The one thing about a lot of these Oscar films is that they are often tailored towards a purely adult audience. Even the fantasy-strewn Lord of the Rings was given a 12 Certificate due its strong level of violence as well as the fact that Gollum was probably quite scary for young children. However, after twenty-five films filled with bad language, nudity and violence I was ready to settle down for something a little more sedate. Thankfully that was provided for me in the form of Seabiscuit; a charming PG-rated film about the little racehorse that could. In fact the closest that Seabisucit got to violence was during the races themselves when the jockeys tried to push each other off of their respective horses.
Despite being the title character, Seabiscuit doesn't feature in the first part of the film which instead focuses on us getting to know the other members of the team. The stories of both Seabiscuit's eventual jockey Red Pollard and owner Charles S Howard are fairly sombre in tone and anchor the film's first third. Although born to a wealthy family, Red soon found himself out on the streets following the Wall Street Crash. Taken in as a stable boy, Red later began racing himself however was subsequently blinded in one eye following an illegal boxing match. Meanwhile Charles made his money in the motor industry but went on a downward spiral after his son died in a car accident. Both men were rehabilitated when they came into contact with the rambunctious Seabiscuit who was initially thought as being too wild to tame. The horse is originally brought to Howard by the wily Tom Smith; an outcast horse trainer who eventually forms a surrogate family with Red and Charles. From there the film resembles more of a classic sports movie with Seabiscuit gaining popularity due to Red's fine relationship with his new horse. Howard eventually targets wealthy tycoon Samuel Riddle and challenges him to a race against his famous horse War Stallion. Meanwhile tragedy befalls Red as he learns he may not be able to ride again following a tragic fall. However, as is often the case with these sorts of films, everybody finds a redemption of sorts and the last line of Gary Ross' film is so sickly sweet that it did make me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
As well as being the little horse that could, Seabiscuit was the little film that could; securing a surprise place in that year's Best Picture category. At the time many were suspecting the spot that Seabiscuit ultimately got to go to Anthony Mingella's epic civil war drama Cold Mountain. That film certainly feels like much more of an Oscar-film than this cute but slightly unremarkable family drama. What I liked about Seabiscuit were the way the race sequences were shot and John Schwartzman's cinematography made me experience what being part of those races would've been like. There were also a trio of incredibly likeable turns from Tobey Maguire, Jeff Bridges and Chris Cooper all of whom brought out the complexities in their characters. Maguire was perfectly cast as weedy jockey Red and allowed his naturally emotive face to relay the various heartbreaks that his character experienced across the years. Bridges brilliantly balanced Howard's effervescent personality with his personal tragedy to present a realistic persona. Meanwhile Cooper's turn as the rough and ready trainer added an extra dimension to the trio's makeshift family. Additionally enjoyable was William H Macy's few appearances as quirky racing journalist Tick Tock McLaughlin. The problem I had with Seabiscuit was in its storytelling as it started incredibly slow and took too long for the three main characters to meet. I also felt the tale started to meander towards the movie's ending whilst some of the dialogue was rather trite. Overall I feel that Gary Ross' film will appeal to families looking for a fulfilling real-life tale and to it's credit it does deliver that. But nothing about Seabiscuit is particularly memorable and it definitely never felt like a film that deserved its spot in the Best Picture category.
After all these lovely horse-racing adventures we're back to reality with a triple bill of Martin Scorsese movies.
Thursday, 5 March 2015
Wednesday, 4 March 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 392-393: Tales from Suburban America
The common bond our next two films share is that of suburbia, is that they seemingly focus on normal families going about their daily business. However, the slightest change in circumstance alters the characters in both of these films significantly. Although one film relies a lot more on quirks both look at the stereotypical American family and the cracks that show beneath the surface.
The Burnhams in American Beauty have almost so many cracks that the surface is all but gone. Alan Ball's script focuses on the spiritually dead Lester Burnham who is reawakened by several new faces in his life. The first is his teenage daughter Jane's new friend Angela, whom he has numerous sexual fantasies about and begins to work out after eavesdropping on a conversation between the two girls. Meanwhile, his new neighbour, and Jane's love interest, Ricky Fitts supplies him with marijuana and as a result he regresses into a youthful state. These new changes in her husband's life don't go down too well with his prim and proper realtor wife Carolyn. Carolyn is a very methodical person who likes everything just-so so when Lester resigns from his job her world starts to change too. As Ball has already let us know, Lester dies by the end of the film, so part of the plot is devoted to building up a list of suspects. With Carolyn taking shooting lessons and Jane asking Ricky to kill her father; both seem like likely candidates however the actual perpetrator is the man who has a room full of guns. The aim of Ball's script is to poke fun at the middle classes with their candlelit suppers and finely pruned roses. I feel he does this admirably as Lester's breakdown begins to effect the world around him and change the status quo in the household that Carolyn has maintained.
I've watched American Beauty several times before and I remember rather enjoying it. However, on this latest viewing, I found myself initially hating Kevin Spacey's performance as Lester. Although the character of Lester is well written, Spacey plays him so withdrawn that it's hard to sympathise with him. It's only in the latter scenes that Spacey brings out an extra dimension to Lester however I feel that other actors would've made me warm to Lester sooner. It seems like I'm in the minority though as Spacey won his second acting Oscar in as many nominations, his first coming via his superior turn in The Usual Suspects. If anybody should have won an Oscar for their performance in American Beauty then it's Annette Bening. Bening utterly becomes Carolyn and makes the scene in which she 'must sell this house today' utterly compelling. In fact, by the end of the film, I had much more sympathy for Carolyn than I did Lester. Fine support was provided courtesy of a regimented Chris Cooper and a withdrawn Alison Janney as Ricky's parents. Sam Mendes, who won the Best Director award for what was his debut feature, perfectly anchored the film's offbeat style. Although a little pretentious for its own good at times, especially with the dancing shopping bag, there's also a lot to like. Among these positive elements are Thomas Newman's haunting score and the way that cinematographer Conrad Hall presents the scenes in which Ricky films Lester and Jane. Despite American Beauty being a well put together and interesting film it doesn't scream Best Picture winner to me. Whilst I enjoyed myself and found it to be an easy watch, I was never blown away and found Spacey's central performance inconsistent throughout. That being said it's still better than a fair few Best Picture nominees that I've watched up to this point and at least the Academy picked a film with plenty of substance.
Whilst the Burnhams are dysfunctional throughout the course of American Beauty, the Fowlers are initially a well-adjusted happy clan who live a fine existence in the small town of Camden, Maine. Father Matt is the town's GP whilst Ruth teaches singing at the local school, meanwhile their son Frank is training to be an architect. The Fowlers lives are full of poker games, barbecues and trips to luxurious cabins; however everything changes when Frank starts to date the much older Natalie Strout. Natalie doesn't come alone; as she has two young sons as well as an abusive ex-husband who turns up every now and then expecting to reunite with her at some point. It's Natalie's ex-husband Richard who changes the course of the film when he storms the family home and shoots Frank dead. From then on the film explores the theme of grief with both Ruth and Matt dealing with the incident in different ways. Matt tries to put a brave face on things and attempts to return to work however it's later made clear that he isn't coping as well as he should. Meanwhile Ruth becomes a lot more withdrawn and it takes it a while to go back to the school to train her choir for the upcoming Labour Day concert. Director Todd Field and co-writer Robert Festinger; who based their script on Andre Dubus' short story Killings, perfectly pace the first two thirds of their story. I felt that Ruth and Matt's ultimate argument occurred at the right time with both throwing the finger of blame at each other. Where the film lost me was in its final act, where Matt finally attempts to extract vengeance for his son's death. These final scenes felt out of place with what had happened up to this point however I felt that Field and Festinger pulled it back with a rather open-ended final scene.
Something that was great throughout the course of In The Bedroom were the performances given by Sissy Spacek and Tom Wilkinson as Ruth and Matt. One great thing about doing this challenge is watching the entire span of an actor's career and that's what I feel I've done with Sissy Spacek. From her idealistic roles in Coal Miner's Daughter and Missing, In the Bedroom sees her deal with much more of a down-to-Earth matriarch. However, Spacek's outstanding ability is demonstrated here as she is able to say so much with a sudden glance or the smoking of a cigarette. The grief that Ruth feels is conveyed brilliantly by Spacek especially in an almost inconsequential scene at a log cabin where she chats with an old friend. It's also great to see Tom Wilkinson graduate from British films to playing the lead in an American production where he's able to showcase his extraordinary skills. Wilkinson brings a charm to the character of Matt however I didn't believe his descent into darkness in the aforementioned final scenes. Both Wilkinson and Spacek were nominated for Oscars for their performances as was Marisa Tomei for her turn as the tortured Natalie. As a big fan of Tomei's I was upset when she had little to do following Frank's death although her earlier scenes were more than enough to put her in the Supporting Actress category. Antonio Calvache's cinematography was perfect as he sometimes focused on a specific part of a character's body rather than their facial features. This often gave the character's more depth and allowed us to see through the eyes of Ruth and Matt. Also worth a mention is the haunting music that Ruth is teaching her choir for the concert; this music is added to several of the film's pivotal scenes which gives them a certain eerie edge. It's a shame that In the Bedroom isn't as well remembered as American Beauty because in my opinion it's the superior product. Despite a wonky third act; In the Bedroom is still a brilliant piece of film-making that explores what happens when a shocking incident affects a seemingly normal suburban family.
Next time the blog goes to the races as we have some fun horsing about.
The Burnhams in American Beauty have almost so many cracks that the surface is all but gone. Alan Ball's script focuses on the spiritually dead Lester Burnham who is reawakened by several new faces in his life. The first is his teenage daughter Jane's new friend Angela, whom he has numerous sexual fantasies about and begins to work out after eavesdropping on a conversation between the two girls. Meanwhile, his new neighbour, and Jane's love interest, Ricky Fitts supplies him with marijuana and as a result he regresses into a youthful state. These new changes in her husband's life don't go down too well with his prim and proper realtor wife Carolyn. Carolyn is a very methodical person who likes everything just-so so when Lester resigns from his job her world starts to change too. As Ball has already let us know, Lester dies by the end of the film, so part of the plot is devoted to building up a list of suspects. With Carolyn taking shooting lessons and Jane asking Ricky to kill her father; both seem like likely candidates however the actual perpetrator is the man who has a room full of guns. The aim of Ball's script is to poke fun at the middle classes with their candlelit suppers and finely pruned roses. I feel he does this admirably as Lester's breakdown begins to effect the world around him and change the status quo in the household that Carolyn has maintained.
I've watched American Beauty several times before and I remember rather enjoying it. However, on this latest viewing, I found myself initially hating Kevin Spacey's performance as Lester. Although the character of Lester is well written, Spacey plays him so withdrawn that it's hard to sympathise with him. It's only in the latter scenes that Spacey brings out an extra dimension to Lester however I feel that other actors would've made me warm to Lester sooner. It seems like I'm in the minority though as Spacey won his second acting Oscar in as many nominations, his first coming via his superior turn in The Usual Suspects. If anybody should have won an Oscar for their performance in American Beauty then it's Annette Bening. Bening utterly becomes Carolyn and makes the scene in which she 'must sell this house today' utterly compelling. In fact, by the end of the film, I had much more sympathy for Carolyn than I did Lester. Fine support was provided courtesy of a regimented Chris Cooper and a withdrawn Alison Janney as Ricky's parents. Sam Mendes, who won the Best Director award for what was his debut feature, perfectly anchored the film's offbeat style. Although a little pretentious for its own good at times, especially with the dancing shopping bag, there's also a lot to like. Among these positive elements are Thomas Newman's haunting score and the way that cinematographer Conrad Hall presents the scenes in which Ricky films Lester and Jane. Despite American Beauty being a well put together and interesting film it doesn't scream Best Picture winner to me. Whilst I enjoyed myself and found it to be an easy watch, I was never blown away and found Spacey's central performance inconsistent throughout. That being said it's still better than a fair few Best Picture nominees that I've watched up to this point and at least the Academy picked a film with plenty of substance.
Whilst the Burnhams are dysfunctional throughout the course of American Beauty, the Fowlers are initially a well-adjusted happy clan who live a fine existence in the small town of Camden, Maine. Father Matt is the town's GP whilst Ruth teaches singing at the local school, meanwhile their son Frank is training to be an architect. The Fowlers lives are full of poker games, barbecues and trips to luxurious cabins; however everything changes when Frank starts to date the much older Natalie Strout. Natalie doesn't come alone; as she has two young sons as well as an abusive ex-husband who turns up every now and then expecting to reunite with her at some point. It's Natalie's ex-husband Richard who changes the course of the film when he storms the family home and shoots Frank dead. From then on the film explores the theme of grief with both Ruth and Matt dealing with the incident in different ways. Matt tries to put a brave face on things and attempts to return to work however it's later made clear that he isn't coping as well as he should. Meanwhile Ruth becomes a lot more withdrawn and it takes it a while to go back to the school to train her choir for the upcoming Labour Day concert. Director Todd Field and co-writer Robert Festinger; who based their script on Andre Dubus' short story Killings, perfectly pace the first two thirds of their story. I felt that Ruth and Matt's ultimate argument occurred at the right time with both throwing the finger of blame at each other. Where the film lost me was in its final act, where Matt finally attempts to extract vengeance for his son's death. These final scenes felt out of place with what had happened up to this point however I felt that Field and Festinger pulled it back with a rather open-ended final scene.
Something that was great throughout the course of In The Bedroom were the performances given by Sissy Spacek and Tom Wilkinson as Ruth and Matt. One great thing about doing this challenge is watching the entire span of an actor's career and that's what I feel I've done with Sissy Spacek. From her idealistic roles in Coal Miner's Daughter and Missing, In the Bedroom sees her deal with much more of a down-to-Earth matriarch. However, Spacek's outstanding ability is demonstrated here as she is able to say so much with a sudden glance or the smoking of a cigarette. The grief that Ruth feels is conveyed brilliantly by Spacek especially in an almost inconsequential scene at a log cabin where she chats with an old friend. It's also great to see Tom Wilkinson graduate from British films to playing the lead in an American production where he's able to showcase his extraordinary skills. Wilkinson brings a charm to the character of Matt however I didn't believe his descent into darkness in the aforementioned final scenes. Both Wilkinson and Spacek were nominated for Oscars for their performances as was Marisa Tomei for her turn as the tortured Natalie. As a big fan of Tomei's I was upset when she had little to do following Frank's death although her earlier scenes were more than enough to put her in the Supporting Actress category. Antonio Calvache's cinematography was perfect as he sometimes focused on a specific part of a character's body rather than their facial features. This often gave the character's more depth and allowed us to see through the eyes of Ruth and Matt. Also worth a mention is the haunting music that Ruth is teaching her choir for the concert; this music is added to several of the film's pivotal scenes which gives them a certain eerie edge. It's a shame that In the Bedroom isn't as well remembered as American Beauty because in my opinion it's the superior product. Despite a wonky third act; In the Bedroom is still a brilliant piece of film-making that explores what happens when a shocking incident affects a seemingly normal suburban family.
Next time the blog goes to the races as we have some fun horsing about.
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 391: One Day in September
As we've seen over the course of this journey only a few directors have truly been able to thrive in multiple decades. One who we've followed almost throughout his career is Steven Spielberg who we first met when he helmed Jaws and most recently caught up with when he won his two Best Director Oscars. Both of his 1990s Oscar favourites; Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, looked at the Second World War from two interesting perspectives. Spielberg's latest Oscar-nominated film on this list looks at another memorable event; the massacre at the Munich Olympics, and the resulting retaliation operation against the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
The opening scene depicts, in quite graphic detail, the Munich massacre itself and the ensuing media storm that ensued. We then meet our lead protagonist; Mossad agent Avner Kauffman; who is tasked with heading up a band of mercenaries to track down those responsible for the attacks. Spielberg's film then takes up an episodic approach as the gang travel around the globe attempting to assassinate the members of the PLO one-by-one. One of the best things about Tony Kushner and Eric Roth's script is the fact that these men are rather unlikely assassins. Therefore the conversations between hits ring true as the group ponder the moral consequences of their actions and whether they're ultimately doing any good. Avner's contact, shadowy Frenchman Louis; is another intriguing character as he appears to be helping out the group purely for monetary gain. It's then up to the audience whether or not he's playing a game and helping out both sides in return for more money. Where Munich fell down for me slightly was in its pacing and I felt that, at two and half hours the film was far too long. This is especially true of the final half hour, where Avner is looking back at the mission and wondering whether any of the men he killed were actually part of the massacre in the first place. Although there is a neat sequence in which Avner's memories play out while he's making love to his wife; his post-traumatic stress disorder is played out for far too long.
One thing that you can always count on in terms of a Spielberg movie are several explosive moments and in terms of Munich the explosions are quite literal. One of Munich's strengths are its well-punctuated scenes in which bombs are set off in houses and hotels to rather shocking effect. One of these set pieces that stays in the mind is the assassination of Mahmoud Hamshari which is briefly halted when the group learn that his daughter in this house. Similarly memorable is the explosion in a hotel in which Avner himself is caught up with. However, not all of the set pieces hit the mark and in particular I felt uncomfortable after Avner and driver Steve slaughter a Dutch female agent who has killed one of their own. Of the cast, I felt that Eric Bana was perfect as the Israeli every man, dedicating his cause to a wife and new born child that he may never see again. A pre-James Bond Daniel Craig was also perfectly used as rough and ready South African Steve whilst Geoffrey Rush was brilliant in his brief role as Avner's handler Ephraim. I also really liked Mathieu Amalric as the shadowy amoral Louis. At the same time I don't think any of the cast members really gave stand out performances and that's perhaps why none of them were nominated for acting Oscars. Ultimately I feel that, even though its only ten years old, Munich is already one of Spielberg's forgotten films and I can sort of see why. At times powerful, at others frankly dull, Munich has its moments but is overall fairly inconsistent.
Next time, two films that peer beyond the picket fence and look at the seedy side of suburban America.
The opening scene depicts, in quite graphic detail, the Munich massacre itself and the ensuing media storm that ensued. We then meet our lead protagonist; Mossad agent Avner Kauffman; who is tasked with heading up a band of mercenaries to track down those responsible for the attacks. Spielberg's film then takes up an episodic approach as the gang travel around the globe attempting to assassinate the members of the PLO one-by-one. One of the best things about Tony Kushner and Eric Roth's script is the fact that these men are rather unlikely assassins. Therefore the conversations between hits ring true as the group ponder the moral consequences of their actions and whether they're ultimately doing any good. Avner's contact, shadowy Frenchman Louis; is another intriguing character as he appears to be helping out the group purely for monetary gain. It's then up to the audience whether or not he's playing a game and helping out both sides in return for more money. Where Munich fell down for me slightly was in its pacing and I felt that, at two and half hours the film was far too long. This is especially true of the final half hour, where Avner is looking back at the mission and wondering whether any of the men he killed were actually part of the massacre in the first place. Although there is a neat sequence in which Avner's memories play out while he's making love to his wife; his post-traumatic stress disorder is played out for far too long.
One thing that you can always count on in terms of a Spielberg movie are several explosive moments and in terms of Munich the explosions are quite literal. One of Munich's strengths are its well-punctuated scenes in which bombs are set off in houses and hotels to rather shocking effect. One of these set pieces that stays in the mind is the assassination of Mahmoud Hamshari which is briefly halted when the group learn that his daughter in this house. Similarly memorable is the explosion in a hotel in which Avner himself is caught up with. However, not all of the set pieces hit the mark and in particular I felt uncomfortable after Avner and driver Steve slaughter a Dutch female agent who has killed one of their own. Of the cast, I felt that Eric Bana was perfect as the Israeli every man, dedicating his cause to a wife and new born child that he may never see again. A pre-James Bond Daniel Craig was also perfectly used as rough and ready South African Steve whilst Geoffrey Rush was brilliant in his brief role as Avner's handler Ephraim. I also really liked Mathieu Amalric as the shadowy amoral Louis. At the same time I don't think any of the cast members really gave stand out performances and that's perhaps why none of them were nominated for acting Oscars. Ultimately I feel that, even though its only ten years old, Munich is already one of Spielberg's forgotten films and I can sort of see why. At times powerful, at others frankly dull, Munich has its moments but is overall fairly inconsistent.
Next time, two films that peer beyond the picket fence and look at the seedy side of suburban America.
Monday, 2 March 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 389-390: A Double Soderbergh
It's very rare that a director gets two films entered into the Best Picture category in the same year, although we've seen it several times throughout the challenge. However, it's even rarer when that person competes against themselves in the Best Director category. This event did occur at the 2001 ceremony when Steven Soderbergh was nominated for directing Best Picture nominees Erin Brockovich and Traffic. Not only did he go on to win the award for directing, his films brought in five Oscars between the two of them.
Erin Brockovich only got one of these five wins however it was in a pretty prestigious category, that of Best Actress. The recipient of this award was Julia Roberts who, after years of being viewed primarily as a multi-million dollar movie star, redeemed herself in the eyes of the audience by playing the brassy single mother of the title. Erin Brockovich resembles several other movies that have won their leading actress the top prize, most notably Norma Rae. Just like Norma Rae, Erin Brockovich was a character who fought for what she believed in even if she was a small fish in a big pond. Initially barging her way into a job at a legal firm at which she had previously been a client, Erin soon takes interest in a family whose have had an offer made on their house by Pacific Gas and Electric. As Erin begins to investigate the case further, she learns that the company had been using chromium in the water in a plant just outside Hinkley, California. As a result, the surrounding residents had gradually begun to develop various illnesses, with a few suffering from cancer. Whilst Erin takes on this crusade her neighbour, and later lover, George takes on the kids but finds it hard playing mum. Eventually, Erin and lawyer Ed gain the attention of PG&E and the two sides fight to get their cases heard in court. Although Erin Brockovich is definitely a legal drama of sorts it's one that focuses on the effects the outcome of the case will have on the characters rather than the courtroom battles themselves.
Despite the themes of underdogs taking on the big corporations being a rather cliched topic; Erin Brockovich feels fresh for the most part even if it does give in to stereotypes from time to time. The one stereotype that I wasn't a fan of was the way that writer Susannah Grant demonstrated Erin's coarse nature by having her swear every five minutes. The promiscuous clothing that Roberts wore was similarly tactless although her ample cleavage did provide one of the film's most memorable scenes. However I felt where the film was successful was in making these characters feel real and how Grant was able to set up the story rather nimbly. Before the first half hour was out I felt I knew Ed, Erin and George all really well and that's a testament to both Grant and Soderbergh. Additionally I felt that the cast succeeded in fleshing out their characters with Roberts giving some extra weight to the character of Erin. She was able to portray her character's steely nature and combine it with a fear of being left to raise three children with no money. As harassed small-town lawyer Ed, I found Albert Finney to be equally strong and played the perfect foil to Roberts' Erin. Meanwhile I found Aaron Eckhart to make the most of his role as sensitive biker George who found playing second fiddle to Erin's law work just a bit too much to handle. After an intriguing first half as we, along with Erin, learn about the problems in Hinkley, the second half drags a little as we sit through one interview after another. The final scenes, where Erin reveals how much money the people of Hinkley are going to receive, is a little underwhelming but thankfully so much has been done to make us care about the characters that this is simply a minor quibble. Ultimately Erin Brockovich is a character drama first and foremost and thanks to the Oscar-winning Roberts, Soderbergh and Grant it succeeds at presenting a sympathetic protagonist who we root for throughout.
I've always found Soderbergh to be a rather eclectic director as two of his films are rarely the same unless of course they're sequels. So, in the same year that he made the rather mainstream underdog drama Erin Brockovich, he also directed the multi-layered drug epic Traffic. Based on the 1980s Channel 4 miniseries of the same name; Traffic saw Soderbergh tackle the war on drugs by telling three interconnected stories. The first and most powerful story followed police officer Javier Rodriguez, a mild-mannered enforcer who was hoping to clear up the drug problem in Tijuana. However, Rodriguez's recruitment by the seemingly good-natured General Salazar later proved to be an almost fatal mistake as he found himself caught between two rival gangs. Meanwhile, in America, Judge Robert Wakefield is tasked with heading up the president's Office of National Drug Policy. Inspired by Salazar's phony efforts to clean up Mexico, Wakefield hopes to employ similar methods in the USA. However, Wakefield's problems are closer to home when it appears that his straight A-student daughter Caroline is becoming more and more dependent on drugs. Caroline's problems get so bad that eventually Robert decides that he can't fight a war against his own family. The weakest story for me saw the arrest and trial of Carlos Ayala, a drug lord working for the cartel that Salazar was trying to bring down in America. The problem with this story was that it was told from the eyes of Carlos' trophy wife Helena, who struggled to cope after her husband's arrest. This story was also the one that ran out of steam quickest and proved that not everybody could be brought to justice.
Traffic won four awards at the 2001 ceremony including Best Director for Steven Soderbergh, Best Screenplay for Stephen Gagan and Best Editing. Additionally, the wonderful Benicio Del Toro won Best Supporting Actor for his powerful portrayal of Javier Rodriguez; whose story arc is possibly Traffic's most compelling. Del Toro's gritty performance felt realistic in tone and his final facial expression when he saw the local kids playing baseball provided the perfect end to the story. I also enjoyed the performance Michael Douglas gave as the increasingly desperate Wakefield, a man who was forced to juggle working for the President with looking for his drug-addled daughter. Although I found Douglas' performance to be gripping, I found this story a little hard to take a times. I found Gagan struggled to write believable dialogue for Caroline her boyfriend Josh; whose conversations didn't feel like they were coming from the mouths of teenagers. In addition I felt that Caroline went from casual drug user to thieving prostitute rather quickly and I had to suspend my disbelief quite substantially in order to get on board with her downfall. Meanwhile, I felt that Catherine Zeta Jones was miscast as Helena and the scene in which she tried to do a drug deal was just laughable. However there were more hits than misses in a film which is a real testament to Soderbergh as he ties all three stories together perfectly. I personally loved the way in which all three stories are shot differently with a colour representing different areas. So for example the Mexico scenes were given a grainy feel, the Wakefield plot was given a blueish tinge and Carlos and Helena's world was richly produced. Although I could've done without some of the scenes involving Zeta-Jones' Helena, Traffic was definitely a film that grew on me thanks to Soderbergh's deft directorial flair. Whilst I do believe he's made better films, Traffic is definitely his most ambitious and therefore its right that it's the one he received his Oscar for.
Erin Brockovich only got one of these five wins however it was in a pretty prestigious category, that of Best Actress. The recipient of this award was Julia Roberts who, after years of being viewed primarily as a multi-million dollar movie star, redeemed herself in the eyes of the audience by playing the brassy single mother of the title. Erin Brockovich resembles several other movies that have won their leading actress the top prize, most notably Norma Rae. Just like Norma Rae, Erin Brockovich was a character who fought for what she believed in even if she was a small fish in a big pond. Initially barging her way into a job at a legal firm at which she had previously been a client, Erin soon takes interest in a family whose have had an offer made on their house by Pacific Gas and Electric. As Erin begins to investigate the case further, she learns that the company had been using chromium in the water in a plant just outside Hinkley, California. As a result, the surrounding residents had gradually begun to develop various illnesses, with a few suffering from cancer. Whilst Erin takes on this crusade her neighbour, and later lover, George takes on the kids but finds it hard playing mum. Eventually, Erin and lawyer Ed gain the attention of PG&E and the two sides fight to get their cases heard in court. Although Erin Brockovich is definitely a legal drama of sorts it's one that focuses on the effects the outcome of the case will have on the characters rather than the courtroom battles themselves.
Despite the themes of underdogs taking on the big corporations being a rather cliched topic; Erin Brockovich feels fresh for the most part even if it does give in to stereotypes from time to time. The one stereotype that I wasn't a fan of was the way that writer Susannah Grant demonstrated Erin's coarse nature by having her swear every five minutes. The promiscuous clothing that Roberts wore was similarly tactless although her ample cleavage did provide one of the film's most memorable scenes. However I felt where the film was successful was in making these characters feel real and how Grant was able to set up the story rather nimbly. Before the first half hour was out I felt I knew Ed, Erin and George all really well and that's a testament to both Grant and Soderbergh. Additionally I felt that the cast succeeded in fleshing out their characters with Roberts giving some extra weight to the character of Erin. She was able to portray her character's steely nature and combine it with a fear of being left to raise three children with no money. As harassed small-town lawyer Ed, I found Albert Finney to be equally strong and played the perfect foil to Roberts' Erin. Meanwhile I found Aaron Eckhart to make the most of his role as sensitive biker George who found playing second fiddle to Erin's law work just a bit too much to handle. After an intriguing first half as we, along with Erin, learn about the problems in Hinkley, the second half drags a little as we sit through one interview after another. The final scenes, where Erin reveals how much money the people of Hinkley are going to receive, is a little underwhelming but thankfully so much has been done to make us care about the characters that this is simply a minor quibble. Ultimately Erin Brockovich is a character drama first and foremost and thanks to the Oscar-winning Roberts, Soderbergh and Grant it succeeds at presenting a sympathetic protagonist who we root for throughout.
I've always found Soderbergh to be a rather eclectic director as two of his films are rarely the same unless of course they're sequels. So, in the same year that he made the rather mainstream underdog drama Erin Brockovich, he also directed the multi-layered drug epic Traffic. Based on the 1980s Channel 4 miniseries of the same name; Traffic saw Soderbergh tackle the war on drugs by telling three interconnected stories. The first and most powerful story followed police officer Javier Rodriguez, a mild-mannered enforcer who was hoping to clear up the drug problem in Tijuana. However, Rodriguez's recruitment by the seemingly good-natured General Salazar later proved to be an almost fatal mistake as he found himself caught between two rival gangs. Meanwhile, in America, Judge Robert Wakefield is tasked with heading up the president's Office of National Drug Policy. Inspired by Salazar's phony efforts to clean up Mexico, Wakefield hopes to employ similar methods in the USA. However, Wakefield's problems are closer to home when it appears that his straight A-student daughter Caroline is becoming more and more dependent on drugs. Caroline's problems get so bad that eventually Robert decides that he can't fight a war against his own family. The weakest story for me saw the arrest and trial of Carlos Ayala, a drug lord working for the cartel that Salazar was trying to bring down in America. The problem with this story was that it was told from the eyes of Carlos' trophy wife Helena, who struggled to cope after her husband's arrest. This story was also the one that ran out of steam quickest and proved that not everybody could be brought to justice.
Traffic won four awards at the 2001 ceremony including Best Director for Steven Soderbergh, Best Screenplay for Stephen Gagan and Best Editing. Additionally, the wonderful Benicio Del Toro won Best Supporting Actor for his powerful portrayal of Javier Rodriguez; whose story arc is possibly Traffic's most compelling. Del Toro's gritty performance felt realistic in tone and his final facial expression when he saw the local kids playing baseball provided the perfect end to the story. I also enjoyed the performance Michael Douglas gave as the increasingly desperate Wakefield, a man who was forced to juggle working for the President with looking for his drug-addled daughter. Although I found Douglas' performance to be gripping, I found this story a little hard to take a times. I found Gagan struggled to write believable dialogue for Caroline her boyfriend Josh; whose conversations didn't feel like they were coming from the mouths of teenagers. In addition I felt that Caroline went from casual drug user to thieving prostitute rather quickly and I had to suspend my disbelief quite substantially in order to get on board with her downfall. Meanwhile, I felt that Catherine Zeta Jones was miscast as Helena and the scene in which she tried to do a drug deal was just laughable. However there were more hits than misses in a film which is a real testament to Soderbergh as he ties all three stories together perfectly. I personally loved the way in which all three stories are shot differently with a colour representing different areas. So for example the Mexico scenes were given a grainy feel, the Wakefield plot was given a blueish tinge and Carlos and Helena's world was richly produced. Although I could've done without some of the scenes involving Zeta-Jones' Helena, Traffic was definitely a film that grew on me thanks to Soderbergh's deft directorial flair. Whilst I do believe he's made better films, Traffic is definitely his most ambitious and therefore its right that it's the one he received his Oscar for.
Saturday, 28 February 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 388: An Idiot's Guide to Milkshake Drinking
When we last met Daniel Day-Lewis he was a fresh faced star still working in small budget British films for Jim Sheridan. But since then his star soared and he was in an demand figure primarily due to the fact that he didn't accept all that many projects. Later on we'll see an Oscar-nominated turn from him but first we look at the film that won him his second Academy Award.
It takes a special kind of actor to make a line about milkshake drinking sound intense, but thankfully Day-Lewis is that kind of Thespian. However, There Will Be Blood isn't a film set in a Wimpy, instead the milkshake line is an analogy used by the film's lead character Daniel Plainview to explain oil drainage. Paul Thomas Anderson's film centres on Plainview; a ruthless oilman who manipulates communities at the turn of the century in order to drill their land for oil. An atmospheric opening twenty minutes look at Plainview's rise to the top and also explain how he came to become the adopted father of a young lad simply known as H.W. The majority of the film takes place in Little Boston, California; where Paul Sunday has informed Daniel that his family's ranch has oil underneath it. After paying off Paul; Daniel travels to the ranch where he meets the family including Paul's twin brother; sanctimonious preacher Eli. Anderson attempts to make There Will be Blood epic in scale by including some rather memorable moments starting with an oil spill that ends with H.W. losing his hearing. Later H.W. burns down the house he and his father are staying in and this results in him being sent off to a school for the deaf. However Anderson's screenplay is more concerned with the feud between Eli and Daniel which sees both embarrass the other. Eventually they become family of sorts when H.W. marries Eli's youngest sister Mary. However, the aforementioned milkshake scene doesn't end well for Eli as he has a run in with a drunken Daniel and a bowling pin.
This final scene sees Day-Lewis maintain the intensity that he has displayed throughout almost the entire two and a half hour film. His brilliance is displayed early on when he is forced to communicate without the aid of a script. However, thanks to Anderson's storytelling ability, Day-Lewis gives us a strong idea of his character without saying a word. Day-Lewis similarly is able to turn on the charm when needs be and occasionally showcases Plainview's vulnerable side. Additionally he interacts well with Paul Dano, who we last saw in Little Miss Sunshine, who excels as both Paul and Eli Sunday. One of the film's most memorable scenes sees Eli getting Daniel to admit that he's abandoned H.W. by sending him off to school. This scene is later reversed when Daniel gets Eli to renounce himself as a false prophet in order to let him drill on the land that he's already drained. As well as Day-Lewis' win; There Will Be Blood also triumphed in the cinematography category thanks to Robert Elswit's sumptuous camera work. Elswitt makes us believe that we're in the early 20th century and is able to capture the spirit of a close-nit community drawn together by a God-fearing preacher. Also worthy of praise is Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood who provided an emotive score that added another dimension to the film. Greenwood's score was best utilised in the earlier scenes as it allowed the audience to understand just what was being said by the characters. Unfortunately, Greenwood was ineligible to be considered for the Best Original Score award due to the fact that some of the music was based on prior material. Whilst this is a mini travesty, it doesn't take away from what is ultimately a masterpiece in film-making and a worthy Best Picture nominee. In fact I would go as fas as to say that There Will be Blood deserved the Best Picture that year; a point I will assess in more detail once we get to the movie that was awarded the top prize at the 2008 ceremony.
Next time we focus on a director who was nominated for the Directing Oscar twice in the same year.
It takes a special kind of actor to make a line about milkshake drinking sound intense, but thankfully Day-Lewis is that kind of Thespian. However, There Will Be Blood isn't a film set in a Wimpy, instead the milkshake line is an analogy used by the film's lead character Daniel Plainview to explain oil drainage. Paul Thomas Anderson's film centres on Plainview; a ruthless oilman who manipulates communities at the turn of the century in order to drill their land for oil. An atmospheric opening twenty minutes look at Plainview's rise to the top and also explain how he came to become the adopted father of a young lad simply known as H.W. The majority of the film takes place in Little Boston, California; where Paul Sunday has informed Daniel that his family's ranch has oil underneath it. After paying off Paul; Daniel travels to the ranch where he meets the family including Paul's twin brother; sanctimonious preacher Eli. Anderson attempts to make There Will be Blood epic in scale by including some rather memorable moments starting with an oil spill that ends with H.W. losing his hearing. Later H.W. burns down the house he and his father are staying in and this results in him being sent off to a school for the deaf. However Anderson's screenplay is more concerned with the feud between Eli and Daniel which sees both embarrass the other. Eventually they become family of sorts when H.W. marries Eli's youngest sister Mary. However, the aforementioned milkshake scene doesn't end well for Eli as he has a run in with a drunken Daniel and a bowling pin.
This final scene sees Day-Lewis maintain the intensity that he has displayed throughout almost the entire two and a half hour film. His brilliance is displayed early on when he is forced to communicate without the aid of a script. However, thanks to Anderson's storytelling ability, Day-Lewis gives us a strong idea of his character without saying a word. Day-Lewis similarly is able to turn on the charm when needs be and occasionally showcases Plainview's vulnerable side. Additionally he interacts well with Paul Dano, who we last saw in Little Miss Sunshine, who excels as both Paul and Eli Sunday. One of the film's most memorable scenes sees Eli getting Daniel to admit that he's abandoned H.W. by sending him off to school. This scene is later reversed when Daniel gets Eli to renounce himself as a false prophet in order to let him drill on the land that he's already drained. As well as Day-Lewis' win; There Will Be Blood also triumphed in the cinematography category thanks to Robert Elswit's sumptuous camera work. Elswitt makes us believe that we're in the early 20th century and is able to capture the spirit of a close-nit community drawn together by a God-fearing preacher. Also worthy of praise is Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood who provided an emotive score that added another dimension to the film. Greenwood's score was best utilised in the earlier scenes as it allowed the audience to understand just what was being said by the characters. Unfortunately, Greenwood was ineligible to be considered for the Best Original Score award due to the fact that some of the music was based on prior material. Whilst this is a mini travesty, it doesn't take away from what is ultimately a masterpiece in film-making and a worthy Best Picture nominee. In fact I would go as fas as to say that There Will be Blood deserved the Best Picture that year; a point I will assess in more detail once we get to the movie that was awarded the top prize at the 2008 ceremony.
Next time we focus on a director who was nominated for the Directing Oscar twice in the same year.
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 386-387: The Lasse Hallström Collection
After spending time in the present day we move back to the past with two films from a man who started his career by directing ABBA videos. However, by the turn of the decade, Swedish helmer Lasse Hallström had begun making films in the English language. His first big success was with What's Eating Gilbert Grape? however he would later see two of his films nominated for Best Picture in successive years.
First up was a film version of John Irving's The Cider House Rules; with the author adapting his own work for the screen. Both films in this post were new to me going in, however I did know a little about The Cider House Rules thanks to one of its stars. That star was Michael Caine who won his second Supporting Actor Oscar for playing the patriarchal Dr. Wilbur Larch who cares for the young boys of a Maine orphanage. I personally thought that all of the action would take place at the orphanage but instead the film primarily deals with the story of Homer Wells; a young man born at the institution that Larch takes under his wing. Initially believing that Homer would take over Larch's place as the lead doctor at the orphanage, the film went of course about forty minutes in when our protagonist left his home with a couple who'd come for an abortion. From there on I thought the film meandered too much as Homer became an apple picker and also learnt to catch lobsters. The film mainly concerned itself with exploring Homer's affair with the married Candy as well as his relationship with his fellow apple pickers. Meanwhile, we got regular updates from Dr. Larch who tried to get the board to make Homer his replacement, going as far as to present phony qualifications in his apprentice's name. The film had a rather predictable conclusion as Homer became Larch's replacement and ended the movie by quoting his mentor's iconic line to the current intake of boys at the orphanage.
For a film that deals with the subjects of incest, abortion and infidelity; The Cider House Rules is an incredibly quaint tale. John Irving's ill-paced narrative meant that the film fluctuated in quality depending on what was happening to Homer at the time. I have to say that I didn't much care for Tobey Maguire's wide-eyed performance of Homer and felt he lacked the qualities of a leading man here. Similarly, Charlize Theron gave a lacklustre turn as the one-dimensional Candy; a woman who had supposedly cheated on her husband with the young doctor who was present at her abortion. I think the reason Michael Caine won his Oscar for The Cider House Rules is that he looked better thanks to the flimsy turns given by the rest of the cast. Having not seen The Cider House Rules before I was generally underwhelmed by Caine's overall showing here and it's fair to say that he's been a lot better in films that weren't as well-regarded by the Academy. Additionally, Caine was up against more worthy competition with at least two performers more deserving of the Award than he was. What I feel made The Cider House Rules an Academy favourite was the sumptuous cinematography provided by John Stapleton. Stapleton utilises the Maine scenery well and Hallström certainly realises that the script's main strengths are its exterior locations. I would go as far as to say that the Maine countryside made the biggest impression on me out of everything that happened in the film. Apart from the cinematography, everything else was a little lacklustre and I was ultimately disappointed with what I saw from Hallström here especially seeing as he was nominated for Best Director at that year's ceremony.
One year later Hallström had another film in contention for Best Picture although this time he didn't feature in the director category. The film was Chocolat; another movie based on a popular novel this time one by Joanne Harris. Although sharing The Cider House Rules' cinematographic flair, I thought that Chocolat had more substance than Hallström's previous effort. The film starred Juliette Binoche as Vianne, a lively woman who rocks up in a quiet French village alongside her young daughter Anouk. The village that she arrives in is extremely Catholic and is ruled over by the mayor; Comte De Raymond, an incredibly biased figure who has the majority of the townsfolk under his spell. The Comte and Vianne clash almost immediately when he discovers she is opening a chocolate shop during Lent. The film's main focus is then on the feud between the two as the Comte does everything he can to close down her shop. At the same time we see the effect that Vianne's presence has on the other villagers, including brow-beaten Josephine and eccentric landlady Armande. Though her confectionery awakens passions in others it's not till later in the film that Vianne's own passions are awakened. This happens when she lays eyes on Roux; a river traveller whose presence in the village is more unwelcome than Vianne's. There is an incredibly connection between the pair however Vianne later feels she's put her daughter in trouble as a result of her dalliance with the handsome Roux. The final scenes of the film effortlessly balance comedy and tragedy with some memorable moments being provided before the end credits roll.
I think the reason I enjoyed Chocolat a lot more than I did The Cider House Rules was due to the fact that the former film was a lot more focused than the latter. The film had a clear purpose and looked at a specific time frame; that being the season of Lent as the Comte threatened to put Vianne out of business before Easter. Hallström again focuses on the exterior shots as the French village comes to life in all of its glory thanks in part to cinematographer Roger Pratt. Chocolat's utterly charming nature is enhanced by Rachel Portman's memorable score whilst the quirky characters are made more recognisable by their distinctive costumes. But what makes Chocolat really come alive is its ensemble cast; four of whom gave tremendous performances. Juliette Binoche was an utter delight in the lead role and perfectly conveyed both Vianne's wicked side with her more vulnerable nature. Binoche was nominated for a prize at that year's Oscars, as was Judi Dench who chewed some considerable scenery as diabetic landlady Armande. The fabulous Alfred Molina gave a measured turn as the film's antagonist Comte de Raymond and I thought he particularly excelled during his character's breakdown in the window of Vianne's shop. Similarly impressive was Lena Olin who, as battered wife Josephine, went on the biggest journey from shrewish housewife to independent woman. If there's a weak link in the cast then it's Johnny Depp, however I feel that this is primarily due to the fact that his character is given much to do. However, Depp and Binoche share a fine chemistry which makes Roux and Vianne's relationship all the more believable. Obviously the other plus point to watching Chocolat is the fine selection of confectionery that is on display throughout the movie so my one piece of advice would be not to watch this on an empty stomach. Whilst Chocolat isn't a particularly original film, it's certainly an enjoyable bit of escapism and I felt that Hallström deserved his Best Director nod much more for this film than he did The Cider House Rules.
Next time we turn our attention to a film that explores blood, oil and milkshakes in equal measure.
First up was a film version of John Irving's The Cider House Rules; with the author adapting his own work for the screen. Both films in this post were new to me going in, however I did know a little about The Cider House Rules thanks to one of its stars. That star was Michael Caine who won his second Supporting Actor Oscar for playing the patriarchal Dr. Wilbur Larch who cares for the young boys of a Maine orphanage. I personally thought that all of the action would take place at the orphanage but instead the film primarily deals with the story of Homer Wells; a young man born at the institution that Larch takes under his wing. Initially believing that Homer would take over Larch's place as the lead doctor at the orphanage, the film went of course about forty minutes in when our protagonist left his home with a couple who'd come for an abortion. From there on I thought the film meandered too much as Homer became an apple picker and also learnt to catch lobsters. The film mainly concerned itself with exploring Homer's affair with the married Candy as well as his relationship with his fellow apple pickers. Meanwhile, we got regular updates from Dr. Larch who tried to get the board to make Homer his replacement, going as far as to present phony qualifications in his apprentice's name. The film had a rather predictable conclusion as Homer became Larch's replacement and ended the movie by quoting his mentor's iconic line to the current intake of boys at the orphanage.
For a film that deals with the subjects of incest, abortion and infidelity; The Cider House Rules is an incredibly quaint tale. John Irving's ill-paced narrative meant that the film fluctuated in quality depending on what was happening to Homer at the time. I have to say that I didn't much care for Tobey Maguire's wide-eyed performance of Homer and felt he lacked the qualities of a leading man here. Similarly, Charlize Theron gave a lacklustre turn as the one-dimensional Candy; a woman who had supposedly cheated on her husband with the young doctor who was present at her abortion. I think the reason Michael Caine won his Oscar for The Cider House Rules is that he looked better thanks to the flimsy turns given by the rest of the cast. Having not seen The Cider House Rules before I was generally underwhelmed by Caine's overall showing here and it's fair to say that he's been a lot better in films that weren't as well-regarded by the Academy. Additionally, Caine was up against more worthy competition with at least two performers more deserving of the Award than he was. What I feel made The Cider House Rules an Academy favourite was the sumptuous cinematography provided by John Stapleton. Stapleton utilises the Maine scenery well and Hallström certainly realises that the script's main strengths are its exterior locations. I would go as far as to say that the Maine countryside made the biggest impression on me out of everything that happened in the film. Apart from the cinematography, everything else was a little lacklustre and I was ultimately disappointed with what I saw from Hallström here especially seeing as he was nominated for Best Director at that year's ceremony.
One year later Hallström had another film in contention for Best Picture although this time he didn't feature in the director category. The film was Chocolat; another movie based on a popular novel this time one by Joanne Harris. Although sharing The Cider House Rules' cinematographic flair, I thought that Chocolat had more substance than Hallström's previous effort. The film starred Juliette Binoche as Vianne, a lively woman who rocks up in a quiet French village alongside her young daughter Anouk. The village that she arrives in is extremely Catholic and is ruled over by the mayor; Comte De Raymond, an incredibly biased figure who has the majority of the townsfolk under his spell. The Comte and Vianne clash almost immediately when he discovers she is opening a chocolate shop during Lent. The film's main focus is then on the feud between the two as the Comte does everything he can to close down her shop. At the same time we see the effect that Vianne's presence has on the other villagers, including brow-beaten Josephine and eccentric landlady Armande. Though her confectionery awakens passions in others it's not till later in the film that Vianne's own passions are awakened. This happens when she lays eyes on Roux; a river traveller whose presence in the village is more unwelcome than Vianne's. There is an incredibly connection between the pair however Vianne later feels she's put her daughter in trouble as a result of her dalliance with the handsome Roux. The final scenes of the film effortlessly balance comedy and tragedy with some memorable moments being provided before the end credits roll.
I think the reason I enjoyed Chocolat a lot more than I did The Cider House Rules was due to the fact that the former film was a lot more focused than the latter. The film had a clear purpose and looked at a specific time frame; that being the season of Lent as the Comte threatened to put Vianne out of business before Easter. Hallström again focuses on the exterior shots as the French village comes to life in all of its glory thanks in part to cinematographer Roger Pratt. Chocolat's utterly charming nature is enhanced by Rachel Portman's memorable score whilst the quirky characters are made more recognisable by their distinctive costumes. But what makes Chocolat really come alive is its ensemble cast; four of whom gave tremendous performances. Juliette Binoche was an utter delight in the lead role and perfectly conveyed both Vianne's wicked side with her more vulnerable nature. Binoche was nominated for a prize at that year's Oscars, as was Judi Dench who chewed some considerable scenery as diabetic landlady Armande. The fabulous Alfred Molina gave a measured turn as the film's antagonist Comte de Raymond and I thought he particularly excelled during his character's breakdown in the window of Vianne's shop. Similarly impressive was Lena Olin who, as battered wife Josephine, went on the biggest journey from shrewish housewife to independent woman. If there's a weak link in the cast then it's Johnny Depp, however I feel that this is primarily due to the fact that his character is given much to do. However, Depp and Binoche share a fine chemistry which makes Roux and Vianne's relationship all the more believable. Obviously the other plus point to watching Chocolat is the fine selection of confectionery that is on display throughout the movie so my one piece of advice would be not to watch this on an empty stomach. Whilst Chocolat isn't a particularly original film, it's certainly an enjoyable bit of escapism and I felt that Hallström deserved his Best Director nod much more for this film than he did The Cider House Rules.
Next time we turn our attention to a film that explores blood, oil and milkshakes in equal measure.
Tuesday, 24 February 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 385: Two Days in L.A.
Often when critics compile their lists of worst Best Picture winners of all time there's one film that comes out on top, or if you like bottom. That film is Crash, which triumphed at the 2006 ceremony despite another film being the odds on favourite going in. Having seen the majority of the Best Picture nominees at the time, I felt that Crash was quite harshly judged and believed that most people hated it because of the academy's decision. But, watching it with my 2015 critic's eyes I have to say that those people who slated Crash's win at the time may have been more on the money than I initially thought.
Paul Haggis' film, which he co-wrote with Bobby Moresco, follows a cavalcade of characters as their paths cross over two days in L.A. The characters include racist Police Officer John Ryan, DA Rick Cabot and his wife Jean, TV Producer Cameron Thayer and petty criminals Anthony and Peter. It's pretty clear that Haggis' main theme is that of race as almost every line of the script relates to the characters' ethnicity or bigotry. Haggis changes the theme of race up a little by having many of the ethnic characters as racist as their white counterparts. This is best exemplified through black Police Lieutenant Dixon, who'd rather let racism go on in his force than risk his position by putting his neck on the line. Similarly, the final scene sees two angry drivers hurl racist insults at one another after getting into a car accident. The problem I have with this is that, as almost everyone is as bigoted as each other, it's really hard to like or identify with any of the characters. Maybe I was a little bit spoilt by the last three films I watched, but none of the characters in Crash feel like real people and that became more apparent when I realised that I didn't know any of their names when the film came to an end. The dialogue similarly doesn't feel believable and there's very little subtlety to Haggis' words with every scene focusing on racism in some form or another. I think that this took away from the believability of the film as a whole as Haggis appeared to be more interested in the his central theme rather than his characters.
Part of the problem is that there are just too many characters in the film so it's hard to really find someone to care about when they're only on screen for about ten minutes. There are two exceptions to the rule, the first being Matt Dillon's John Ryan; who's bigotry is explained through his relationship with his sick father. Dillon, who was the only member of the cast to be Oscar-nominated, presents his character as somebody who knows that he's a prick but at the same time tries to do right by his father. Similarly I was sympathetic to Michael Pena's locksmith Daniel who I felt to be the only truly good-natured character amongst a bad bunch. However a lot of the characters felt two-dimensional with a specific example being the Persian shopkeeper who spends most of the film angry with those around him. What I did like about Crash was its atmospheric style with cinematographer J. Michael Muro perfectly capturing the eeriness of Los Angeles at night. Muro's camera work is one of Crash's most positive elements and he at least tries to make the film look as interesting as possible. The most damning thing I can say about Crash is that it didn't really hold my attention primarily as I didn't care about many of the characters. While I admire what Haggis was trying to do, I think the film's message was more important to him than the characters; who simply acted as plot devices to further the themes of race. I have to say I really wanted to be one of those people who stuck up for Crash, but I'm coming round to think that maybe it didn't deserve it's Best Picture prize after all.
Next time we focus on a Swedish director who specialises in lush period pieces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)