Mission Specialist Ryan Stone, a biomedical engineer who is currently on her first NASA Mission. The film concentrates on Ryan's predicament after her shuttle is hit with debris from a Russian satellite killing everyone but her and veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski. From there the plot of the film sees Ryan and Matt's mission to get to the International Space Station with a limited supply of oxygen between them. Gravity is very simplistic in nature with Alfonso Cuaron's script, which was co-written with his son Jonas, feeling very basic in nature. Ryan is a character who has gone into space after essentially losing everything as her daughter was killed aged just six years old. Meanwhile Matt is the classic veteran who is on his last NASA mission and is eager to return to Earth. I felt it was quite clear what was going to happen to each character but the ride to the finish line was still expertly plotted. Cuaron's Oscar winning direction was one of the main draws of Gravity due to the fact that he made every moment count. At just ninety minutes, Gravity is one of the shortest Best Picture nominees but its running time is one of its strengths as it adds to the intensity of the situation. Eventually separating herself from Matt, Ryan's endeavours continue as she's forced to go it alone and endures several life-threatening situations. The first time I watched Gravity I was literally biting my nails during the final sequence as I waited to see if Ryan would make it to Earth in one piece.
The fact that Gravity had such an emotional impact on me is a credit to all of the team involved in the film. The Academy agreed with that statement awarding Gravity with seven of the ten Oscars it was nominated for that night. Gravity became one of a number of films that won multiple awards without getting the Best Picture nod only beating Cabaret which won eight but lost out to The Godfather. Gravity's wins included two successes in the sound category which to me was one of the movie's key aspects with the silent nature of the space playing a big part throughout. I personally felt the use of sound added to the dramatic effect of the film with Ryan's voice coming slowly into the film as it began. Steven Price's Oscar-winning score was similarly moving as it echoed Ryan's struggles perfectly and added even more tension to the film's final scenes. Whilst she didn't win an award for the film, a lot of praise has to go for Sandra Bullock for being extremely captivating in a film in which she was on screen for every frame. Bullock's facial expressions were perfectly judged as she made the audience sympathise with a woman who still grieving for the daughter she'd lost. Aside from Bullock, the only other cast member with a sizeable role in Gravity was George Clooney who to me seemed to be channelling Toy Story's Buzz Lightyear. Clooney's charisma was fully exploited in the role of Matt although he came good when he had to act as a mentor to Bullock's rookie astronaut. There was a lot of confusion when Gravity took home the award for Best British Film at that year's BAFTAs especially as it's a film with two big American stars and is directed by a Mexican. However the award-winning Production Design and Visual Effects were all done in several English studios. I do believe that Gravity perfectly exemplifies the skill of the British Film Industry who worked tirelessly to recreate the zero-gravity atmosphere of the movie. I would go as far as to say that Gravity probably deserved to win the Best Picture award over that year's victor as it's an example of great film-making that contains a compelling if basic story and perfectly utilises modern day cinematic techniques.
Next time we focus on the most recent foreign language film to receive a Best Picture nomination.
Bullock won her award for The Blind Side, a film which saw her play the kindly but abrupt interior designer Leigh Ann Tuohy. I personally feel though that Bullock isn't the star of the film as this isn't really Leigh Ann's story but rather that of Michael Oher. We first meet 'Big Mike' when his size impresses the coach at the prestigious Wingate Christian School enough to grant him a scholarship. The problem is that Michael can't play for the school football team until his grades improve which is a shame as he doesn't seem to comprehend anything that is being taught to him. At the same time Michael finds himself out on the streets and is rescued by Leigh Ann and her family. The relationship between Leigh Ann and Michael is probably why the film struck a chord with the Academy and why Bullock ultimately received her Oscar. But at the same time I felt this part of the film was rather saccharine as getting to know Michael helped Leigh Ann to grow as a person. Instead I enjoyed watching Michael try attempt to find his place in the world and struggle with the fact that the Tuohy's intentions may not have been all they seemed. Judging from the poster alone, The Blind Side is seemingly about football but there is very little of the sport included in the film. There is only one extended football game in the movie and if you've ever seen a sporting film before you know exactly what to expect. Indeed, The Blind Side isn't very big on surprises but instead is one of those sort of films that Oscar loves to honour that being a 'feel good story'.
Whilst Bullock received all of the praised for The Blind Side I'd instead like to complement Quinton Aaron on his performance as Michael. I felt that he perfectly captured the essence of the gentle giant with Michael having the body of a giant but the mind of a child. I don't think Aaron ever made Michael into a patronising character and instead made him feel incredibly three-dimensional. That's more can be said for Bullock's Academy Award-winning turn in which she seemingly drew inspiration from previous Best Actress performances. Bullock's performance particularly evoked memories of Sally Field in Norma Rae and Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich both of whom won the Oscar for their roles. But while those two characters stood up for something they believed in, all Tuohy did was act as a Good Samaritan for a boy in need. I think my main problem with the role, and the film as a whole, is that there's not much story progression one Michael moves in with the Tuohys. Leigh Ann is definitely a one-note character meaning that Bullock was hard pushed to actually deliver a spot on performance. I believe that Bullock's win was primarily due to the fact that the Academy believed that it was her time to win one. Never mind that there were better performances from less established stars as Bullock was going to win the Oscar regardless of how good she was. The Blind Side's other Oscar-shaped surprise was the fact that it was nominated for Best Picture at all. As I've already mentioned, the 2010 ceremony saw the reintroduction of ten nominees meaning that some mediocre pictures had to be given nods. The Blind Side was one of those films which I believed was simply filling a gap and was one of the reasons that, two years later, the Academy decided to honour between five and ten films rather than a set number.
However, even this new system of picking nominees didn't stop the occasional bad movie turning up and that's just what happened when Bullock's next nominated film turned up. I still remember distinct whooping coming from the audience when Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close's Best Picture nomination was announced to the assembled crowd of press and PR people. This to me signals that one of its main intentions was to garner as many Oscar nominations as possible which is reinforced by the fact it had a limited release during the final week of 2011. The film also includes a ton of familiar faces including Bullock, Tom Hanks, Max Von Sydow, Viola Davis, John Goodman and Jeffrey Jones. Unfortunately for this talented bunch they're simply supporting players with the lead role being taken by Thomas Horn, a young man who had no prior acting experience before being cast in the film's lead role. This to me was one of the key problems with Extremely Loud as the character of Oskar Schell is a tricky one to pull off due to the fact that he suffers from some form of autism. I do feel that even a talented child actor would struggle to make Oskar seem sympathetic so in my opinion Horn was fighting a losing battle. It got to the point that occasionally during the film I just wanted to slap Oskar as Horn wasn't able to convey the fact that his character sometimes spoke out of turn without realising it. As well as including the Academy favourite of a character with a learning difficulty, Extremely Loud's other ace in the hole was that it concentrated on the events of 9/11. Oskar's father Thomas Schell, played by Hanks, was the only person who really understood him and so his son was devastated when he was killed at the World Trade Center. The film centres on Oskar's search to find the lock that fits the key that his father left for him and that had the name Black on it. Although the quest for the mysterious Black is an interesting one, I felt that director Stephen Daldry didn't do enough to make us care about Oskar's end goal.
I personally felt there were only two enjoyable parts of the film the first of which is when Max Von Sydow enters the story as a character simply known as 'The Renter'. The mystery man is renting a house with Oskar's grandmother and cannot speak leading to some interesting odd couple scenes between the pair. It's quite clear that The Renter is Oskar's grandfather as our protagonist starts to notice similarities in the mannerisms between he and his late father. Von Sydow rightfully received Extremely Loud's only nomination although he ultimately lost the Best Supporting Actor fight to Christopher Plummer. I then had to wait until the film's conclusion for something else to grab me namely Sandra Bullock's time to shine as Oskar's mother Linda. Throughout the film Linda had been somewhat of an afterthought but Bullock proved why she'd been cast in the movie during the revelation that her character had been ahead of her son the entire time. The story of Linda's meeting of all of the Blacks was more engaging than anything that Oskar had done during the entire film and it made me wish that we'd have had more of her on screen during the film. Aside from Bullock and Von Sydow everything else about Extremely Loud was felt cloying from the overblown score to the focus on subjects that the producers knew that the Academy loved. I do feel I've been spoilt a bit after watching Hugo, a film with two fine child actors, but I think that if Oskar had been cast more successfully then I would've enjoyed Extremely Loud a little more. Horn had in fact been cast after producer Scott Rudin saw him on a game show and I bet that he regretted his decision after seeing the finished product. Thankfully Horn has now returned to his studies and is putting acting on the back-burner for the time being and let's just hope that his skills have vastly improved if he ever decides to darken the big screen again.
After one film in which I felt she was over-rated and one film in which she wasn't given the chance to shine, I'm glad that Sandra Bullock's talents were finally on display during Gravity. The film is another rare example of the Academy honouring a sci-fi movie, something that still rarely happens despite the increased number of Best Picture nominees. Gravity saw Bullock nominated for her second Best Actress award for playing Mission Specialist Ryan Stone, a biomedical engineer who is currently on her first NASA Mission. The film concentrates on Ryan's predicament after her shuttle is hit with debris from a Russian satellite killing everyone but her and veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski. From there the plot of the film sees Ryan and Matt's mission to get to the International Space Station with a limited supply of oxygen between them. Gravity is very simplistic in nature with Alfonso Cuaron's script, which was co-written with his son Jonas, feeling very basic in nature. Ryan is a character who has gone into space after essentially losing everything as her daughter was killed aged just six years old. Meanwhile Matt is the classic veteran who is on his last NASA mission and is eager to return to Earth. I felt it was quite clear what was going to happen to each character but the ride to the finish line was still expertly plotted. Cuaron's Oscar winning direction was one of the main draws of Gravity due to the fact that he made every moment count. At just ninety minutes, Gravity is one of the shortest Best Picture nominees but its running time is one of its strengths as it adds to the intensity of the situation. Eventually separating herself from Matt, Ryan's endeavours continue as she's forced to go it alone and endures several life-threatening situations. The first time I watched Gravity I was literally biting my nails during the final sequence as I waited to see if Ryan would make it to Earth in one piece.
The fact that Gravity had such an emotional impact on me is a credit to all of the team involved in the film. The Academy agreed with that statement awarding Gravity with seven of the ten Oscars it was nominated for that night. Gravity became one of a number of films that won multiple awards without getting the Best Picture nod only beating Cabaret which won eight but lost out to The Godfather. Gravity's wins included two successes in the sound category which to me was one of the movie's key aspects with the silent nature of the space playing a big part throughout. I personally felt the use of sound added to the dramatic effect of the film with Ryan's voice coming slowly into the film as it began. Steven Price's Oscar-winning score was similarly moving as it echoed Ryan's struggles perfectly and added even more tension to the film's final scenes. Whilst she didn't win an award for the film, a lot of praise has to go for Sandra Bullock for being extremely captivating in a film in which she was on screen for every frame. Bullock's facial expressions were perfectly judged as she made the audience sympathise with a woman who still grieving for the daughter she'd lost. Aside from Bullock, the only other cast member with a sizeable role in Gravity was George Clooney who to me seemed to be channelling Toy Story's Buzz Lightyear. Clooney's charisma was fully exploited in the role of Matt although he came good when he had to act as a mentor to Bullock's rookie astronaut. There was a lot of confusion when Gravity took home the award for Best British Film at that year's BAFTAs especially as it's a film with two big American stars and is directed by a Mexican. However the award-winning Production Design and Visual Effects were all done in several English studios. I do believe that Gravity perfectly exemplifies the skill of the British Film Industry who worked tirelessly to recreate the zero-gravity atmosphere of the movie. I would go as far as to say that Gravity probably deserved to win the Best Picture award over that year's victor as it's an example of great film-making that contains a compelling if basic story and perfectly utilises modern day cinematic techniques.
Next time we focus on the most recent foreign language film to receive a Best Picture nomination.
Thursday, 30 April 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 437-438: Jumping Through Hooper's
Tom Hooper is a director who went on an interesting journey on his way to the Oscar podium. Initially directing episodes of the likes of Byker Grove and Eastenders, Hooper found his niche in helming one-off TV movies about real people. These films included Longford and Elizabeth I as well as the cinematic release; The Damned United in which our old friend Michael Sheen played notorious football manager Brian Clough. It was a film based on a real story that earned Hooper national acclaim and saw him scoop the Best Director award at the 2011 ceremony.
That film in question was The King's Speech which had an interesting journey from initial conception to arriving on the screen. Screenwriter David Seidler learnt of the relationship between King George VI and Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue and wanted to tell the story partly because he himself had a stammer. After securing the diaries of Logue, his plans were halted when the Queen Mother asked Seidler not to write anything while she was still alive. After she passed away, Seidler continued writing and the finished article was his play The King's Speech. The film went on to become one of the most-watched films of that year and it attracted a generation to the cinema who hadn't been in years. Part of the reason for this is that The King's Speech is quite a universal tale about finding one's voice and standing up for yourself. At times The King's Speech resembles a sports film as it features many montages of Logue and King George training up for the latter's next important public function. But more than that it's about how a friendship can inspire somebody to be more than they ever thought they could be. I think the fact that the character in question is a British monarch is entirely by-the-by and instead the odd couple relationship works in the favour of The King's Speech. The film builds up to a sterling finale where Logue helps George prepare for the speech he is forced to deliver to announce Britain's entry into the Second World War. This scene is made all the more poignant by the inclusion of Beethoven's 7th symphony playing over the top of it which some people thought was actually part of Alexandre Desplat's original score.
Of course, like most of the films on this list, if you poke at The King's Speech too much holes will eventually start to appear. At times it did feel as if we were being rushed through the history of Britain between the wars, with the section on Edward and Mrs. Simpson being particularly poorly paced. However Seidler's main concern wasn't particularly with the history of the piece but rather with the characters themselves. This to me lifted The King's Speech over other similar period pieces that have been nominated for, and in this film's case, won the Best Picture award. The film is further enhanced by a trio of fine performers led by the spectacular Colin Firth in the role of King George. What's wonderful about Firth's performance is that he never overdoes George's speech impediment and he makes you really feel for the character every time he is stuck with nothing to say. I think that Firth makes the role more than just the disability as he ably portrays George's loving relationship with his wife and two daughters. As his wife, Helena Bonham Carter is just magnificent as she plays Elizabeth with the right mix of dignity and rebelliousness. Carter and Firth's chemistry is just perfect and they make for a believable royal couple throughout the film. Also worthy of a mention is Geoffrey Rush who is a joy to watch as the jobbing Australian actor who finds himself in a rather odd situation. Rush's larger-than-life turn is the perfect contrast to Firth's introverted performance and therefore the two make a rather great pair. The King's Speech went on to be the big winner at that year's Oscars with Hooper, Seidler and Firth all picking up awards along the way. Whilst by no means perfect, The King's Speech is a great character-driven piece that is more than just a costume drama. While it's never utterly remarkable, The King's Speech is an easy watch and one that has just enough positive features to justify its Best Picture win.
Two years later, Hooper returned with an adaptation of a much-loved musical that had been incredibly successful during its stage run. It's also one of only a few films to have its story adapted for two Best Picture winners as we previously saw a straight version of Les Miserables back in the 1930s. This time there is barely any dialogue as almost every word of Victor Hugo's original novel has been transformed into song by Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil. According to my research, the total number of songs in Les Miserables is a staggering fifty-one even if some our reprises and others don't last very long. One thing Hooper did differently from any of the other musical films we've seen so far is to get his actors to sing live. This worked well for most of the performers, many of whom had previous musical experience either on stage or on screen. However, this isn't true of Russell Crowe whose musical performance as the film's main antagonist Javert had been criticised by most. While I agree with them, I think Javert is the one role where the singing doesn't have to be that strong and I thought that Crowe was an impressive enough presence for his musical weakness not to be that much of hindrance. I thought that Crowe also worked well against Hugh Jackman who portrayed the film's hero Jean Valjean brilliantly. Despite Jackman being known for portraying action heroes on screen, he has a background in musical theatre will is well-utilised during the first half of the film. This half of the film covers a lot of ground and sees Valjean go from convict to mayor and factory owner in a number of years. Valjean's redemption comes after he takes in Cosette, the daughter of one of his late factory workers Satine. Anne Hathaway won the Best Supporting Actress Award for her role as Satine mainly as she nailed one of the musical's most memorable numbers 'I Dreamed a Dream'.
However, I personally feel as if the second half of the film is stronger than the first thanks to the themes of the French Revolution. I feel Hooper is at his strongest when portraying the conflict between the poor residents of Paris and the nobility. His direction of the film's key number 'Can You Hear the People Sing' is brilliantly done and reflects how well the musical has translated onto the screen. I would say that ascetically, Les Miserables is beautifully realised with every set, costume and character designed within an inch of their lives. Meanwhile the unrequited love between the lovely Eponine and revolutionary leader Marius is wonderful to watch thanks in part to the performance from Samantha Barks. In my opinion Barks, who at the time was a relative unknown, deserved as much recognition for her role as Hathaway did for hers but unfortunately this wasn't the case. I personally thought that the one weak point of this second half was the budding romance between Marius and the adult Cosette which I felt was a sickly sweet affair. In my opinion Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne didn't have great chemistry and therefore I didn't care if their characters got together or not. Les Miserables also saw Hooper work with Helena Bonham Carter once again as she portrayed landlady Madame Thernardier and made a great double act with Sacha Baron Cohen as her husband. In fact the scenes with the unscrupulous Thernadiers were some of my favourites and provided such much needed comedy in between all the dramatic revolutionary uprising. While enjoyable in parts, Les Miserables was too long for my liking and not all of the songs worked their magic on me as they did other people. While the performances, most notably those from Jackman and Barks, were good there was nothing about Les Miserables that was particularly remarkable. Although I do appreciate that Hooper wanted to do something different after The King's Speech I didn't think that he left much a mark on Les Miserables with his only input seeming to be the decision to have the actors sing live. But realistically there was very little difference between the film and stage versions of Les Miserables and I think the film would've received the same feedback regardless of who was directing it.
Next time we turn our attention to an actress who changed people's perceptions of her during the first half of the 2010s.
That film in question was The King's Speech which had an interesting journey from initial conception to arriving on the screen. Screenwriter David Seidler learnt of the relationship between King George VI and Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue and wanted to tell the story partly because he himself had a stammer. After securing the diaries of Logue, his plans were halted when the Queen Mother asked Seidler not to write anything while she was still alive. After she passed away, Seidler continued writing and the finished article was his play The King's Speech. The film went on to become one of the most-watched films of that year and it attracted a generation to the cinema who hadn't been in years. Part of the reason for this is that The King's Speech is quite a universal tale about finding one's voice and standing up for yourself. At times The King's Speech resembles a sports film as it features many montages of Logue and King George training up for the latter's next important public function. But more than that it's about how a friendship can inspire somebody to be more than they ever thought they could be. I think the fact that the character in question is a British monarch is entirely by-the-by and instead the odd couple relationship works in the favour of The King's Speech. The film builds up to a sterling finale where Logue helps George prepare for the speech he is forced to deliver to announce Britain's entry into the Second World War. This scene is made all the more poignant by the inclusion of Beethoven's 7th symphony playing over the top of it which some people thought was actually part of Alexandre Desplat's original score.
Of course, like most of the films on this list, if you poke at The King's Speech too much holes will eventually start to appear. At times it did feel as if we were being rushed through the history of Britain between the wars, with the section on Edward and Mrs. Simpson being particularly poorly paced. However Seidler's main concern wasn't particularly with the history of the piece but rather with the characters themselves. This to me lifted The King's Speech over other similar period pieces that have been nominated for, and in this film's case, won the Best Picture award. The film is further enhanced by a trio of fine performers led by the spectacular Colin Firth in the role of King George. What's wonderful about Firth's performance is that he never overdoes George's speech impediment and he makes you really feel for the character every time he is stuck with nothing to say. I think that Firth makes the role more than just the disability as he ably portrays George's loving relationship with his wife and two daughters. As his wife, Helena Bonham Carter is just magnificent as she plays Elizabeth with the right mix of dignity and rebelliousness. Carter and Firth's chemistry is just perfect and they make for a believable royal couple throughout the film. Also worthy of a mention is Geoffrey Rush who is a joy to watch as the jobbing Australian actor who finds himself in a rather odd situation. Rush's larger-than-life turn is the perfect contrast to Firth's introverted performance and therefore the two make a rather great pair. The King's Speech went on to be the big winner at that year's Oscars with Hooper, Seidler and Firth all picking up awards along the way. Whilst by no means perfect, The King's Speech is a great character-driven piece that is more than just a costume drama. While it's never utterly remarkable, The King's Speech is an easy watch and one that has just enough positive features to justify its Best Picture win.
Two years later, Hooper returned with an adaptation of a much-loved musical that had been incredibly successful during its stage run. It's also one of only a few films to have its story adapted for two Best Picture winners as we previously saw a straight version of Les Miserables back in the 1930s. This time there is barely any dialogue as almost every word of Victor Hugo's original novel has been transformed into song by Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil. According to my research, the total number of songs in Les Miserables is a staggering fifty-one even if some our reprises and others don't last very long. One thing Hooper did differently from any of the other musical films we've seen so far is to get his actors to sing live. This worked well for most of the performers, many of whom had previous musical experience either on stage or on screen. However, this isn't true of Russell Crowe whose musical performance as the film's main antagonist Javert had been criticised by most. While I agree with them, I think Javert is the one role where the singing doesn't have to be that strong and I thought that Crowe was an impressive enough presence for his musical weakness not to be that much of hindrance. I thought that Crowe also worked well against Hugh Jackman who portrayed the film's hero Jean Valjean brilliantly. Despite Jackman being known for portraying action heroes on screen, he has a background in musical theatre will is well-utilised during the first half of the film. This half of the film covers a lot of ground and sees Valjean go from convict to mayor and factory owner in a number of years. Valjean's redemption comes after he takes in Cosette, the daughter of one of his late factory workers Satine. Anne Hathaway won the Best Supporting Actress Award for her role as Satine mainly as she nailed one of the musical's most memorable numbers 'I Dreamed a Dream'.
However, I personally feel as if the second half of the film is stronger than the first thanks to the themes of the French Revolution. I feel Hooper is at his strongest when portraying the conflict between the poor residents of Paris and the nobility. His direction of the film's key number 'Can You Hear the People Sing' is brilliantly done and reflects how well the musical has translated onto the screen. I would say that ascetically, Les Miserables is beautifully realised with every set, costume and character designed within an inch of their lives. Meanwhile the unrequited love between the lovely Eponine and revolutionary leader Marius is wonderful to watch thanks in part to the performance from Samantha Barks. In my opinion Barks, who at the time was a relative unknown, deserved as much recognition for her role as Hathaway did for hers but unfortunately this wasn't the case. I personally thought that the one weak point of this second half was the budding romance between Marius and the adult Cosette which I felt was a sickly sweet affair. In my opinion Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne didn't have great chemistry and therefore I didn't care if their characters got together or not. Les Miserables also saw Hooper work with Helena Bonham Carter once again as she portrayed landlady Madame Thernardier and made a great double act with Sacha Baron Cohen as her husband. In fact the scenes with the unscrupulous Thernadiers were some of my favourites and provided such much needed comedy in between all the dramatic revolutionary uprising. While enjoyable in parts, Les Miserables was too long for my liking and not all of the songs worked their magic on me as they did other people. While the performances, most notably those from Jackman and Barks, were good there was nothing about Les Miserables that was particularly remarkable. Although I do appreciate that Hooper wanted to do something different after The King's Speech I didn't think that he left much a mark on Les Miserables with his only input seeming to be the decision to have the actors sing live. But realistically there was very little difference between the film and stage versions of Les Miserables and I think the film would've received the same feedback regardless of who was directing it.
Next time we turn our attention to an actress who changed people's perceptions of her during the first half of the 2010s.
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 435-436: Some More Scorsese
It's very rare that a director will have films nominated across five decades but in this last section of the blog we have two men who have done just that. We'll deal with one of them later on, but in this post we'll look at a man named Martin Scorsese. From his first nomination back in the 1970s for Taxi Driver, the Academy has had a growing love for Scorsese culminating in his Best Director win for The Departed. This relationship carried into the 2010s with two of Scorsese's films featuring in the Best Picture category and I have to say that these two movies couldn't be any more different.
We start with a film that I would say isn't typical Scorsese partly because it's rated PG. Hugo is Scorsese's tribute to early cinema and was his first film to be screened in 3D. The Hugo of the title is a young boy who lives in a Parisian train station in 1932 and is in charge of making sure the clock runs on time. From the start of the film Hugo is portrayed as a lonely young man who is looking for a connection to his late father. He believes rebuilding the automaton that his father gave him before he died will reveal a message from him. Unfortunately finding the parts means that he has to steal from the stall of Monsieur George, a cantankerous man who runs the station's toy store. George catching Hugo in the act sets off a chain of events which eventually changes the life of both for the better. Whilst the first half of the film plays like a family adventure movie the second half is more of a celebration of silent movies when it's revealed that the toy store holder is in fact legendary director George Méliès. I personally feel as if the film slows down when Scorsese explains the importance of Méliès' films and whilst I enjoyed it I'm not sure how much the younger members of the audience would've appreciated it. Thankfully the film speeds up again in its final third when Hugo finally catches the attention of the station's inspector who is obsessed with sending abandoned children to the local audience. The scene in which Hugo is almost hit with a train is visually splendid and feels like it both belongs in the plot and works with the 3D format; a statement that I couldn't use when describing anything that happened in the lacklustre Avatar.
Talking of Avatar, its director James Cameron admitted that Scorsese's film was the one that had made the best use of 3D up to that point. I'd more than concur with Cameron as, even though I didn't watch Hugo in 3D, I could appreciate how he'd properly decided how to utilise the medium. I felt totally immersed in the world of Hugo from the second that Robert Richardson's camera guides you into the world of the train station. This bustling world is lovingly created by a brilliant production design team who rightfully won an Oscar for their work on the film. Hugo is indeed a visual work with each costume suiting its respective character from the Station Inspector's vivid blue uniform to Hugo's slightly ruffled look. Howard Shore's Oscar-nominated score also gave Hugo the feel of a silent movie as he gave each character their own distinctive tune. Throughout the film I was trying to imagine what it would've been like if there had been no spoken words and I believe that it would've worked quite well. That's not a knock against John Logan who brilliantly adapted Brain Selznick's children's novel for the screen. Of the cast, I thought young Asa Butterfield did an admirable job as Hugo as he was likeable without being too annoying which I find is a rarity for a child actor. Similarly impressive was Ben Kingsley who, as Méliès, kept the audience in the dark to his true identity till the big reveal. Scorsese rounded off the cast with a host of great British performers who included Sacha Baron Cohen as the Station Inspector and the wonderful Helen McRory as Méliès' cautious wife. Hugo went on to win the most Oscars of the night at that year's ceremony picking up honours for cinematography, art direction, visual effects, sound editing and sound mixing. I feel all of these wins were deserved as Hugo was a lovely film that never patronised its young audience and more than anything found a worthwhile use for 3D.
Two years later Scorsese was reverting to type; teaming up with Leonardo DiCaprio for a fifth time and making another film based on people operating outside the law. But rather than making another movie about gangsters, Scorsese turns his attention to the world of stockbrokers in The Wolf of Wall Street. The film is based on the memoir of Jordan Belfort, a man who made plenty of money via a number of nefarious means. The Wolf of Wall Street starts by covering Jordan's early career as a fledgling stockbroker who is forced to work at a lowly company after his prestigious firm collapses on Black Monday. It's not long before Jordan's fast-talking charm gets him his own business and a partner in the form of dorky Donnie who initially lives in the same apartment block as him. Upon setting up their firm, Stratton Oakmoant, Jordan and Donnie set about creating an atmosphere of excess and debauchery. The film also looks at how Donnie leaves his first wife and trades her in for a better model in the form of the gorgeous Naomi. However, Jordan's cheating ways soon mean that his relationship with his wife and children become strained. The last part of the film deals with Jordan's legal problems as he tries to dodge various threats from the FBI. Although all of this content appears to be quite serious, The Wolf of Wall Street primarily plays as a black comedy and I found this to be one of its biggest problems. Plenty of Scorsese's films have blackly comic moments but they are surrounded by plenty of dramatic scenes that balance them out nicely. Here everything was played in a tongue-in-cheek manner and therefore it was hard to take any of the characters particularly seriously. Jordan is a particularly unlikeable character and the fact that he's having his cake and eating too doesn't exactly endear him to the audience. Jordan doesn't even really get the comeuppance he deserves as, even at the end of the film, he's still making a living out of his sales techniques.
Another issue with The Wolf of Wall Street is the amount of scenes that depict the excessive nature of the characters' lives. Almost every other scene featured nudity, drug taking or extreme behaviour of some description and by the end of the film I was fed up. In fact it go to the point where I got bored of seeing topless women, something I never thought would happen. Whereas in his previous films, specifically Goodfellas, Scorsese has always pointed out that this sort of excess comes at a cost but this point really isn't hammered home at any point during The Wolf of Wall Street. Therefore it seems that Scorsese and screenwriter Terrence Winter are almost celebrating Jordan's life rather than using it as a cautionary tale. Sure he does eventually lose his company and his family but there aren't enough of these scenes of heartbreak to counteract the endless partying that has come before. On the positive side, Leonardo DiCaprio gives another outstanding performance as the scheming Belfort. It's Leo's energy and charm that keep the film going at some points and I for one thought he dealt well with some of the more comic set pieces. I am upset to some regard that Scorsese doesn't give Leo the chance to prove himself as the character is possibly the most one-dimensional he's portrayed to date. Jonah Hill's comic sensibilities are employed to great effect here as he brings plenty of humour to the role of Donnie. Hill and DiCaprio have a fine chemistry that makes their character's friendship feel convincing even if some of their scenes are a little bit over-the-top. Australian actress Margot Robbie gives a good accounting of herself as Jordan's wife Naomi and her performance is possibly the film's most serious. Although I did enjoy The Wolf of Wall Street's first hour, by the end I was tired of seeing all of Jordan and Donnie's illegal exploits and wanted more of a light and shade balance from Scorsese. Ultimately I found The Wolf of Wall Street to be a rare misstep for the usually reliable Dicaprio/Scorsese combo and it seems like the director should stick to making beautifully-designed family films in the future.
We hop from an experienced director in this post to a newer director in the next post who found himself in the position of winning an Oscar for what was only his second feature film.
We start with a film that I would say isn't typical Scorsese partly because it's rated PG. Hugo is Scorsese's tribute to early cinema and was his first film to be screened in 3D. The Hugo of the title is a young boy who lives in a Parisian train station in 1932 and is in charge of making sure the clock runs on time. From the start of the film Hugo is portrayed as a lonely young man who is looking for a connection to his late father. He believes rebuilding the automaton that his father gave him before he died will reveal a message from him. Unfortunately finding the parts means that he has to steal from the stall of Monsieur George, a cantankerous man who runs the station's toy store. George catching Hugo in the act sets off a chain of events which eventually changes the life of both for the better. Whilst the first half of the film plays like a family adventure movie the second half is more of a celebration of silent movies when it's revealed that the toy store holder is in fact legendary director George Méliès. I personally feel as if the film slows down when Scorsese explains the importance of Méliès' films and whilst I enjoyed it I'm not sure how much the younger members of the audience would've appreciated it. Thankfully the film speeds up again in its final third when Hugo finally catches the attention of the station's inspector who is obsessed with sending abandoned children to the local audience. The scene in which Hugo is almost hit with a train is visually splendid and feels like it both belongs in the plot and works with the 3D format; a statement that I couldn't use when describing anything that happened in the lacklustre Avatar.
Talking of Avatar, its director James Cameron admitted that Scorsese's film was the one that had made the best use of 3D up to that point. I'd more than concur with Cameron as, even though I didn't watch Hugo in 3D, I could appreciate how he'd properly decided how to utilise the medium. I felt totally immersed in the world of Hugo from the second that Robert Richardson's camera guides you into the world of the train station. This bustling world is lovingly created by a brilliant production design team who rightfully won an Oscar for their work on the film. Hugo is indeed a visual work with each costume suiting its respective character from the Station Inspector's vivid blue uniform to Hugo's slightly ruffled look. Howard Shore's Oscar-nominated score also gave Hugo the feel of a silent movie as he gave each character their own distinctive tune. Throughout the film I was trying to imagine what it would've been like if there had been no spoken words and I believe that it would've worked quite well. That's not a knock against John Logan who brilliantly adapted Brain Selznick's children's novel for the screen. Of the cast, I thought young Asa Butterfield did an admirable job as Hugo as he was likeable without being too annoying which I find is a rarity for a child actor. Similarly impressive was Ben Kingsley who, as Méliès, kept the audience in the dark to his true identity till the big reveal. Scorsese rounded off the cast with a host of great British performers who included Sacha Baron Cohen as the Station Inspector and the wonderful Helen McRory as Méliès' cautious wife. Hugo went on to win the most Oscars of the night at that year's ceremony picking up honours for cinematography, art direction, visual effects, sound editing and sound mixing. I feel all of these wins were deserved as Hugo was a lovely film that never patronised its young audience and more than anything found a worthwhile use for 3D.
Two years later Scorsese was reverting to type; teaming up with Leonardo DiCaprio for a fifth time and making another film based on people operating outside the law. But rather than making another movie about gangsters, Scorsese turns his attention to the world of stockbrokers in The Wolf of Wall Street. The film is based on the memoir of Jordan Belfort, a man who made plenty of money via a number of nefarious means. The Wolf of Wall Street starts by covering Jordan's early career as a fledgling stockbroker who is forced to work at a lowly company after his prestigious firm collapses on Black Monday. It's not long before Jordan's fast-talking charm gets him his own business and a partner in the form of dorky Donnie who initially lives in the same apartment block as him. Upon setting up their firm, Stratton Oakmoant, Jordan and Donnie set about creating an atmosphere of excess and debauchery. The film also looks at how Donnie leaves his first wife and trades her in for a better model in the form of the gorgeous Naomi. However, Jordan's cheating ways soon mean that his relationship with his wife and children become strained. The last part of the film deals with Jordan's legal problems as he tries to dodge various threats from the FBI. Although all of this content appears to be quite serious, The Wolf of Wall Street primarily plays as a black comedy and I found this to be one of its biggest problems. Plenty of Scorsese's films have blackly comic moments but they are surrounded by plenty of dramatic scenes that balance them out nicely. Here everything was played in a tongue-in-cheek manner and therefore it was hard to take any of the characters particularly seriously. Jordan is a particularly unlikeable character and the fact that he's having his cake and eating too doesn't exactly endear him to the audience. Jordan doesn't even really get the comeuppance he deserves as, even at the end of the film, he's still making a living out of his sales techniques.
Another issue with The Wolf of Wall Street is the amount of scenes that depict the excessive nature of the characters' lives. Almost every other scene featured nudity, drug taking or extreme behaviour of some description and by the end of the film I was fed up. In fact it go to the point where I got bored of seeing topless women, something I never thought would happen. Whereas in his previous films, specifically Goodfellas, Scorsese has always pointed out that this sort of excess comes at a cost but this point really isn't hammered home at any point during The Wolf of Wall Street. Therefore it seems that Scorsese and screenwriter Terrence Winter are almost celebrating Jordan's life rather than using it as a cautionary tale. Sure he does eventually lose his company and his family but there aren't enough of these scenes of heartbreak to counteract the endless partying that has come before. On the positive side, Leonardo DiCaprio gives another outstanding performance as the scheming Belfort. It's Leo's energy and charm that keep the film going at some points and I for one thought he dealt well with some of the more comic set pieces. I am upset to some regard that Scorsese doesn't give Leo the chance to prove himself as the character is possibly the most one-dimensional he's portrayed to date. Jonah Hill's comic sensibilities are employed to great effect here as he brings plenty of humour to the role of Donnie. Hill and DiCaprio have a fine chemistry that makes their character's friendship feel convincing even if some of their scenes are a little bit over-the-top. Australian actress Margot Robbie gives a good accounting of herself as Jordan's wife Naomi and her performance is possibly the film's most serious. Although I did enjoy The Wolf of Wall Street's first hour, by the end I was tired of seeing all of Jordan and Donnie's illegal exploits and wanted more of a light and shade balance from Scorsese. Ultimately I found The Wolf of Wall Street to be a rare misstep for the usually reliable Dicaprio/Scorsese combo and it seems like the director should stick to making beautifully-designed family films in the future.
We hop from an experienced director in this post to a newer director in the next post who found himself in the position of winning an Oscar for what was only his second feature film.
Saturday, 25 April 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 433-434: The Return of the Blockbuster
One of the reasons that the Best Picture nominees increased from five to ten in 2010 was so that the films that most people went to see would be included in the list. There had been outcry in the latter half of the noughties when some of the most well-regarded blockbusters had been disregarded for fare such as The Reader and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Indeed, the big-budget blockbuster had rarely featured in the Best Picture category since the likes of Jaws, Star Wars and E.T. In fact the only blockbusters that featured in the last twenty years either were period epics such as Titanic or literary adaptations like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. That all changed though when a sci-fi blockbuster not only broke through into the Best Picture category but also brought back a new craze for 3-D films.
Although the reintroduction of 3-D started in 2009 it was only when James Cameron brought Avatar to the screen that it became a requisite format for all massive blockbusters to be screened in. We last met James Cameron back in the 1990s when he directed the massive Best Picture winner Titanic and also picked up Best Director along the way. Avatar was set on a similarly epic scale albeit one that had no basis in history primarily as it was set in the future. Writing the plot down for Avatar feels a little silly as it involves a planet called Pandora and the mining of a precious energy source known as unobtanium. The only problem is that Pandora is ruled by huge Smurf-like creatures called the Na'vi who don't want the humans encroaching on their lands due to their magic trees or some such nonsense. Our hero of sorts is paraplegic marine Jake Sully who is portrayed as an idiot from the get-go and has been recruited based on the fact that he has the same genetic make-up as his deceased scientist brother. Jake, along with several other scientists, are transported into the bodies of Avatars which look exactly like the Na'vi. Throughout the course of the film the Na'vi take Jake to their bossum although I'm not quite sure why as he seems like a complete dullard. Eventually falling for one of the Na'vi women, Jake changes sides and ends up fighting alongside the blue folk against his former allies. The final battle scenes, which seem to go on forever see Jake go up against the pantomime villain of the piece Colonel Quartich with the result seeing him become a Na'vi for good. Whilst I'm sure Cameron knew what the film was about to me it was Dances with Wolves in space with big blue creatures taking the place of the Native Americans.
I went to see Avatar twice at the cinema, once to satisfy my own curiosity and again when my friend wanted to see the 3-D version. Suffice to say there was very little difference for me and I don't think the 3-D really enhanced my viewing experience, a comment I can replicate for every 3D film I've seen. On the plus side there's no denying that Cameron has an epic vision, creating his own world in the form on Pandora and populating it with his own unique creations. The film's wins in the Art Direction, Cinematography and Visual Effects categories were all more than justified as these were definitely the film's greatest qualities. On the downside, I feel that Cameron's storytelling ability is possibly at its worse here with Avatar feeling even more bloated than Titanic. Even though he should be applauded for his unique vision I don't think it quite translates into the storytelling and at times I was fairly bored. Indeed there were whole sequences where Jake and the other Na'vi were chasing creatures round Pandora which looked like they were just there to justify the 3-D enhancements. As the plot itself is quite convoluted, Cameron has had to insert a bunch of exposition with Jake having to explain the story through way of his video logs. The performances weren't too much better with the wooden Sam Worthington being the wrong choice to lead an epic film such as Avatar. Worthington showed me nothing of worth and as a result never made his character feel particularly endearing. Similarly Stephen Lang as the ludicrous Quartich, yelled all of his lines and Giovanni Ribisi was phoning it in as the evil businessman. Only Sigourney Weaver, as experienced scientist Grace, gave a memorable turn and she at least made you sympathise when her character passed away from her gunshot wounds. Ultimately, Avatar is a feast for the eyes but a let down for all the other senses and I'm so glad that The Hurt Locker triumphed over this Box Office behemoth which I feel is one of the most overrated films of the last decade.
One of the blockbuster films that had been cruelly overlooked at the 2009 ceremony was Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight. Infinitely better than the majority of that year's Best Picture contenders, The Dark Knight was a brilliant take on the Batman story that topped plenty of critics' lists that year. Two years later, and with an extended field, Nolan finally found himself the director of a Best Picture nominee even though he himself didn't receive a nomination. Nolan's Oscar nominated picture was Inception; a brilliantly thoughtful blockbuster which was a lot more intellectual than your average summer action flick. Although Inception did include all the running and shooting that you would expect from a blockbuster it did also have an amazing storyline to do with dreams and dreams within dreams. The inception of the title is a method by which someone could plant an idea in the head of another subject by infiltrating their dreams. At its heart, Inception is essentially a heist film but in place of a bank vault we have a person's inner thoughts. The leader of the gang is Don Cobb; a brilliant man who is on the run after the authorities believed that he'd murdered his wife. The reality was something much darker and the relationship between Don and his wife Mal is where the film gains its emotional edge. When Cobb learns he could be reunited with his children by performing a-near impossible inception mission he gets to it and assembles a crack team in the process. While I'm sure most people have probably seen Inception by now, I'm not going to spoil it needlessly for those who haven't. But suffice to say that, even though it's about my fifth time watching the film, I was still on tenterhooks as Cobb and his team attempted to navigate the various dream layers. Meanwhile, the ambiguous ending makes the film all that more memorable with the spinning top being possibly the most iconic visual from Inception.
As Inception is a film about imagination, it's clear to see that Nolan has utilised his to full effect. In the early stages of the film, we see Cobb instruct his newest team member Ariadne on how best to build a dream. The set piece in which Ariadne makes buildings fold in on themselves is still a marvel to watch and this visual splendour continues throughout the rest of the film. Nolan's production design team, who were awarded with a BAFTA for their work on the film, deserve praise for creating a different atmosphere in each dream level. From the suave hotel interior to the snowbound fortress every single frame of Inception has been designed to fit in with the unique nature of the story. All in all Inception took home four awards for cinematography, visual effects, sound editing and sound effects editing. A dubious omission among that list is Hans Zimmer, whose score for Inception is instantly recognisable and today is played on plenty of adverts. I'm also still a little bit puzzled as to why Nolan himself wasn't nominated for directing a truly personal film that I felt was truly original. The cast also lifted the material of the film, making their characters feel three-dimensional, a rarity for a summer blockbuster. I felt Leonardo DiCaprio was a perfect lead as he perfectly portrayed Cobb as somebody who wasn't quite sure of himself any more but realised he had to complete the mission in order to return home. Tom Hardy was brilliant as Eames, the joker and forger of the pack who transformed himself several times during the dream. But the best performance of all came from Marion Cotillard, who made Mal both the film's key antagonist and a sympathetic character who had been ruined by exploring other people's dreams. If I have one criticism about Inception it is its exposition-filled script which I suppose is a necessary evil when you've got so many rules to explain. However this is a minor quibble in a film that's truly exceptional, incredibly rewatchable and a movie that redefined what a summer blockbuster could be.
Next time we look at the two most recent nominated films from a director who's featured on this blog a fair few times already.
Although the reintroduction of 3-D started in 2009 it was only when James Cameron brought Avatar to the screen that it became a requisite format for all massive blockbusters to be screened in. We last met James Cameron back in the 1990s when he directed the massive Best Picture winner Titanic and also picked up Best Director along the way. Avatar was set on a similarly epic scale albeit one that had no basis in history primarily as it was set in the future. Writing the plot down for Avatar feels a little silly as it involves a planet called Pandora and the mining of a precious energy source known as unobtanium. The only problem is that Pandora is ruled by huge Smurf-like creatures called the Na'vi who don't want the humans encroaching on their lands due to their magic trees or some such nonsense. Our hero of sorts is paraplegic marine Jake Sully who is portrayed as an idiot from the get-go and has been recruited based on the fact that he has the same genetic make-up as his deceased scientist brother. Jake, along with several other scientists, are transported into the bodies of Avatars which look exactly like the Na'vi. Throughout the course of the film the Na'vi take Jake to their bossum although I'm not quite sure why as he seems like a complete dullard. Eventually falling for one of the Na'vi women, Jake changes sides and ends up fighting alongside the blue folk against his former allies. The final battle scenes, which seem to go on forever see Jake go up against the pantomime villain of the piece Colonel Quartich with the result seeing him become a Na'vi for good. Whilst I'm sure Cameron knew what the film was about to me it was Dances with Wolves in space with big blue creatures taking the place of the Native Americans.
I went to see Avatar twice at the cinema, once to satisfy my own curiosity and again when my friend wanted to see the 3-D version. Suffice to say there was very little difference for me and I don't think the 3-D really enhanced my viewing experience, a comment I can replicate for every 3D film I've seen. On the plus side there's no denying that Cameron has an epic vision, creating his own world in the form on Pandora and populating it with his own unique creations. The film's wins in the Art Direction, Cinematography and Visual Effects categories were all more than justified as these were definitely the film's greatest qualities. On the downside, I feel that Cameron's storytelling ability is possibly at its worse here with Avatar feeling even more bloated than Titanic. Even though he should be applauded for his unique vision I don't think it quite translates into the storytelling and at times I was fairly bored. Indeed there were whole sequences where Jake and the other Na'vi were chasing creatures round Pandora which looked like they were just there to justify the 3-D enhancements. As the plot itself is quite convoluted, Cameron has had to insert a bunch of exposition with Jake having to explain the story through way of his video logs. The performances weren't too much better with the wooden Sam Worthington being the wrong choice to lead an epic film such as Avatar. Worthington showed me nothing of worth and as a result never made his character feel particularly endearing. Similarly Stephen Lang as the ludicrous Quartich, yelled all of his lines and Giovanni Ribisi was phoning it in as the evil businessman. Only Sigourney Weaver, as experienced scientist Grace, gave a memorable turn and she at least made you sympathise when her character passed away from her gunshot wounds. Ultimately, Avatar is a feast for the eyes but a let down for all the other senses and I'm so glad that The Hurt Locker triumphed over this Box Office behemoth which I feel is one of the most overrated films of the last decade.
One of the blockbuster films that had been cruelly overlooked at the 2009 ceremony was Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight. Infinitely better than the majority of that year's Best Picture contenders, The Dark Knight was a brilliant take on the Batman story that topped plenty of critics' lists that year. Two years later, and with an extended field, Nolan finally found himself the director of a Best Picture nominee even though he himself didn't receive a nomination. Nolan's Oscar nominated picture was Inception; a brilliantly thoughtful blockbuster which was a lot more intellectual than your average summer action flick. Although Inception did include all the running and shooting that you would expect from a blockbuster it did also have an amazing storyline to do with dreams and dreams within dreams. The inception of the title is a method by which someone could plant an idea in the head of another subject by infiltrating their dreams. At its heart, Inception is essentially a heist film but in place of a bank vault we have a person's inner thoughts. The leader of the gang is Don Cobb; a brilliant man who is on the run after the authorities believed that he'd murdered his wife. The reality was something much darker and the relationship between Don and his wife Mal is where the film gains its emotional edge. When Cobb learns he could be reunited with his children by performing a-near impossible inception mission he gets to it and assembles a crack team in the process. While I'm sure most people have probably seen Inception by now, I'm not going to spoil it needlessly for those who haven't. But suffice to say that, even though it's about my fifth time watching the film, I was still on tenterhooks as Cobb and his team attempted to navigate the various dream layers. Meanwhile, the ambiguous ending makes the film all that more memorable with the spinning top being possibly the most iconic visual from Inception.
As Inception is a film about imagination, it's clear to see that Nolan has utilised his to full effect. In the early stages of the film, we see Cobb instruct his newest team member Ariadne on how best to build a dream. The set piece in which Ariadne makes buildings fold in on themselves is still a marvel to watch and this visual splendour continues throughout the rest of the film. Nolan's production design team, who were awarded with a BAFTA for their work on the film, deserve praise for creating a different atmosphere in each dream level. From the suave hotel interior to the snowbound fortress every single frame of Inception has been designed to fit in with the unique nature of the story. All in all Inception took home four awards for cinematography, visual effects, sound editing and sound effects editing. A dubious omission among that list is Hans Zimmer, whose score for Inception is instantly recognisable and today is played on plenty of adverts. I'm also still a little bit puzzled as to why Nolan himself wasn't nominated for directing a truly personal film that I felt was truly original. The cast also lifted the material of the film, making their characters feel three-dimensional, a rarity for a summer blockbuster. I felt Leonardo DiCaprio was a perfect lead as he perfectly portrayed Cobb as somebody who wasn't quite sure of himself any more but realised he had to complete the mission in order to return home. Tom Hardy was brilliant as Eames, the joker and forger of the pack who transformed himself several times during the dream. But the best performance of all came from Marion Cotillard, who made Mal both the film's key antagonist and a sympathetic character who had been ruined by exploring other people's dreams. If I have one criticism about Inception it is its exposition-filled script which I suppose is a necessary evil when you've got so many rules to explain. However this is a minor quibble in a film that's truly exceptional, incredibly rewatchable and a movie that redefined what a summer blockbuster could be.
Next time we look at the two most recent nominated films from a director who's featured on this blog a fair few times already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)