The last Oscar winner of the '90s (in the usual categories) that I had not yet seen was Howard's End, winner of the 1993 Oscars for Best Actress (Emma Thompson) and Best Adapted Screenplay (Ruth Prawer Jhabvala). The film was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Director (James Ivory), and Best Supporting Actress (Vanessa Redgrave).
In early 1900s London, Margaret Schlegel (Thompson) befriends Ruth Wilcox (Redgrave), a meek older woman, in ill health, who has been left behind by her family while they enjoy vacation activities that are too strenuous for her. The two had been briefly acquainted before, and one of Wilcox's sons had, the year before, been involved in a romantic relationship with Schlegel's sister, Helen (Helena Bonham Carter), which had ended badly. Over the course of their budding friendship, Margaret mentions to Ruth that she will soon be losing her lifelong home. Ruth adds an informal addition to her will, stating her intention that Margaret should be given the family estate, Howard's End. The Wilcoxes agree that this addition was the product of an infirm mind, and that it would be best for the family to simply burn it and keep the house. Afterward, however, Henry Wilcox (Anthony Hopkins), Ruth's husband, falls in love with Margaret, and tries to both make up for and keep hidden his act of duplicity.
And that was the stripped down, simplified plot summary. There were several other subplots that I didn't mention, most of which are equally convoluted. There is a lot going on in this film, probably too much for the already bloated 2 hour 15 minute running time. The story, which I suppose is intended to be a satire of the stuffy British aristocracy, is itself too stuffy and aristocratic to be enjoyed by most viewers. Aside from Ruth, who dies fairly early in the film, it is rather difficult for the viewer to find any characters to identify with, as their motivations are either too selfish and snobbish, or too self-righteously charitable, to be supported. Thompson's character sets herself up to be the only one to identify with, headstrong enough to stay true to her beliefs, but charitable enough to have beliefs worth staying true to... until Henry proposes marriage, and she suddenly abandons all of her principles out of a desperate wish to be a proper wife. I've seen other films like this before - stuffy British period pieces whose main goal seems to be baiting as many Oscar nominations as possible. (See the following year's follow-up, The Remains of the Day, which reunited the writer, director, producer, and two stars of this film) But most of the others that I have seen do at least have something to say, a story that is at least approachable, if not completely absorbing to me. This film didn't really have any of that - it came across to me as nothing more than Oscar-bait.
Movie trivia question: This film marks the only time in Oscar history that an actor was nominated for more than one award posthumously (after he died, he was nominated for Oscars for 2 films, in 2 consecutive years).
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
One away...
Today's entry puts me one movie away from having seen every Oscar winner (in the categories I write about) of the 1990s! The film is City Slickers, winner of the 1992 Oscar for Best Supporting Actor (Jack Palance).
Mitch (Billy Crystal) is a radio station advertising salesman in the midst of a mid-life crisis, searching for the meaning or purpose of his life. As a birthday present to him, his two buddies - Phil (Daniel Stern), a newly unemployed and divorcing loser, and Ed (Bruno Kirby), a perpetual adventure-seeker with commitment phobia - take him on a two-week vacation to participate in a cattle drive. Thrown in with a cast of wacky characters and a trail boss (Palance) whose gruff exterior hides a soul full of wisdom, the trio experience zany adventures and hardships, while learning the answers to their respective problems.
The film is entirely a Billy Crystal vehicle, with every scene being a set-up for Crystal to get the punchline, or the drama, as the case may be. It's light-hearted and fun, enjoyable, but shallow. The main characters seem to only be able to relate to each other, or to life itself, through the use of discussions about baseball. They find the answers to all of their problems in the span of their two week vacation, with all of their problems cleared up by the time they get home. Palance was entertaining, but the Oscar here seems to be more an apology for not rewarding him when he was nominated for a similar character in Shane than it was earned on the strength of this performance. City Slickers was an enjoyable way of killing a couple of hours, but not much more than that.
Look for Jake Gyllenhall as Crystal's son, complete with embarrassing early-'90s hair and clothes!
Movie trivia question: One more movie for me to close out the '90s... which film will it be?
Mitch (Billy Crystal) is a radio station advertising salesman in the midst of a mid-life crisis, searching for the meaning or purpose of his life. As a birthday present to him, his two buddies - Phil (Daniel Stern), a newly unemployed and divorcing loser, and Ed (Bruno Kirby), a perpetual adventure-seeker with commitment phobia - take him on a two-week vacation to participate in a cattle drive. Thrown in with a cast of wacky characters and a trail boss (Palance) whose gruff exterior hides a soul full of wisdom, the trio experience zany adventures and hardships, while learning the answers to their respective problems.
The film is entirely a Billy Crystal vehicle, with every scene being a set-up for Crystal to get the punchline, or the drama, as the case may be. It's light-hearted and fun, enjoyable, but shallow. The main characters seem to only be able to relate to each other, or to life itself, through the use of discussions about baseball. They find the answers to all of their problems in the span of their two week vacation, with all of their problems cleared up by the time they get home. Palance was entertaining, but the Oscar here seems to be more an apology for not rewarding him when he was nominated for a similar character in Shane than it was earned on the strength of this performance. City Slickers was an enjoyable way of killing a couple of hours, but not much more than that.
Look for Jake Gyllenhall as Crystal's son, complete with embarrassing early-'90s hair and clothes!
Movie trivia question: One more movie for me to close out the '90s... which film will it be?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Closing out the '80s
It's official! I have now seen every Oscar winner (in the categories that I blog about) of the 1980s! The last one that I had to see to close out the decade was Melvin And Howard, winner of the 1982 Oscars for Best Supporting Actress (Mary Steenburgen) and Best Original Screenplay (Bo Goldman). It was also nominated for Best Supporting Actor (Jason Robards).
Melvin and Howard is the story of Melvin (Paul Le Mat - the drag racer from American Graffiti), a "lovable" loser who, in the first few minutes of the film, picks up a hobo-like old man (Robards) while driving through the desert toward Las Vegas. The man claims to be eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes, though upon reaching Vegas he asks Melvin for his spare change. Melvin drifts through life for the next few years, constantly trying to regain the affections of his on-again-off-again wife (Steenburgen), only to screw it up again by trying to live beyond his means. She leaves him for good when, after she wins enough money on a game show for them to finally break even on the bills, he goes out and buys a Cadillac and a boat. After a few years have passed, Melvin sees on the news that Howard Hughes has died, and a mysterious man drops off what he claims to be Hughes's will at the gas station where Melvin works. Melvin inherits $185 million, but becomes a national laughing stock as everybody accuses him of forging the document.
This was one of the earlier films by Jonathan Demme, who went on to direct, among others, Oscar winners The Silence of the Lambs and Philadelphia. This was not, in my opinion, anywhere near the quality of the later films. The story drifts as aimlessly as its main character does. The characters are all, across the board, too stupid to be believed in or cared about. Melvin is apparently supposed to be a lovable loser, but his misfortune is all brought on by his own foolish behavior, much of which involves buying himself things he can't afford and doesn't need, thereby making himself unable to provide for his family. His predicaments, in a film that was supposed to be a light-hearted comedy, were more sad than funny - or would have been had I been able to bring myself to care.
Movie trivia question: I may as well go for another streak. What 2 films are the last ones that I need to see in order to close out the '90s?
Melvin and Howard is the story of Melvin (Paul Le Mat - the drag racer from American Graffiti), a "lovable" loser who, in the first few minutes of the film, picks up a hobo-like old man (Robards) while driving through the desert toward Las Vegas. The man claims to be eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes, though upon reaching Vegas he asks Melvin for his spare change. Melvin drifts through life for the next few years, constantly trying to regain the affections of his on-again-off-again wife (Steenburgen), only to screw it up again by trying to live beyond his means. She leaves him for good when, after she wins enough money on a game show for them to finally break even on the bills, he goes out and buys a Cadillac and a boat. After a few years have passed, Melvin sees on the news that Howard Hughes has died, and a mysterious man drops off what he claims to be Hughes's will at the gas station where Melvin works. Melvin inherits $185 million, but becomes a national laughing stock as everybody accuses him of forging the document.
This was one of the earlier films by Jonathan Demme, who went on to direct, among others, Oscar winners The Silence of the Lambs and Philadelphia. This was not, in my opinion, anywhere near the quality of the later films. The story drifts as aimlessly as its main character does. The characters are all, across the board, too stupid to be believed in or cared about. Melvin is apparently supposed to be a lovable loser, but his misfortune is all brought on by his own foolish behavior, much of which involves buying himself things he can't afford and doesn't need, thereby making himself unable to provide for his family. His predicaments, in a film that was supposed to be a light-hearted comedy, were more sad than funny - or would have been had I been able to bring myself to care.
Movie trivia question: I may as well go for another streak. What 2 films are the last ones that I need to see in order to close out the '90s?
Sunday, September 26, 2010
My 40 year Best Picture winner streak
With today's addition, I have now seen every Best Picture winner from the present back through 1970! (It would go further than that, but the 1969 Best Picture never wants to work for me on Netflix Instant Viewer.) The last film that I needed to see in order to complete that streak was 2003's Best Picture, Chicago. The film also won Best Supporting Actress (Catherine Zeta-Jones), and was nominated for Best Director (Rob Marshall), Best Actress (Renee Zellweger), Best Supporting Actor (John C Reilly), Best Supporting Actress (Queen Latifah), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Bill Condon).
In 1920's Chicago, Roxie Hart (Zellweger), a former chorus girl now married to boring schlub Amos(Reilly), would give anything to be up on stage, the center of attention. When the guy she has been having an affair with reveals that he doesn't actually have any connections at the music hall where they met (on the night that singer Velma Kelly (Zeta-Jones) was arrested there for murdering her husband and sister), Roxie flies into a rage and shoots him. She goes to the same jail as Kelly, where, for a price, guard Mama Morton (Latifah) puts her in touch with shady lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere). Flynn takes Hart's case and makes her a media sensation, giving her the fame that she always wanted, and that she now needs in order to get away with murder.
I was kind of dreading watching this one. There was a reason that it was the only Best Picture in 40 years that I hadn't seen yet. Imagine my surprise when I found that I actually quite enjoyed it! It turns out that I am actually a person who enjoys musicals from time to time. The story is entertaining, and timely - a story about people who can't tell the difference between fame and infamy. The characters are engaging and believable - well, as believable as characters who spontaneously break into choreographed song-and-dance numbers can be. And the songs themselves are catchy, entertaining, and visually very inventive. John C Reilly is heartbreaking in "Mr Cellophane," Gere is a scene-stealer in a press conference number in which he uses Zellweger as a ventriloquist's dummy, and more so in his courtroom tap dance number. Zellweger manages to be both sympathy-inducing and coldly manipulative, and is equally entertaining in either mode. Zeta-Jones is as good here as I have ever seen her, although I think Latifah deserved the Oscar more. Chicago far exceeded my expectations, and it had me entertained and laughing throughout.
Movie trivia question: What was the first film to win an Oscar for a non-English-language performance?
In 1920's Chicago, Roxie Hart (Zellweger), a former chorus girl now married to boring schlub Amos(Reilly), would give anything to be up on stage, the center of attention. When the guy she has been having an affair with reveals that he doesn't actually have any connections at the music hall where they met (on the night that singer Velma Kelly (Zeta-Jones) was arrested there for murdering her husband and sister), Roxie flies into a rage and shoots him. She goes to the same jail as Kelly, where, for a price, guard Mama Morton (Latifah) puts her in touch with shady lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere). Flynn takes Hart's case and makes her a media sensation, giving her the fame that she always wanted, and that she now needs in order to get away with murder.
I was kind of dreading watching this one. There was a reason that it was the only Best Picture in 40 years that I hadn't seen yet. Imagine my surprise when I found that I actually quite enjoyed it! It turns out that I am actually a person who enjoys musicals from time to time. The story is entertaining, and timely - a story about people who can't tell the difference between fame and infamy. The characters are engaging and believable - well, as believable as characters who spontaneously break into choreographed song-and-dance numbers can be. And the songs themselves are catchy, entertaining, and visually very inventive. John C Reilly is heartbreaking in "Mr Cellophane," Gere is a scene-stealer in a press conference number in which he uses Zellweger as a ventriloquist's dummy, and more so in his courtroom tap dance number. Zellweger manages to be both sympathy-inducing and coldly manipulative, and is equally entertaining in either mode. Zeta-Jones is as good here as I have ever seen her, although I think Latifah deserved the Oscar more. Chicago far exceeded my expectations, and it had me entertained and laughing throughout.
Movie trivia question: What was the first film to win an Oscar for a non-English-language performance?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Hitchcock's Best Picture
According to Oscar, anyway. Though probably the most famous director in the history of film, Alfred Hitchcock, only directed one movie which won Best Picture. That film was Rebecca. It was also nominated for Best Director, Best Actor (Laurence Olivier), Best Actress (Joan Fontaine), Best Supporting Actress (Judith Anderson), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Robert Sherwood), although it did not win any of those awards.
A young - and nameless - woman (Fontaine), working as a paid traveling companion to a wealthy but obnoxious old woman, meets widowed millionaire Maxim de Winter (Olivier). The two have a whirlwind two week romance, leading to de Winter asking the young lady to marry him in order to avoid losing her when her employer decides to travel elsewhere. The young lady is at first thrilled to accept his proposal, but begins to have her doubts when she realizes that she does not fit in at his elegant mansion, trying to engage with his friends and family and to maintain the house and its staff. Her doubts are intensified by Maxim's occasional episodes of sudden, uncontrollable rage, by the ever-present memories of his first wife, Rebecca, and by the intense hatred she gets from Mrs Danvers (Anderson), the main servant of the house, who was intensely dedicated to the first Mrs de Winter.
This is not a typical Hitchcock film. The light, yet macabre, sense of humor that is such a trademark of his style is almost entirely abandoned here in favor of a much darker, more serious tone. The change is not unwelcome, though, and it clearly worked for him as far as Oscar was concerned. The characters are much more developed than in most of Hitchcock's work - in many of his films, the characters are just there for the story to happen to, but here they are rich and realistic. The viewer can identify with and care about them, as opposed to just watching them on the screen. I mean, it's hard not to identify with the second Mrs. de Winter in her fear and discomfort at trying to fit into this new situation that bears no resemblance to the rest of her life leading up to it, or with Maxim once the viewer discovers the reason behind his strange behavior - a plot twist that I will not reveal here.
Rebecca is probably the least Hitchcockian of Hitchcock's films, and probably not the one I would choose to introduce a newcomer to Hitchcock's work, or to satisfy a craving to watch something Hitchcock. It is, however, a compelling and rewarding film, definitely worth watching.
Movie trivia question: Another unfair on, but I didn't hear any complaints last time. This film, for which I am currently being waitlisted on Netflix, is the only Oscar winner of the 1980s (for the 8 categories that I concern myself with here) that I have not yet seen. I'm about to close out a decade!
A young - and nameless - woman (Fontaine), working as a paid traveling companion to a wealthy but obnoxious old woman, meets widowed millionaire Maxim de Winter (Olivier). The two have a whirlwind two week romance, leading to de Winter asking the young lady to marry him in order to avoid losing her when her employer decides to travel elsewhere. The young lady is at first thrilled to accept his proposal, but begins to have her doubts when she realizes that she does not fit in at his elegant mansion, trying to engage with his friends and family and to maintain the house and its staff. Her doubts are intensified by Maxim's occasional episodes of sudden, uncontrollable rage, by the ever-present memories of his first wife, Rebecca, and by the intense hatred she gets from Mrs Danvers (Anderson), the main servant of the house, who was intensely dedicated to the first Mrs de Winter.
This is not a typical Hitchcock film. The light, yet macabre, sense of humor that is such a trademark of his style is almost entirely abandoned here in favor of a much darker, more serious tone. The change is not unwelcome, though, and it clearly worked for him as far as Oscar was concerned. The characters are much more developed than in most of Hitchcock's work - in many of his films, the characters are just there for the story to happen to, but here they are rich and realistic. The viewer can identify with and care about them, as opposed to just watching them on the screen. I mean, it's hard not to identify with the second Mrs. de Winter in her fear and discomfort at trying to fit into this new situation that bears no resemblance to the rest of her life leading up to it, or with Maxim once the viewer discovers the reason behind his strange behavior - a plot twist that I will not reveal here.
Rebecca is probably the least Hitchcockian of Hitchcock's films, and probably not the one I would choose to introduce a newcomer to Hitchcock's work, or to satisfy a craving to watch something Hitchcock. It is, however, a compelling and rewarding film, definitely worth watching.
Movie trivia question: Another unfair on, but I didn't hear any complaints last time. This film, for which I am currently being waitlisted on Netflix, is the only Oscar winner of the 1980s (for the 8 categories that I concern myself with here) that I have not yet seen. I'm about to close out a decade!
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Shared director Oscar
The first film for which two directors shared a Best Director Oscar was West Side Story. Jerome Robbins directed the heavily choreographed dance and fight scenes, while Robert Wise did the non-musical scenes. The film also won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (George Chakiris), and Best Supporting Actress (Rita Moreno), and was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay (Ernest Lehman).
Teenagers Tony (Richard Beymer) and Maria (Natalie Wood) meet at a dance and fall in love at first sight. Problem is, Tony's best friend, Riff (Russ Tamblyn), is the leader of the street gang The Jets, and Maria's brother, Bernardo (Chakiris), is the leader of rival street gang The Sharks. Adding to the difficulty, Tony is white and Maria is Puerto Rican, and they live in a time of racial intolerance. Their troubles intensify when the gang rivalry escalates into a deadly brawl.
Romeo and Juliet, retold as a feud between New York City street gangs. In the form of a highly choreographed musical, where dances look like brawls, and brawls look like dancing. Sounds like kind of a train wreck, right? But consider the time it was filmed, and the subject matter. Shot in 1961, in the middle of the civil rights movement, the film focuses on the rivalry between the white Jets and the Puerto Rican Sharks. The love story is actually the weakest part of the film - Beymer doesn't have much going in terms of personality, and Wood is about as Puerto Rican as apple pie. The film wisely makes their story more of a subplot, and pays more attention to the gang rivalry, through which it has a lot to say about race relations and about the plight of the urban working-class teenager. If you are in the right mood, and if you can get past the fact that these supposedly tough street gangs are introduced via dancing, then you will find a movie that is surprisingly entertaining, funny, meaningful, and contemporary.
Movie trivia question: Of the past 40 years, what is the only Best Picture winner that I have not yet seen? Admittedly, not a fair question, but it's not like the guesses have been pouring in from my readers on my previous questions.
Teenagers Tony (Richard Beymer) and Maria (Natalie Wood) meet at a dance and fall in love at first sight. Problem is, Tony's best friend, Riff (Russ Tamblyn), is the leader of the street gang The Jets, and Maria's brother, Bernardo (Chakiris), is the leader of rival street gang The Sharks. Adding to the difficulty, Tony is white and Maria is Puerto Rican, and they live in a time of racial intolerance. Their troubles intensify when the gang rivalry escalates into a deadly brawl.
Romeo and Juliet, retold as a feud between New York City street gangs. In the form of a highly choreographed musical, where dances look like brawls, and brawls look like dancing. Sounds like kind of a train wreck, right? But consider the time it was filmed, and the subject matter. Shot in 1961, in the middle of the civil rights movement, the film focuses on the rivalry between the white Jets and the Puerto Rican Sharks. The love story is actually the weakest part of the film - Beymer doesn't have much going in terms of personality, and Wood is about as Puerto Rican as apple pie. The film wisely makes their story more of a subplot, and pays more attention to the gang rivalry, through which it has a lot to say about race relations and about the plight of the urban working-class teenager. If you are in the right mood, and if you can get past the fact that these supposedly tough street gangs are introduced via dancing, then you will find a movie that is surprisingly entertaining, funny, meaningful, and contemporary.
Movie trivia question: Of the past 40 years, what is the only Best Picture winner that I have not yet seen? Admittedly, not a fair question, but it's not like the guesses have been pouring in from my readers on my previous questions.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Alec Guinness' first nomination
This one took me a while to get to. Sorry for the delay. I had the movie at the top of my Netflix queue, but it suddenly became unavailable. I'm sure, faithful readers, that you have all been breathless with antici...
pation!
Alec Guinness' early career was dominated by a series of successful comedies made by a little British studio, Ealing. Guinness was prominently featured in most, if not all, of these comedies, and was even given writing credit on a few of them. One such film got Guinness his first Oscar nomination for Best Actor. The film was The Lavender Hill Mob. Though Guinness lost, the film won that year's Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (T E B Clarke).
Guinness plays Henry Holland, a meek, fastidious, bureaucratic man who has spent 20 years working at a bank, in charge of security in the delivery of gold bullion to the bank. Holland is known for being a stickler for detail, kept on the job for his impeccable honesty, but never moved up because of his lack of imagination or ambition. He is also a man with a single goal for himself - to steal a load of the bullion that he has been protecting. Twenty years spent on the job, in the name of building an unimpeachable reputation for himself, and in searching for the perfect opportunity to steal the gold - gold which will be worthless to him without the perfect plan to smuggle it out of the country and exchange it for cash.
This is, in the British style, an exceedingly dry comedy. It has more of a general sense of amusement than a lot of laugh-out-loud moments, though it does have a few of those as well. Guinness is spectacularly subtle as a man seeking revenge of sorts for spending his entire career being overlooked, while at the same time being careful to act in precisely the way that he would need to act in order to continue being overlooked. The film is a bit light in terms of substance and story, but it is also light in terms of mood, so it is enjoyable even if it doesn't have much to say.
Don't blink during the opening scene, or you'll miss a small role by Audrey Hepburn, just one year before her breakthrough, Oscar-winning role in Roman Holiday!
Movie trivia question: In Oscar's first year, there were actually two films which won awards equivalent to Best Picture - one was for the artistic quality of the story, and the other was for the technical accomplishment of making the film. What were the two Best Pictures of Oscar's first year?
pation!
Alec Guinness' early career was dominated by a series of successful comedies made by a little British studio, Ealing. Guinness was prominently featured in most, if not all, of these comedies, and was even given writing credit on a few of them. One such film got Guinness his first Oscar nomination for Best Actor. The film was The Lavender Hill Mob. Though Guinness lost, the film won that year's Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (T E B Clarke).
Guinness plays Henry Holland, a meek, fastidious, bureaucratic man who has spent 20 years working at a bank, in charge of security in the delivery of gold bullion to the bank. Holland is known for being a stickler for detail, kept on the job for his impeccable honesty, but never moved up because of his lack of imagination or ambition. He is also a man with a single goal for himself - to steal a load of the bullion that he has been protecting. Twenty years spent on the job, in the name of building an unimpeachable reputation for himself, and in searching for the perfect opportunity to steal the gold - gold which will be worthless to him without the perfect plan to smuggle it out of the country and exchange it for cash.
This is, in the British style, an exceedingly dry comedy. It has more of a general sense of amusement than a lot of laugh-out-loud moments, though it does have a few of those as well. Guinness is spectacularly subtle as a man seeking revenge of sorts for spending his entire career being overlooked, while at the same time being careful to act in precisely the way that he would need to act in order to continue being overlooked. The film is a bit light in terms of substance and story, but it is also light in terms of mood, so it is enjoyable even if it doesn't have much to say.
Don't blink during the opening scene, or you'll miss a small role by Audrey Hepburn, just one year before her breakthrough, Oscar-winning role in Roman Holiday!
Movie trivia question: In Oscar's first year, there were actually two films which won awards equivalent to Best Picture - one was for the artistic quality of the story, and the other was for the technical accomplishment of making the film. What were the two Best Pictures of Oscar's first year?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)