The film musical of Lerner & Lowe’s ‘My Fair Lady’, adapted from the play ‘Pygmalion’, is a story of a flower seller in Edwardian Britain, Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn) who is tutored by the arrogant and misogynistic professor Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison).
When stage musicals are put onto the big screen many details are often changed, but ‘My Fair Lady’ is a largely faithful adaptation of the stage production, which results in a very stylised and handsome production, and this is one of the reasons why this film is such a success. It is beautiful to watch. I can think of only a handful of films which have more iconic stills than this: Eliza arriving at the ball, the flower sellers at Covent Garden, and of course, the wonderful Ascot Scene.
The scene at the Ascot is one of my favourite scenes from any musical. For a start, there is the wonderful song, coupled with the most gorgeous costumes, and the most delightfully witty dialogue during which Eliza sticks to her two allocated topics of conversation: the weather and everyone’s health.
Musicals can suffer at times from poor scripting, relying on sparkly musical numbers to pull the film through, but ‘My Fair Lady’ does not falter here: the script is wonderful. The musical numbers performed by the professor are speak-sung, and are delightfully clever and performed to perfection by Harrison, who deservedly won the Best Actor award for his performance.
Hepburn is often criticised for her performance in this film, largely because her voice was dubbed by Marni Nixon and because the role was not performed by Julie Andrews, who played the role on the stage. The Academy snubbed Hepburn unfairly, because it is a great performance. She is perfect as Eliza, both as the common flower seller and as transformed lady. Audrey Hepburn has become one of the most iconic actresses ever, and that can result in her being overlooked as an actress. There are few actresses who can light up the screen in the way that Hepburn can and this is, along with ‘Roman Holiday’ her most enchanting performance.
The best thing about ‘My Fair Lady’ is, however, the music. Every song is brilliant: from Harrison’s numbers, to the classic ‘I Could’ve Danced All Night’ and from ‘Wouldn’t It Be Loverly’ which introduces us to Eliza, to the film’s best number ‘On the Street Where You Live’, they are all exceptional.
‘My Fair Lady’ is truly on of the greatest musicals of all time and thoroughly deserves its place high up on the list of the greatest Best Picture winners of all time.
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Thursday, 2 December 2010
17. THE SOUND OF MUSIC - 1965
Few films were as difficult to rank as ‘The Sound of Music’.
It is allegedly the most watched film ever, but for those who have not seen it, the storyline is as follows: in the last days of peacetime in the 1930s in Salzberg, Austria, a young nun, Maria (Julie Andrews) takes a job working for Captain von Trapp (Christopher Plummer) as a governess for his seven children. The Captain runs his house like a ship with no music or fun, but Maria changes this and brings the music back into the house. However, war is approaching and it will not be long before the Nazis enter Austria and everything changes.
It is easy to criticise ‘The Sound of Music’. It is full of sentimentality and children skipping around gardens but it is truly a great film. Starting with the main point about this film: the music. Every single song is a classic, but the best are ‘The Sound of Music’, ‘Climb Every Mountain’ and ‘Do-Re-Mi’ the latter filmed all over the sights of Salzberg. It was the last collaboration between Roger and Hammerstein and it is their greatest work: brilliant tunes, brilliant lyrics.
The filming is also stunning, and overlooked. The opening sequence in the mountains is wonderfully constructed, ending with Julie Andrews running towards the camera about to burst into song. It is an iconic film moment and truly great. The scene in the graveyard of the abbey towards the end of the film is also a masterclass in creating tension on the screen.
The script is also highly witty and another forgotten thing about this film. The best lines come from Eleanor Parker as the Baroness, Maria’s glamorous love-rival. Some of her lines are so wonderfully acidic, a personal favourite being, ‘Have you heard of a delightful little thing called boarding school?’, but in fairness the whole script is peppered with delightful one-liners and the whole film is wonderfully quotable.
Moving on to the acting: Julie Andrews is a delight and made for this role. She plays the part of the wholesome love interest, who is actually believable as a genuine partner for the Captain. Christopher Plummer is also great as the captain and father to the seven children, but for me it is the scenes with Eleanor Parker that I relish the most: she is manipulative and acerbic, but also totally charming. In the stage musical she has a song, which was removed for the film. I think that was a totally sensible idea, for without a song she is not part of the music that it brought back into the house.
At the end of the day, ‘The Sound of Music’ is a feelgood musical and not to be taken too seriously, and therefore levels of schmaltz are to be expected, and that is exactly what one gets, which will not be to everyone’s taste. If you are willing to look past dancing puppets and singing nuns then you will actually find a film that is so magical, so heartwarming and most remarkably, so beautifully made. If the word ‘classic’ ever referred to a film it was this one.
It is allegedly the most watched film ever, but for those who have not seen it, the storyline is as follows: in the last days of peacetime in the 1930s in Salzberg, Austria, a young nun, Maria (Julie Andrews) takes a job working for Captain von Trapp (Christopher Plummer) as a governess for his seven children. The Captain runs his house like a ship with no music or fun, but Maria changes this and brings the music back into the house. However, war is approaching and it will not be long before the Nazis enter Austria and everything changes.
It is easy to criticise ‘The Sound of Music’. It is full of sentimentality and children skipping around gardens but it is truly a great film. Starting with the main point about this film: the music. Every single song is a classic, but the best are ‘The Sound of Music’, ‘Climb Every Mountain’ and ‘Do-Re-Mi’ the latter filmed all over the sights of Salzberg. It was the last collaboration between Roger and Hammerstein and it is their greatest work: brilliant tunes, brilliant lyrics.
The filming is also stunning, and overlooked. The opening sequence in the mountains is wonderfully constructed, ending with Julie Andrews running towards the camera about to burst into song. It is an iconic film moment and truly great. The scene in the graveyard of the abbey towards the end of the film is also a masterclass in creating tension on the screen.
The script is also highly witty and another forgotten thing about this film. The best lines come from Eleanor Parker as the Baroness, Maria’s glamorous love-rival. Some of her lines are so wonderfully acidic, a personal favourite being, ‘Have you heard of a delightful little thing called boarding school?’, but in fairness the whole script is peppered with delightful one-liners and the whole film is wonderfully quotable.
Moving on to the acting: Julie Andrews is a delight and made for this role. She plays the part of the wholesome love interest, who is actually believable as a genuine partner for the Captain. Christopher Plummer is also great as the captain and father to the seven children, but for me it is the scenes with Eleanor Parker that I relish the most: she is manipulative and acerbic, but also totally charming. In the stage musical she has a song, which was removed for the film. I think that was a totally sensible idea, for without a song she is not part of the music that it brought back into the house.
At the end of the day, ‘The Sound of Music’ is a feelgood musical and not to be taken too seriously, and therefore levels of schmaltz are to be expected, and that is exactly what one gets, which will not be to everyone’s taste. If you are willing to look past dancing puppets and singing nuns then you will actually find a film that is so magical, so heartwarming and most remarkably, so beautifully made. If the word ‘classic’ ever referred to a film it was this one.
18. THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES - 1946
In many ways the ultimate coming home from war film released just after the end of World War II. This Wyler masterpiece sees three soldiers coming home from war to their small Midwestern town and the difficulties that they face. Al Stephenson (Fredric March) returns to the world of banking but is not used to working away from his fellow servicemen and finds the transition from the team work he was used to in the war to being a hard hearted banker difficult. Fred Derry (Dana Andrews) returns to his wife, who he only married a few weeks before the war, and realises that she does not love him. Homer Parrish (Harold Russell) has lost both of his hands in the war and returns to his fiancée, but is worried that she pities him rather than still loves him. As time passes all the men learn to adapt to the changes even though things are not the same as they were before.
What is so good about ‘The Best Years of our Lives’ is that rather than giving the idea that coming home from war is either wonderful or unbearable, it shows the complexity of how relationships changed in different ways for different people and across different ages and socio-economic groups, and also of the most unlikely relationships that were formed between the three men, despite their differences. The issues such as divorce and amputees had rarely been discussed before and it is easy to forget the impact that this film must have had at this time.
The film is an fine example of taking a small story involving a few individuals and using it as a microcosm of what was happening at this time across the whole of the western world, but it manages to be a totally balanced film and at no point becomes patronising or clichéd.
The acting is solid across the board, which is always a relief in these ensemble films. There are no weak links and both March and Russell picked up acting Oscars for their memorable performances. For me it is Russell who gives the best performance as the youngest of the group in what must have been a challenging performance for anyone to carry off. Russell had not been an actor previous to this role and, as an actual amputee, was picked from an army rehabilitation video, and Wyler didn’t want Russell to be sent to acting classes, as wanted a more natural style. Despite this, he manages to easily hold his own despite being surrounded by some of Hollywood’s biggest stars.
Once you’ve combined the excellent acting with the enchanting story and engaging script, and taken into account the fact that it one of Wyler’s best films one realises just what a special film this is. Forget any other returning from war films that you have seen: this one is by far the best and is still totally relevant for today’s audience.
What is so good about ‘The Best Years of our Lives’ is that rather than giving the idea that coming home from war is either wonderful or unbearable, it shows the complexity of how relationships changed in different ways for different people and across different ages and socio-economic groups, and also of the most unlikely relationships that were formed between the three men, despite their differences. The issues such as divorce and amputees had rarely been discussed before and it is easy to forget the impact that this film must have had at this time.
The film is an fine example of taking a small story involving a few individuals and using it as a microcosm of what was happening at this time across the whole of the western world, but it manages to be a totally balanced film and at no point becomes patronising or clichéd.
The acting is solid across the board, which is always a relief in these ensemble films. There are no weak links and both March and Russell picked up acting Oscars for their memorable performances. For me it is Russell who gives the best performance as the youngest of the group in what must have been a challenging performance for anyone to carry off. Russell had not been an actor previous to this role and, as an actual amputee, was picked from an army rehabilitation video, and Wyler didn’t want Russell to be sent to acting classes, as wanted a more natural style. Despite this, he manages to easily hold his own despite being surrounded by some of Hollywood’s biggest stars.
Once you’ve combined the excellent acting with the enchanting story and engaging script, and taken into account the fact that it one of Wyler’s best films one realises just what a special film this is. Forget any other returning from war films that you have seen: this one is by far the best and is still totally relevant for today’s audience.
19. ON THE WATERFRONT - 1954
Elia Kazan films are instantly recognisable as his work, and ‘On the Waterfront’ is no exception. It tells the story of Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) who works on the gang-run docks on New York. He is involved in the set-up of the death of a young man who refused to cooperate with the gang and becomes guilt ridden, when he spends time with the man’s sister (Eva Marie Saint). The film looks at his relationship with the gang leader (Lee J Cobb), his brother (Rod Steiger) and the local priest (Karl Maldon) whilst he battles with both his own sense of morality and the force of the gang.
It is a film with many complex levels as the viewer is put into Malloy’s position, and is forced to ask the question of whether to take the easy route of going along with something knowing it is wrong, or to stand up against it and risk everything. The film also draws religious comparisons, through the involvement of the priest and through the messianic ending in which Malloy really does refuse to go back on what he thinks is right.
Filmed in moody black and white tones in bleak surroundings, Kazan really uses all techniques to bring the desperation of the situation to life, and each shot, despite being bleak is perfectly taken and it is a beautiful film in a tragic and bleak way. The Bernstein score is also powerful and like the cinematography is both beautiful and tragic, and used well. I think the way that Kazan makes films on small stories about normal people and makes them into productions which manage to be both elegant and intimate shows what a fantastic director he was.
Moving on the acting: what can one say? It is easily one of Brando’s greatest roles, and when you have one of the greatest roles from one of the greatest (if not the greatest) actors ever, then you know that you are in for something special. He is everything that this role should be: tough, vulnerable, honest, and he lives the role. Whenever I see a Brando performance, I don’t think that he is playing a part, but that I am actually watching that person in that situation. This is one of the greatest performances and one of the greatest winners of the Leading Actor Oscar.
Eva Marie Saint also shines in her role, as the grieving sister torn between her feelings for her brother and her feelings for Malloy. Her need to be loved is beautifully honest and I think that the scenes between them are among the best in the film. She also won an Oscar for her performance.
The three supporting men all got nominations for their roles, but I think that the greatest of the three was Karl Maldon, who delivered a good a performance as he did being the nice guy in ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’, adding a sense of hope to the desperate situation. Maldon is such a consistent actor who never overacts and like Brando, I feel he becomes a role rather than just acting it.
In short, ‘On the Waterfront’ is not the easiest of films to watch but it is one of the most important and relevant of the Best Picture Winners: a film that truly has stood the test of time and should be watched by all.
It is a film with many complex levels as the viewer is put into Malloy’s position, and is forced to ask the question of whether to take the easy route of going along with something knowing it is wrong, or to stand up against it and risk everything. The film also draws religious comparisons, through the involvement of the priest and through the messianic ending in which Malloy really does refuse to go back on what he thinks is right.
Filmed in moody black and white tones in bleak surroundings, Kazan really uses all techniques to bring the desperation of the situation to life, and each shot, despite being bleak is perfectly taken and it is a beautiful film in a tragic and bleak way. The Bernstein score is also powerful and like the cinematography is both beautiful and tragic, and used well. I think the way that Kazan makes films on small stories about normal people and makes them into productions which manage to be both elegant and intimate shows what a fantastic director he was.
Moving on the acting: what can one say? It is easily one of Brando’s greatest roles, and when you have one of the greatest roles from one of the greatest (if not the greatest) actors ever, then you know that you are in for something special. He is everything that this role should be: tough, vulnerable, honest, and he lives the role. Whenever I see a Brando performance, I don’t think that he is playing a part, but that I am actually watching that person in that situation. This is one of the greatest performances and one of the greatest winners of the Leading Actor Oscar.
Eva Marie Saint also shines in her role, as the grieving sister torn between her feelings for her brother and her feelings for Malloy. Her need to be loved is beautifully honest and I think that the scenes between them are among the best in the film. She also won an Oscar for her performance.
The three supporting men all got nominations for their roles, but I think that the greatest of the three was Karl Maldon, who delivered a good a performance as he did being the nice guy in ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’, adding a sense of hope to the desperate situation. Maldon is such a consistent actor who never overacts and like Brando, I feel he becomes a role rather than just acting it.
In short, ‘On the Waterfront’ is not the easiest of films to watch but it is one of the most important and relevant of the Best Picture Winners: a film that truly has stood the test of time and should be watched by all.
20. IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT - 1934
The first film to win the big five (Picture, Director, Actor, Actress & Screenplay) was ‘It Happened One Night’, a screwball comedy romance directed by Frank Capra. The film tells the story of a spoilt heiress, Ellie Andrews (Claudette Colbert) who runs away from her father after he traps her on his yacht after annulling her marriage to a society aviator. She takes a bus back to New York to return to her new husband, and is seated next to cynical newspaper reporter Peter Warne (Clark Gable) who she immediately dislikes. However, when her purse is stolen, leaving her with no money, she is forced to take Warne up on his offer: he will help her return home, if she agrees to travel with him, so that when he gets back to New York he can write about her and their journey in an article. When they return to New York, Ellie has to ask herself if Warne was interested in her or just making money out of her.
The film is primarily a comedy, and it is wonderfully funny, thanks to the witty script and the wonderful chemistry between the two leads. I can think of few romantic comedies in which the two leads spend so much screen time together, and every moment sizzles between them. The second that they meet her dismissive attitude sets the scene perfectly and as they grow to know each other, and they start to fall in love it is totally believable. It is perfectly fitting that they both won an Oscar, as if only one of them had played the part as well as they had done, then the film may’ve fallen flat.
The film is full of iconic scenes and moments: the scene in which Warne teaches Ellie to hitchhike is one of my favourite comic scenes ever made, but the scene in which they pretend to be an arguing married couple to fool people who are looking for the missing girl is comic genius. The quick one-liners as the couple scream and shout at each other, mirrored by the utter bemusement of the onlookers is followed by Warne and Ellie giggling at their own quick thinking. It’s absolutely charming.
‘It Happened One Night’ is also technically important, which one might not expect from a mid 1930s romantic comedy, but techniques such as back projection imaging, soft lighting and moving cameras were all used in this film, all of which were new innovations. If you compare this film to the winner the previous year ‘Cavalcade’ then the difference is startling, and ‘It Happened One Night’ seems frighteningly modern by comparison.
There are many screwball comedies made in this period, and a lot of these do seem a little dated today, and it is for this reason that ‘It Happened One Night’ is so good. Some of the ideas and situations would not happen today, but the film is full of so much class and so much wit that the overall feeling is one of timeless pleasure and anyone who enjoys a good romantic film will not fail but to love this film, and see one of the best romantic pairings in the history of cinema.
The film is primarily a comedy, and it is wonderfully funny, thanks to the witty script and the wonderful chemistry between the two leads. I can think of few romantic comedies in which the two leads spend so much screen time together, and every moment sizzles between them. The second that they meet her dismissive attitude sets the scene perfectly and as they grow to know each other, and they start to fall in love it is totally believable. It is perfectly fitting that they both won an Oscar, as if only one of them had played the part as well as they had done, then the film may’ve fallen flat.
The film is full of iconic scenes and moments: the scene in which Warne teaches Ellie to hitchhike is one of my favourite comic scenes ever made, but the scene in which they pretend to be an arguing married couple to fool people who are looking for the missing girl is comic genius. The quick one-liners as the couple scream and shout at each other, mirrored by the utter bemusement of the onlookers is followed by Warne and Ellie giggling at their own quick thinking. It’s absolutely charming.
‘It Happened One Night’ is also technically important, which one might not expect from a mid 1930s romantic comedy, but techniques such as back projection imaging, soft lighting and moving cameras were all used in this film, all of which were new innovations. If you compare this film to the winner the previous year ‘Cavalcade’ then the difference is startling, and ‘It Happened One Night’ seems frighteningly modern by comparison.
There are many screwball comedies made in this period, and a lot of these do seem a little dated today, and it is for this reason that ‘It Happened One Night’ is so good. Some of the ideas and situations would not happen today, but the film is full of so much class and so much wit that the overall feeling is one of timeless pleasure and anyone who enjoys a good romantic film will not fail but to love this film, and see one of the best romantic pairings in the history of cinema.
Monday, 29 November 2010
RECAP - 20 TO GO
As we enter the top 20, here is a recap of the 62 films that didn't quite make it.
Be interesting to hear any views or predictions...
:-)
82. FORREST GUMP - 1994
81. AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS - 1956
80. CIMARRON - 1931
79. CRASH - 2005
78. BRAVEHEART - 1995
77. ROCKY - 1976
76. TOM JONES - 1963
75. THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH - 1952
74. THE BROADWAY MELODY - 1929
73. TERMS OF ENDEARMENT - 1983
72. GOING MY WAY - 1944
71. GANDHI - 1982
70. DRIVING MISS DAISY - 1989
69. CAVALCADE - 1933
68. CHARIOTS OF FIRE - 1981
67. DANCES WITH WOLVES - 1990
66. OLIVER! - 1968
65. THE DEER HUNTER - 1978
64. A BEAUTIFUL MIND - 2001
63. ANNIE HALL - 1977
62. GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT - 1947
61. OUT OF AFRICA - 1985
60. SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE - 1998
59. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS - 1966
58. MRS MINIVER - 1942
57. HURT LOCKER - 2009
56. HAMLET - 1948
55. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING - 2003
54. PLATOON - 1986
53. THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA - 1937
52. GIGI - 1958
51. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
50. GLADIATOR - 2000
49. ORDINARY PEOPLE - 1980
48. THE DEPARTED - 2006
47. HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - 1941
46. IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - 1967
45. ALL THE KING'S MEN - 1949
44. BEN-HUR - 1959
43. MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY - 1935
42. RAIN MAN - 1988
41. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE - 2008
40. PATTON - 1970
39. MARTY - 1955
38. THE GREAT ZIEGFELD - 1936
37. TITANIC - 1997
36. GRAND HOTEL - 1932
35. CHICAGO - 2002
34. MIDNIGHT COWBOY - 1969
33. MILLION DOLLAR BABY - 2004
32. THE LAST EMPEROR - 1987
31. KRAMER VS KRAMER - 1979
30. THE APARTMENT - 1960
29. YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU - 1938
28. SCHINDLER'S LIST - 1993
27. THE FRENCH CONNECTION - 1971
26. THE STING - 1973
25. WEST SIDE STORY - 1961
24. ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT - 1930
23. UNFORGIVEN - 1992
22. THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - 1957
21. THE ENGLISH PATIENT - 1996
STILL TO COME - THE TOP 20 BEST PICTURE WINNERS
1928 - WINGS
1934 - IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT
1939 - GONE WITH THE WIND
1940 - REBECCA
1943 - CASABLANCA
1945 - THE LOST WEEKEND
1946 - THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES
1950 - ALL ABOUT EVE
1951 - AN AMERICAN IN PARIS
1953 - FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
1954 - ON THE WATERFRONT
1962 - LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
1964 - MY FAIR LADY
1965 - THE SOUND OF MUSIC
1972 - THE GODFATHER
1974 - THE GODFATHER II
1984 - AMADEUS
1991 - THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
1999 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
2007 - NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Be interesting to hear any views or predictions...
:-)
82. FORREST GUMP - 1994
81. AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS - 1956
80. CIMARRON - 1931
79. CRASH - 2005
78. BRAVEHEART - 1995
77. ROCKY - 1976
76. TOM JONES - 1963
75. THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH - 1952
74. THE BROADWAY MELODY - 1929
73. TERMS OF ENDEARMENT - 1983
72. GOING MY WAY - 1944
71. GANDHI - 1982
70. DRIVING MISS DAISY - 1989
69. CAVALCADE - 1933
68. CHARIOTS OF FIRE - 1981
67. DANCES WITH WOLVES - 1990
66. OLIVER! - 1968
65. THE DEER HUNTER - 1978
64. A BEAUTIFUL MIND - 2001
63. ANNIE HALL - 1977
62. GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT - 1947
61. OUT OF AFRICA - 1985
60. SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE - 1998
59. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS - 1966
58. MRS MINIVER - 1942
57. HURT LOCKER - 2009
56. HAMLET - 1948
55. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING - 2003
54. PLATOON - 1986
53. THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA - 1937
52. GIGI - 1958
51. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
50. GLADIATOR - 2000
49. ORDINARY PEOPLE - 1980
48. THE DEPARTED - 2006
47. HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - 1941
46. IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - 1967
45. ALL THE KING'S MEN - 1949
44. BEN-HUR - 1959
43. MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY - 1935
42. RAIN MAN - 1988
41. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE - 2008
40. PATTON - 1970
39. MARTY - 1955
38. THE GREAT ZIEGFELD - 1936
37. TITANIC - 1997
36. GRAND HOTEL - 1932
35. CHICAGO - 2002
34. MIDNIGHT COWBOY - 1969
33. MILLION DOLLAR BABY - 2004
32. THE LAST EMPEROR - 1987
31. KRAMER VS KRAMER - 1979
30. THE APARTMENT - 1960
29. YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU - 1938
28. SCHINDLER'S LIST - 1993
27. THE FRENCH CONNECTION - 1971
26. THE STING - 1973
25. WEST SIDE STORY - 1961
24. ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT - 1930
23. UNFORGIVEN - 1992
22. THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - 1957
21. THE ENGLISH PATIENT - 1996
STILL TO COME - THE TOP 20 BEST PICTURE WINNERS
1928 - WINGS
1934 - IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT
1939 - GONE WITH THE WIND
1940 - REBECCA
1943 - CASABLANCA
1945 - THE LOST WEEKEND
1946 - THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES
1950 - ALL ABOUT EVE
1951 - AN AMERICAN IN PARIS
1953 - FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
1954 - ON THE WATERFRONT
1962 - LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
1964 - MY FAIR LADY
1965 - THE SOUND OF MUSIC
1972 - THE GODFATHER
1974 - THE GODFATHER II
1984 - AMADEUS
1991 - THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
1999 - AMERICAN BEAUTY
2007 - NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
21. THE ENGLISH PATIENT - 1996
Very few films have been made in the past twenty years to rival the scale of ‘The English Patient’. The genre was seen as dead and antiquated, and I think that ‘The English Patient’ got quite a lot of undeserved criticism because of it.
The source of this was a novel by Ondaatje and tells the story of Count Almasy (Ralph Fiennes). The film is in flashback, with one half showing the burned and dying Fiennes known as the English patient (although he is in fact Hungarian) being cared for in Italy in the last years of the Second World War by a Canadian nurse, Hanna, played by the joyous Juliette Binoche. He had a poor memory of his life, but can remember more recent events, and recounts his obsession and love after with an English married woman, played by Kristin Scott Thomas, whom he met in the early years of the war in North Africa. His memory is helped by the arrival of David Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), a spy who remembers the role that the Count played a during this period.
If there is one word that I would use to describe this film, it is lavish. The cinematography is stunning: sweeping desert scenery, the wild Italian house where the Count is nursed, the bustling and exotic cities, and then conversely the suspense filled intense love scenes, most beautifully between Binoche and her love interest Kip (Naveen Andrews) when he takes her flying around a church. Coupled with the excellent story, the film was always going to have potential.
The acting is excellent. Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas, him as the mysterious brooding offhand male and her as the proper English lady who has a deep passion, have wonderful chemistry when on screen together, but for me, the film belongs to Binoche. A less glamorous and more challenging role than her co-stars, she is simply delightful as the caring nurse, and the screen just lights up whenever she is on it.
The film draws on themes of love, war, trust but perhaps most importantly identity, as all characters struggle to find out who they are, how they should behave and what they want in this changing war time period.
Admittedly the film is not fast paced and not full of action, but for those who give it the time and want to get lost in a celluloid world of pure old-fashioned romance and stunning vistas, then they will be firmly rewarded. In years to come, this will be heralded as a romantic epic to content with ‘Doctor Zhivago’ and ‘Gone with the Wind’.
One final word on the contest this year between ‘The English Patient’ and ‘Fargo’. I am torn, and I think that this would have been one of the hardest years to choose a winner as both films are excellent but entirely different, but if forced to make a choice, I would select ‘Fargo’ for best picture and ‘The English Patient’ for Minghella’s direction.
The source of this was a novel by Ondaatje and tells the story of Count Almasy (Ralph Fiennes). The film is in flashback, with one half showing the burned and dying Fiennes known as the English patient (although he is in fact Hungarian) being cared for in Italy in the last years of the Second World War by a Canadian nurse, Hanna, played by the joyous Juliette Binoche. He had a poor memory of his life, but can remember more recent events, and recounts his obsession and love after with an English married woman, played by Kristin Scott Thomas, whom he met in the early years of the war in North Africa. His memory is helped by the arrival of David Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), a spy who remembers the role that the Count played a during this period.
If there is one word that I would use to describe this film, it is lavish. The cinematography is stunning: sweeping desert scenery, the wild Italian house where the Count is nursed, the bustling and exotic cities, and then conversely the suspense filled intense love scenes, most beautifully between Binoche and her love interest Kip (Naveen Andrews) when he takes her flying around a church. Coupled with the excellent story, the film was always going to have potential.
The acting is excellent. Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas, him as the mysterious brooding offhand male and her as the proper English lady who has a deep passion, have wonderful chemistry when on screen together, but for me, the film belongs to Binoche. A less glamorous and more challenging role than her co-stars, she is simply delightful as the caring nurse, and the screen just lights up whenever she is on it.
The film draws on themes of love, war, trust but perhaps most importantly identity, as all characters struggle to find out who they are, how they should behave and what they want in this changing war time period.
Admittedly the film is not fast paced and not full of action, but for those who give it the time and want to get lost in a celluloid world of pure old-fashioned romance and stunning vistas, then they will be firmly rewarded. In years to come, this will be heralded as a romantic epic to content with ‘Doctor Zhivago’ and ‘Gone with the Wind’.
One final word on the contest this year between ‘The English Patient’ and ‘Fargo’. I am torn, and I think that this would have been one of the hardest years to choose a winner as both films are excellent but entirely different, but if forced to make a choice, I would select ‘Fargo’ for best picture and ‘The English Patient’ for Minghella’s direction.
22. THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - 1957
There are few directors that have made such an impact in the world of cinema than David Lean. ‘Brief Encounter’ is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, romance films ever made, and then he churned out three fantastic epics: ‘The Bridge on the River Kwai’, ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ and the stunning ‘Doctor Zhivago’ amongst over great works. Whereas ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ is the adventure epic and ‘Doctor Zhivago’ the romantic epic, ‘The Bridge on the River Kwai’ is the intellectual epic.
In World War II in a Japanese Prisoner of War camp on the banks of the River Kwai, the British prisoners are instructed to build a bridge as a strategic move for the Japanese forces. Initially, the British soldiers are rebellious, and do all in their capabilities to undermine attempts to build the bridge. The most senior member of the British Army in the camp, Colonel Nicholson, in an award winning turn from Alex Guinness, is horrified by the lack of discipline from the men and orders them to build the bridge properly as it will give them structural and a sense of purpose whilst in the camp, whilst showing the enemy the superiority of the British.
Initially the soldiers are horrified that they should be helping the enemy, but eventually follow their leader and construct a bridge. Meanwhile, three soldiers, including Shears, a US Navy Commander (William Holden) escape (although they are believed to have been shot and killed) and are recruited into a plot to blow up the bridge in an effort to help the British and American forces, and the film is left with a situation where one side of the war are fighting for two very different things.
What is so clever about this film is that the audience are left understanding both sides of the argument: should the British soldiers be helping the Japanese in order to keep their own morale high? And do we, after siding with the Colonel, feel a sense of anger that these escapees are trying to sabotage the bridge. This leads to a nail-biting ending where we are torn in our hopes and expectations.
Like in all of Lean’s films, the filming is complemented by excellent acting, and this is headed by a Lean favourite, Alec Guinness, in a challenging and memorable role. There are few examples of a Best Actor Oscar being more deservedly won. Holden, a favourite of Hollywood at the time is also excellent, and the list continues with Jack Hawkins and Sessue Hayakawa. What makes this film work so well is the different views that each actor manages to put across and although it is filmed like a sumptuous epic, the actually theme is much smaller and personal.
I defy anyone not to be fascinated by this film. It is so interesting, so though-provoking and so beautiful, and really does have one of the most brilliant endings in the history of film. A timeless, must see classic.
In World War II in a Japanese Prisoner of War camp on the banks of the River Kwai, the British prisoners are instructed to build a bridge as a strategic move for the Japanese forces. Initially, the British soldiers are rebellious, and do all in their capabilities to undermine attempts to build the bridge. The most senior member of the British Army in the camp, Colonel Nicholson, in an award winning turn from Alex Guinness, is horrified by the lack of discipline from the men and orders them to build the bridge properly as it will give them structural and a sense of purpose whilst in the camp, whilst showing the enemy the superiority of the British.
Initially the soldiers are horrified that they should be helping the enemy, but eventually follow their leader and construct a bridge. Meanwhile, three soldiers, including Shears, a US Navy Commander (William Holden) escape (although they are believed to have been shot and killed) and are recruited into a plot to blow up the bridge in an effort to help the British and American forces, and the film is left with a situation where one side of the war are fighting for two very different things.
What is so clever about this film is that the audience are left understanding both sides of the argument: should the British soldiers be helping the Japanese in order to keep their own morale high? And do we, after siding with the Colonel, feel a sense of anger that these escapees are trying to sabotage the bridge. This leads to a nail-biting ending where we are torn in our hopes and expectations.
Like in all of Lean’s films, the filming is complemented by excellent acting, and this is headed by a Lean favourite, Alec Guinness, in a challenging and memorable role. There are few examples of a Best Actor Oscar being more deservedly won. Holden, a favourite of Hollywood at the time is also excellent, and the list continues with Jack Hawkins and Sessue Hayakawa. What makes this film work so well is the different views that each actor manages to put across and although it is filmed like a sumptuous epic, the actually theme is much smaller and personal.
I defy anyone not to be fascinated by this film. It is so interesting, so though-provoking and so beautiful, and really does have one of the most brilliant endings in the history of film. A timeless, must see classic.
23. UNFORGIVEN - 1992
Brilliant westerns, and there have been more than a few in the history of modern film making, have never really done well at the Academy Awards. ‘Cimarron’ won in 1931, but it is more an epic set in the west, and ‘Dances with Wolves’ is more a romance/war film than a proper western, in my eyes. Yes. ‘Unforgiven’ is the only western to win the most coveted award in film.
Like all westerns, the basic story is simple and but what is right and wrong is not straightforward. In Big Whiskey, Wyoming, a whore is cut up by a couple of drunken cowboys, and the sheriff, Little Bill (Gene Hackman) takes little action to punish the perpetrators. The prostitutes are unhappy and decide to take matters into their own hand by putting a bounty on the heads of these men. Three men are attracted to this: the retired widower Bill Munny (Clint Eastwood, who also directed), his former partner in crime, Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman), and the young opportunistic Schofield Kid (Jaimz Woolvett), and they set off to avenge the young girl.
I think that this is one of Eastwood’s greatest performances. He is restrained and commanding, but as always is never over the top: the role does not command that, and Eastwood has never been an over the top type of actor. Morgan Freeman is, as ever, reliable. He is one of those actors who is steady and secure, and whilst I am rarely blown away by his performance, I am always happy to have him on my screen. For me, the standout roles are from Woolvett, who is naïve and foolish and a total irritant for the older men, but is a great role for the audience, who displays all the excitement for the life of a gunslinger as a real fan of westerns does, and also from Hackman who is absolutely superb as the brutal sheriff: it is a wonderfully rich part and a performance that you can tell Hackman enjoyed playing as much as I enjoyed watching it.
The basic premise may be simple, but the issues are less so. The main issue of right and wrong is explored in great detail through the character of Munny. His wife made him give up his violent ways, but now he is returning for one last time: is it right to kill people who have committed awful crimes for the reason of receiving money to support his impoverished family, and can he justify it to himself?
‘Unforgiven’ is one of the greatest westerns ever made and also the last great true western that will be made. I have no doubt about that. For ‘Unforgiven’ whilst a great film in its own right, is also a tribute to the genre, closing the book on the making of westerns, and from the shots of the graves, to the idea of coming out of retirement one final time, Eastwood clearly knew that this would be the last western.
It is a brilliant film: wonderfully scripted, expertly directed, beautifully filmed and acted with understanding and obvious commitment, it can not only be described as the last western, but also one of the greatest, a film for those who love the west.
Like all westerns, the basic story is simple and but what is right and wrong is not straightforward. In Big Whiskey, Wyoming, a whore is cut up by a couple of drunken cowboys, and the sheriff, Little Bill (Gene Hackman) takes little action to punish the perpetrators. The prostitutes are unhappy and decide to take matters into their own hand by putting a bounty on the heads of these men. Three men are attracted to this: the retired widower Bill Munny (Clint Eastwood, who also directed), his former partner in crime, Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman), and the young opportunistic Schofield Kid (Jaimz Woolvett), and they set off to avenge the young girl.
I think that this is one of Eastwood’s greatest performances. He is restrained and commanding, but as always is never over the top: the role does not command that, and Eastwood has never been an over the top type of actor. Morgan Freeman is, as ever, reliable. He is one of those actors who is steady and secure, and whilst I am rarely blown away by his performance, I am always happy to have him on my screen. For me, the standout roles are from Woolvett, who is naïve and foolish and a total irritant for the older men, but is a great role for the audience, who displays all the excitement for the life of a gunslinger as a real fan of westerns does, and also from Hackman who is absolutely superb as the brutal sheriff: it is a wonderfully rich part and a performance that you can tell Hackman enjoyed playing as much as I enjoyed watching it.
The basic premise may be simple, but the issues are less so. The main issue of right and wrong is explored in great detail through the character of Munny. His wife made him give up his violent ways, but now he is returning for one last time: is it right to kill people who have committed awful crimes for the reason of receiving money to support his impoverished family, and can he justify it to himself?
‘Unforgiven’ is one of the greatest westerns ever made and also the last great true western that will be made. I have no doubt about that. For ‘Unforgiven’ whilst a great film in its own right, is also a tribute to the genre, closing the book on the making of westerns, and from the shots of the graves, to the idea of coming out of retirement one final time, Eastwood clearly knew that this would be the last western.
It is a brilliant film: wonderfully scripted, expertly directed, beautifully filmed and acted with understanding and obvious commitment, it can not only be described as the last western, but also one of the greatest, a film for those who love the west.
24. ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT - 1930
Perhaps one of the most well known of the earliest Best Picture winners was the ultimate anti-war film, ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’. Based on the German novel, the film follows a group of young German soldiers who are encouraged to enlist in the army by their teacher during the First World War. The film is American, but sticks to the original nationality of the characters. Despite this: this film is not about right or wrong, about Germans or Americans, or about heroism of any type, but about the utter futility of war.
The world had not seen a war like this and the film brings to life the realism of what encouraged young men to enlist, what they experienced, and how those at home reacted when they gave honest accounts of what the reality of war was like.
The first scene is particularly memorable: a teacher through clever speech encourages the young men to enlist. Forgetting the benefit of hindsight, this film shows exactly how war must have appealed to these students: the excitement, the national pride, the camaraderie. It also shows what a much larger place the world was in 1914 as this was the only chance that these men would have to see the world.
Of course, the realities are different, and the experiences of the war are shown through a series of scenes in which the hardships and brutal experiences are exhibited. From the training camp to the actual front, the war is not what the soldiers expected. The reality of war is most evident in a wonderful scene between the protagonist, Paul (the excellent Lew Ayers) and a Frenchman who he shoots and then tries to save when they are trapped together. There are no sides in this most humane of scenes, just the inevitability of death.
Death, of course, happens to several of the young group, and this understandably has a profound effect on Paul. The opening scene is contrasted beautifully, when he goes back to his former school and talks about the war. The new students and the former teacher are horrified, not by his tales, but by his attitude which is not patriotic.
The film, however, never becomes preachy. The facts of war are obvious, and Milestone shows experiences, but does not hammer home the point, and from that point, it is a very intelligent film, never underestimating the audience and never stopping to bask in its own self-importance. In many ways it is a very simple film: there is no complex storyline, but it still manages to deal with complex issues, and that is what makes this film such a success, and so timeless.
It is, in my mind, the third greatest Best Picture winner from the 1930s (with still ‘It Happened One Night’ and ‘Gone with the Wind’ to come), but I think it feels in many ways, the least dated. The structure is similar to ‘The Hurt Locker’ in that a series of episodes paint a picture rather than provide a narrative, and the theme is timeless: whereas the methods have combat have changed since this film was made, the greater issues are the same, and that is what makes the film so watchable and so relevant.
The world had not seen a war like this and the film brings to life the realism of what encouraged young men to enlist, what they experienced, and how those at home reacted when they gave honest accounts of what the reality of war was like.
The first scene is particularly memorable: a teacher through clever speech encourages the young men to enlist. Forgetting the benefit of hindsight, this film shows exactly how war must have appealed to these students: the excitement, the national pride, the camaraderie. It also shows what a much larger place the world was in 1914 as this was the only chance that these men would have to see the world.
Of course, the realities are different, and the experiences of the war are shown through a series of scenes in which the hardships and brutal experiences are exhibited. From the training camp to the actual front, the war is not what the soldiers expected. The reality of war is most evident in a wonderful scene between the protagonist, Paul (the excellent Lew Ayers) and a Frenchman who he shoots and then tries to save when they are trapped together. There are no sides in this most humane of scenes, just the inevitability of death.
Death, of course, happens to several of the young group, and this understandably has a profound effect on Paul. The opening scene is contrasted beautifully, when he goes back to his former school and talks about the war. The new students and the former teacher are horrified, not by his tales, but by his attitude which is not patriotic.
The film, however, never becomes preachy. The facts of war are obvious, and Milestone shows experiences, but does not hammer home the point, and from that point, it is a very intelligent film, never underestimating the audience and never stopping to bask in its own self-importance. In many ways it is a very simple film: there is no complex storyline, but it still manages to deal with complex issues, and that is what makes this film such a success, and so timeless.
It is, in my mind, the third greatest Best Picture winner from the 1930s (with still ‘It Happened One Night’ and ‘Gone with the Wind’ to come), but I think it feels in many ways, the least dated. The structure is similar to ‘The Hurt Locker’ in that a series of episodes paint a picture rather than provide a narrative, and the theme is timeless: whereas the methods have combat have changed since this film was made, the greater issues are the same, and that is what makes the film so watchable and so relevant.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
25. WEST SIDE STORY - 1961
Another film that I am torn about. If you were to ask me what my favourite musical is, I would definitely consider West Side Story, however it’s not my favourite film musical. That’s not to say I don’t like it, I really do, but it has a few faults that stop it getting a higher position on the list.
I will start with the bad. The film is dated. Very dated. Although the music and dancing are brilliant, there are times (when the film is in ‘cool’ mode) that just seem irrelevant today. I think it is a general rule that if musical films are set in the era that they are made they can age very badly, as the general idea of a musical with characters bursting into song needs to be done with some irony. The other negative I have is with Richard Beymer’s portrayal of Tony. I realise that in the Shakespeare play, the character of Romeo is a little soft, but in ‘West Side Story’ the character of Tony is meant to be a former gang leader, and I just don’t buy it, he is just so wet.
And now the positive, and there is lots to say: firstly the music. How anyone cannot just love the wonderful songs by Bernstein is hard to believe. The songs are beautiful, witty and perfectly performed. ‘Tonight’ is a gorgeous love song, performed as both a duet and as a quintet later in the film, ‘Jet Song’ is a fun-packed and intense gang song that makes you know that the film is going to not be like other musicals, but the best moment is the wonderful ‘America’. It is truly one of the best song and dance numbers in any musical ever made.
There are some great performances in this film. George Chakiris is great as Bernardo, and although I would have given the supporting Oscar to Montgomery Clift in ‘Judgement at Nuremburg’, Chakiris’ performance is one of the most memorable Supporting Actor wins that I have seen. He is feisty, passionate and truly convincing as the leader of the Sharks. It is, however, Rita Moreno who steals the show as Anita. The screen really does come alive whenever she is on screen, and her performance in the song ‘America’ is truly fantastic.
It is a cinematographic delight as well. Every scene and shot and close up rivals the most epic of films, and not many films bring the streets of the darker areas of New York to life as much as this one does.
It’s a shame that there are a few faults with this film, and it’s probably the only Oscar winner that I think would be successful if it were remade today with the right director and cast, of course. However, despite the faults, ‘West Side Story’ is one of the most important and beautiful musicals ever made, and will always be rightly regarded as a classic.
I will start with the bad. The film is dated. Very dated. Although the music and dancing are brilliant, there are times (when the film is in ‘cool’ mode) that just seem irrelevant today. I think it is a general rule that if musical films are set in the era that they are made they can age very badly, as the general idea of a musical with characters bursting into song needs to be done with some irony. The other negative I have is with Richard Beymer’s portrayal of Tony. I realise that in the Shakespeare play, the character of Romeo is a little soft, but in ‘West Side Story’ the character of Tony is meant to be a former gang leader, and I just don’t buy it, he is just so wet.
And now the positive, and there is lots to say: firstly the music. How anyone cannot just love the wonderful songs by Bernstein is hard to believe. The songs are beautiful, witty and perfectly performed. ‘Tonight’ is a gorgeous love song, performed as both a duet and as a quintet later in the film, ‘Jet Song’ is a fun-packed and intense gang song that makes you know that the film is going to not be like other musicals, but the best moment is the wonderful ‘America’. It is truly one of the best song and dance numbers in any musical ever made.
There are some great performances in this film. George Chakiris is great as Bernardo, and although I would have given the supporting Oscar to Montgomery Clift in ‘Judgement at Nuremburg’, Chakiris’ performance is one of the most memorable Supporting Actor wins that I have seen. He is feisty, passionate and truly convincing as the leader of the Sharks. It is, however, Rita Moreno who steals the show as Anita. The screen really does come alive whenever she is on screen, and her performance in the song ‘America’ is truly fantastic.
It is a cinematographic delight as well. Every scene and shot and close up rivals the most epic of films, and not many films bring the streets of the darker areas of New York to life as much as this one does.
It’s a shame that there are a few faults with this film, and it’s probably the only Oscar winner that I think would be successful if it were remade today with the right director and cast, of course. However, despite the faults, ‘West Side Story’ is one of the most important and beautiful musicals ever made, and will always be rightly regarded as a classic.
26. THE STING - 1973
From the moments I hear the opening bars of Scott Joplin’s ‘The Entertainer’ I remember why I like ‘The Sting’ so much: there are films that make you think, there are films that are beautiful works of art and then there are films that are just fun.
‘The Sting’ reunited the irresistible combination of Paul Newman and Robert Redford, and I actually prefer this to ‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid’. This great film is a comedy crime caper set in the 1920s and is about a small time con-man played by Redford, who after his partner in crime gets killed, teams up with Newman a one time master to seek revenge. The film takes the characters through a wild and elaborate scam in order to settle the score, with the sting being the twist at the end.
Newman and Redford have such chemistry in this film. They play their parts with ease and humour and build great rapport over the duration of the film. I mentioned the relationship between the leads in ‘The French Connection’, and this relationship is even better.
It’s a brilliant example of storytelling. The film moves along at such a rate of knots that it is impossible not to be swept along – there are some wonderful moments: the card game, when Redford asks out a drugstore girl, and of course, the final scene. It is difficult to discuss the film without giving too much away, but in terms of plot, let’s just say that it is fun from start from finish.
The style of the film is also interesting and appealing. It’s a comedy, but also a period drama and is full of wonderful details, like the fact that each section of the film is introduced with titles. The film also could run the risk of over glorifying criminals, but instead it ends up painting a picture of crime in New York at a certain era. The characters are not responsible for destroying law and order, but are rather products of a certain era.
In short it is a wonderful and fun picture that uses many stylistic techniques complete with wonderful direction and great acting to create one of the most memorable films of the 1970s.
‘The Sting’ reunited the irresistible combination of Paul Newman and Robert Redford, and I actually prefer this to ‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid’. This great film is a comedy crime caper set in the 1920s and is about a small time con-man played by Redford, who after his partner in crime gets killed, teams up with Newman a one time master to seek revenge. The film takes the characters through a wild and elaborate scam in order to settle the score, with the sting being the twist at the end.
Newman and Redford have such chemistry in this film. They play their parts with ease and humour and build great rapport over the duration of the film. I mentioned the relationship between the leads in ‘The French Connection’, and this relationship is even better.
It’s a brilliant example of storytelling. The film moves along at such a rate of knots that it is impossible not to be swept along – there are some wonderful moments: the card game, when Redford asks out a drugstore girl, and of course, the final scene. It is difficult to discuss the film without giving too much away, but in terms of plot, let’s just say that it is fun from start from finish.
The style of the film is also interesting and appealing. It’s a comedy, but also a period drama and is full of wonderful details, like the fact that each section of the film is introduced with titles. The film also could run the risk of over glorifying criminals, but instead it ends up painting a picture of crime in New York at a certain era. The characters are not responsible for destroying law and order, but are rather products of a certain era.
In short it is a wonderful and fun picture that uses many stylistic techniques complete with wonderful direction and great acting to create one of the most memorable films of the 1970s.
Friday, 3 September 2010
27. THE FRENCH CONNECTION - 1971
In the early 1970s, the Academy looked to the crime genre for their Oscar winners, and in 1971 ‘The French Connection’ beat off competition from such classics as ‘Fiddler on the Roof’ and ‘A Clockwork Orange’.
The film is a fast paced tale of two policeman played by Gene Hackman and Roy Schneider who investigate a drug deal in which Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey) plans to sell $32 million worth of heroin to New York dealers. The plot twists and turns with unrelenting attitude until it ends in a fantastic showdown between the dealers and the police.
The film works in two ways. Firstly it’s a fun, exciting crime drama. Not only is the plot intense and exciting throughout, but it includes some wonderfully dramatic scenes, and so many of these are memorable. There is the famous car scene chase across New York. I am not usually one for lengthy pieces of action and feel that they can often ruin a good drama, but this adds to the tension so much. The other great scene that springs to mind is when Schneider is following Rey on a subway platform. For a while you wonder if Rey has spotted him, as they both hop on and off the train acting as inconspicuous as possible.
The other great thing about the film is the wonderful acting from the two leads. Hackman plays a bigoted alcoholic cop and Schneider is his more straightlaced and reserved partner. Unlike the traditional, modern cops and robbers film, the good guys are not perfect: they are normal people with normal faults. This makes them more interesting and believable and allows them to develop as real characters rather than just being parodies of heroes.
The relationship between the two characters is extraordinary. There are few films in which two male actors have as natural and unforced chemistry. Compare this relationship to, say, Frodo and Sam in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and you’ll see what I mean. They are both excellent.
On top of this, the film is excellent in other areas. It is technically superior to so many films of this genre. It is smoothly edited with camerawork that only adds to the intensity throughout. The music is equally tense, but not overused, and Friedkin’s direction uses both the music and the noises of the city in equal measure to create the required atmosphere.
What is great about this film is that it is not only a great piece of cinema but also totally accessible. Anyone who gives this film a chance will be drawn along by the fantastic performances and great storyline. And yes, despite the strong competition in 1971 I agree with the choice of the Academy for this year.
The film is a fast paced tale of two policeman played by Gene Hackman and Roy Schneider who investigate a drug deal in which Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey) plans to sell $32 million worth of heroin to New York dealers. The plot twists and turns with unrelenting attitude until it ends in a fantastic showdown between the dealers and the police.
The film works in two ways. Firstly it’s a fun, exciting crime drama. Not only is the plot intense and exciting throughout, but it includes some wonderfully dramatic scenes, and so many of these are memorable. There is the famous car scene chase across New York. I am not usually one for lengthy pieces of action and feel that they can often ruin a good drama, but this adds to the tension so much. The other great scene that springs to mind is when Schneider is following Rey on a subway platform. For a while you wonder if Rey has spotted him, as they both hop on and off the train acting as inconspicuous as possible.
The other great thing about the film is the wonderful acting from the two leads. Hackman plays a bigoted alcoholic cop and Schneider is his more straightlaced and reserved partner. Unlike the traditional, modern cops and robbers film, the good guys are not perfect: they are normal people with normal faults. This makes them more interesting and believable and allows them to develop as real characters rather than just being parodies of heroes.
The relationship between the two characters is extraordinary. There are few films in which two male actors have as natural and unforced chemistry. Compare this relationship to, say, Frodo and Sam in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and you’ll see what I mean. They are both excellent.
On top of this, the film is excellent in other areas. It is technically superior to so many films of this genre. It is smoothly edited with camerawork that only adds to the intensity throughout. The music is equally tense, but not overused, and Friedkin’s direction uses both the music and the noises of the city in equal measure to create the required atmosphere.
What is great about this film is that it is not only a great piece of cinema but also totally accessible. Anyone who gives this film a chance will be drawn along by the fantastic performances and great storyline. And yes, despite the strong competition in 1971 I agree with the choice of the Academy for this year.
Saturday, 28 August 2010
28. SCHINDLER'S LIST - 1993
When I was ranking these winners, I had some issue deciding where to place ‘Schindler’s List’. The vast majority of these films have some form of enjoyment factor to take into consideration. ‘Schindler’s List’ is not an enjoyable film to watch. It is not a piece of entertainment in the traditional factor. This film is more important than entertaining and therefore in order to place this film I needed to look at how well made I think it is.
For those unfamiliar with the story, it is the tale of Oskar Schindler, a member of the Nazi party who owns a factory, and uses this to save the lives of thousands of Jewish people in occupied Poland. The film tackles the individual story of this complex character as well as the legacy of the holocaust.
The film swept many of the categories at the Oscars but did not win any of the acting awards, which I think was a massive mistake. Liam Neeson, as Schindler, lost out to Tom Hanks in ‘Philadelphia’ probably my least favourite best actor win, but should have won. What makes is performance so wonderful is that he manages to create a character that is the hero of the story, but who is far from perfect. He uses his position to save thousands of life, but was vain and greedy and a member of the Nazi party, a party responsible for horrific atrocities. As this film is not about entertainment but realism, he does not overact once. Every look, every movement is believable and creates a wonderfully complex character.
Ralph Fiennes is superb as Amon Goeth, sent to Krakow to set up a concentration camp. He plays the part of the Nazi with such conviction, that you thoroughly believe that he is this evil. Truly villainous, but also truly believable, and that is what makes him such a superb actor.
There are other good things to focus on, but I am going to look at the one thing about this film that prevents me from placing it a bit higher. The direction. I am not a fan of Spielberg’s work. For me, all his films are very obvious: he wants to scare, he wants to entertain, he wants to make you cry… whatever his mission is, he pulls out all the stops to get the desired effect. However, he never seems to want to make the viewer think. For the most part, ‘Schindler’s List’ is carried by other things: the acting, the cinematography, the music, but occasionally, I can see that this is a Spielberg film, and it ruins it a little. The worst example of this is the ending when Jewish survivors place stones on Schindler’s grave. I realise that this film is in many ways a tribute to his legacy, but as a viewer we have just watched three hours of his story and the ending cheapens it a little. I think a different director could have done a better job. A more subtle approach to certain elements would have been more effective.
Back to the positive: I have touched on the cinematography in the previous paragraph. It is a beautifully filmed picture. The wonderful use of black and white was a brilliant idea: it shows the gravity of the subject matter whilst still enabling a beautiful experience in other ways. Then the use of colour with the girl in the red coat, enables the film to focus on the individuals involved as well as the overall theme of the holocaust.
In short, ‘Schindler’s List’ is a massively important film. It is not perfect, but includes some of the best acting seen in the past twenty years and balances a serious subject matter with some beautiful elements, and should be watched by all.
For those unfamiliar with the story, it is the tale of Oskar Schindler, a member of the Nazi party who owns a factory, and uses this to save the lives of thousands of Jewish people in occupied Poland. The film tackles the individual story of this complex character as well as the legacy of the holocaust.
The film swept many of the categories at the Oscars but did not win any of the acting awards, which I think was a massive mistake. Liam Neeson, as Schindler, lost out to Tom Hanks in ‘Philadelphia’ probably my least favourite best actor win, but should have won. What makes is performance so wonderful is that he manages to create a character that is the hero of the story, but who is far from perfect. He uses his position to save thousands of life, but was vain and greedy and a member of the Nazi party, a party responsible for horrific atrocities. As this film is not about entertainment but realism, he does not overact once. Every look, every movement is believable and creates a wonderfully complex character.
Ralph Fiennes is superb as Amon Goeth, sent to Krakow to set up a concentration camp. He plays the part of the Nazi with such conviction, that you thoroughly believe that he is this evil. Truly villainous, but also truly believable, and that is what makes him such a superb actor.
There are other good things to focus on, but I am going to look at the one thing about this film that prevents me from placing it a bit higher. The direction. I am not a fan of Spielberg’s work. For me, all his films are very obvious: he wants to scare, he wants to entertain, he wants to make you cry… whatever his mission is, he pulls out all the stops to get the desired effect. However, he never seems to want to make the viewer think. For the most part, ‘Schindler’s List’ is carried by other things: the acting, the cinematography, the music, but occasionally, I can see that this is a Spielberg film, and it ruins it a little. The worst example of this is the ending when Jewish survivors place stones on Schindler’s grave. I realise that this film is in many ways a tribute to his legacy, but as a viewer we have just watched three hours of his story and the ending cheapens it a little. I think a different director could have done a better job. A more subtle approach to certain elements would have been more effective.
Back to the positive: I have touched on the cinematography in the previous paragraph. It is a beautifully filmed picture. The wonderful use of black and white was a brilliant idea: it shows the gravity of the subject matter whilst still enabling a beautiful experience in other ways. Then the use of colour with the girl in the red coat, enables the film to focus on the individuals involved as well as the overall theme of the holocaust.
In short, ‘Schindler’s List’ is a massively important film. It is not perfect, but includes some of the best acting seen in the past twenty years and balances a serious subject matter with some beautiful elements, and should be watched by all.
Thursday, 26 August 2010
29. YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU - 1938
Frank Capra. In my mind the number one person associated with comedy is this fantastic director. Four years after ‘It Happened One Night’ swept the Oscars, the almost as good ‘You Can’t Take It With You’ earned Capra another best picture award and a third best director award (he also won for ‘Mr Deeds Goes to Town’).
‘You Can’t Take it with You’ is a wonderfully simple tale. Alice Sycamore (Jean Arthur) is a stenographer, in love with her boss Tony Kirby (James Stewart) who is the son of the company owner. Alice lives with her eccentric family who clash with Tony’s family, not only due to the cultural differences but also because Tony’s father wants to buy the family home for his latest business venture.
This is what Capra specialises in: comedy with a heart. He takes what could be clichéd love story about two families clashing and makes it a winner from every angle. The script is wonderfully peppered with glorious lines, a personal favourite is when the grandfather (Lionel Barrymore) explains why he does not pay income tax, and moves the story along at a wild pace.
The cast is, of course, excellent. What works so well is how Jean Arthur and James Stewart play their parts in such a straight manner, whilst there is chaos all around. It is a perfect example of how you do not need to overact to be funny (some unmentionable modern comic actors take note), the smallest glance and motion from these characters is hysterical and utterly charming. James Stewart truly is a wonderful actor: from comedy (‘The Philadelphia Story’) to westerns (‘The Man who Shot Liberty Vallance’) and thrillers (‘Vertigo’) he is one of the best actors ever on film.
The supporting cast have more obvious fun in their comic roles. The Sycamore family are all a little eccentric in their own way and they make the most out of their screen time. This is where Capra’s excellent direction comes in: they do not, at all, ever, act on top of each other, and the effect is remarkable. It enables the film to move at a furious pace without descending into incomprehensible mayhem. The Kirby family are comically snobbish but without ever becoming ridiculous caricatures.
Like all Capra films, this film just makes the viewer feel delightfully warm inside. Maybe it’s not to the average modern viewers taste: it’s very much of its time, but I defy anyone not to watch this film with an open mind and be taken in by this charming love story.
‘You Can’t Take it with You’ is a wonderfully simple tale. Alice Sycamore (Jean Arthur) is a stenographer, in love with her boss Tony Kirby (James Stewart) who is the son of the company owner. Alice lives with her eccentric family who clash with Tony’s family, not only due to the cultural differences but also because Tony’s father wants to buy the family home for his latest business venture.
This is what Capra specialises in: comedy with a heart. He takes what could be clichéd love story about two families clashing and makes it a winner from every angle. The script is wonderfully peppered with glorious lines, a personal favourite is when the grandfather (Lionel Barrymore) explains why he does not pay income tax, and moves the story along at a wild pace.
The cast is, of course, excellent. What works so well is how Jean Arthur and James Stewart play their parts in such a straight manner, whilst there is chaos all around. It is a perfect example of how you do not need to overact to be funny (some unmentionable modern comic actors take note), the smallest glance and motion from these characters is hysterical and utterly charming. James Stewart truly is a wonderful actor: from comedy (‘The Philadelphia Story’) to westerns (‘The Man who Shot Liberty Vallance’) and thrillers (‘Vertigo’) he is one of the best actors ever on film.
The supporting cast have more obvious fun in their comic roles. The Sycamore family are all a little eccentric in their own way and they make the most out of their screen time. This is where Capra’s excellent direction comes in: they do not, at all, ever, act on top of each other, and the effect is remarkable. It enables the film to move at a furious pace without descending into incomprehensible mayhem. The Kirby family are comically snobbish but without ever becoming ridiculous caricatures.
Like all Capra films, this film just makes the viewer feel delightfully warm inside. Maybe it’s not to the average modern viewers taste: it’s very much of its time, but I defy anyone not to watch this film with an open mind and be taken in by this charming love story.
30. THE APARTMENT - 1960
1960 was a brilliant year for film. ‘Psycho’, ‘A bout de souffle’ and ‘La dolce vita’ were all made in this year (also the latter was not honoured by the Academy until the following year), but it was Billy Wilder’s dark tale of love that ended up winning the most coveted award in film.
Jack Lemmon is CC Baxter, a clerk in a large New York insurance film who lets his seniors in the film use his apartment to entertain their mistresses in order to advance his career. His boss Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray) promotes Lemmon in return for letting his use his apartment to entertain elevator girl, Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine). Even though Baxter is in love with Kubelik he goes along with the situation until one night he finds Kubelik in his apartment following a suicide attempt and this makes him rethink his position.
Often dubbed as a comedy, ‘The Apartment’ is so much more. It has some wonderful comic moments, but the main theme is so brutally tragic that for me it ranks amongst the best character studies ever put to film.
This film has so many good qualities. The direction is what you could come to expect from the wonderful Billy Wilder. He handles every scene with humour and tragedy linked in such an expert manner that it is impossible not to be drawn into this unconventional love story.
This is one of Jack Lemmon’s best performances. He moves from the competitive career-minded clerk to the lonely man struggling with an extremely difficult decision, and he handles it expertly, changing with each scene. His wit and sensitivity is honed to perfection.
Shirley MacLaine is also stunning in her role as the confused and equally lonely younger girl trying to realise what she wants out of life. There are some wonderful moments between the two: when they play rummy together and she has an epiphany and when she is walked around the apartment to keep her conscious. The Christmas party scene is equally wonderful.
The characters are not perfect people: they have faults, insecurities and problems. In short they are real people in a real situation, and all the characters are handled perfectly. ‘The Apartment’ should be watched by anyone wanting to see a film that blends humour and sorrow together expertly. It may not have been my personal choice for the best film of 1960, but it is certainly a worthy winner in an extremely strong year.
Jack Lemmon is CC Baxter, a clerk in a large New York insurance film who lets his seniors in the film use his apartment to entertain their mistresses in order to advance his career. His boss Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray) promotes Lemmon in return for letting his use his apartment to entertain elevator girl, Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine). Even though Baxter is in love with Kubelik he goes along with the situation until one night he finds Kubelik in his apartment following a suicide attempt and this makes him rethink his position.
Often dubbed as a comedy, ‘The Apartment’ is so much more. It has some wonderful comic moments, but the main theme is so brutally tragic that for me it ranks amongst the best character studies ever put to film.
This film has so many good qualities. The direction is what you could come to expect from the wonderful Billy Wilder. He handles every scene with humour and tragedy linked in such an expert manner that it is impossible not to be drawn into this unconventional love story.
This is one of Jack Lemmon’s best performances. He moves from the competitive career-minded clerk to the lonely man struggling with an extremely difficult decision, and he handles it expertly, changing with each scene. His wit and sensitivity is honed to perfection.
Shirley MacLaine is also stunning in her role as the confused and equally lonely younger girl trying to realise what she wants out of life. There are some wonderful moments between the two: when they play rummy together and she has an epiphany and when she is walked around the apartment to keep her conscious. The Christmas party scene is equally wonderful.
The characters are not perfect people: they have faults, insecurities and problems. In short they are real people in a real situation, and all the characters are handled perfectly. ‘The Apartment’ should be watched by anyone wanting to see a film that blends humour and sorrow together expertly. It may not have been my personal choice for the best film of 1960, but it is certainly a worthy winner in an extremely strong year.
Sunday, 18 July 2010
RECAP - 30 TO GO
As we head into the top 30 we are left with a collection of films that in my opinion rank amongst the best of all time.
Is there anything that you would change? Anything that you would like to have seen higher or lower?
Be good to hear your opinions.
82. FORREST GUMP - 1994
81. AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS - 1956
80. CIMARRON - 1931
79. CRASH - 2005
78. BRAVEHEART - 1995
77. ROCKY - 1976
76. TOM JONES - 1963
75. THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH - 1952
74. THE BROADWAY MELODY - 1929
73. TERMS OF ENDEARMENT - 1983
72. GOING MY WAY - 1944
71. GANDHI - 1982
70. DRIVING MISS DAISY - 1989
69. CAVALCADE - 1933
68. CHARIOTS OF FIRE - 1981
67. DANCES WITH WOLVES - 1990
66. OLIVER! - 1968
65. THE DEER HUNTER - 1978
64. A BEAUTIFUL MIND - 2001
63. ANNIE HALL - 1977
62. GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT - 1947
61. OUT OF AFRICA - 1985
60. SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE - 1998
59. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS - 1966
58. MRS MINIVER - 1942
57. HURT LOCKER - 2009
56. HAMLET - 1948
55. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING - 2003
54. PLATOON - 1986
53. THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA - 1937
52. GIGI - 1958
51. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
50. GLADIATOR - 2000
49. ORDINARY PEOPLE - 1980
48. THE DEPARTED - 2006
47. HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - 1941
46. IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - 1967
45. ALL THE KING'S MEN - 1949
44. BEN-HUR - 1959
43. MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY - 1935
42. RAIN MAN - 1988
41. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE - 2008
40. PATTON - 1970
39. MARTY - 1955
38. THE GREAT ZIEGFELD - 1936
37. TITANIC - 1997
36. GRAND HOTEL - 1932
35. CHICAGO - 2002
34. MIDNIGHT COWBOY - 1969
33. MILLION DOLLAR BABY - 2004
32. THE LAST EMPEROR - 1987
31. KRAMER VS KRAMER - 1979
STILL TO COME
WINGS - 1928
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT - 1930
IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT - 1934
YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU - 1938
GONE WITH THE WIND - 1939
REBECCA - 1940
CASABLANCA - 1943
THE LOST WEEKEND - 1945
THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES - 1946
ALL ABOUT EVE - 1950
AN AMERICAN IN PARIS - 1951
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY - 1953
ON THE WATERFRONT - 1954
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - 1957
THE APARTMENT - 1960
WEST SIDE STORY - 1961
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA - 1962
MY FAIR LADY - 1964
THE SOUND OF MUSIC - 1965
THE FRENCH CONNECTION -1971
THE GODFATHER -1972
THE STING - 1973
THE GODFATHER II - 1974
AMADEUS - 1984
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - 1991
UNFORGIVEN - 1992
SHCINDLER'S LIST - 1993
THE ENGLISH PATIENT - 1996
AMERICAN BEAUTY - 1999
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN - 2007
Is there anything that you would change? Anything that you would like to have seen higher or lower?
Be good to hear your opinions.
82. FORREST GUMP - 1994
81. AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS - 1956
80. CIMARRON - 1931
79. CRASH - 2005
78. BRAVEHEART - 1995
77. ROCKY - 1976
76. TOM JONES - 1963
75. THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH - 1952
74. THE BROADWAY MELODY - 1929
73. TERMS OF ENDEARMENT - 1983
72. GOING MY WAY - 1944
71. GANDHI - 1982
70. DRIVING MISS DAISY - 1989
69. CAVALCADE - 1933
68. CHARIOTS OF FIRE - 1981
67. DANCES WITH WOLVES - 1990
66. OLIVER! - 1968
65. THE DEER HUNTER - 1978
64. A BEAUTIFUL MIND - 2001
63. ANNIE HALL - 1977
62. GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT - 1947
61. OUT OF AFRICA - 1985
60. SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE - 1998
59. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS - 1966
58. MRS MINIVER - 1942
57. HURT LOCKER - 2009
56. HAMLET - 1948
55. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING - 2003
54. PLATOON - 1986
53. THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA - 1937
52. GIGI - 1958
51. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
50. GLADIATOR - 2000
49. ORDINARY PEOPLE - 1980
48. THE DEPARTED - 2006
47. HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - 1941
46. IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - 1967
45. ALL THE KING'S MEN - 1949
44. BEN-HUR - 1959
43. MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY - 1935
42. RAIN MAN - 1988
41. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE - 2008
40. PATTON - 1970
39. MARTY - 1955
38. THE GREAT ZIEGFELD - 1936
37. TITANIC - 1997
36. GRAND HOTEL - 1932
35. CHICAGO - 2002
34. MIDNIGHT COWBOY - 1969
33. MILLION DOLLAR BABY - 2004
32. THE LAST EMPEROR - 1987
31. KRAMER VS KRAMER - 1979
STILL TO COME
WINGS - 1928
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT - 1930
IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT - 1934
YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU - 1938
GONE WITH THE WIND - 1939
REBECCA - 1940
CASABLANCA - 1943
THE LOST WEEKEND - 1945
THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES - 1946
ALL ABOUT EVE - 1950
AN AMERICAN IN PARIS - 1951
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY - 1953
ON THE WATERFRONT - 1954
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - 1957
THE APARTMENT - 1960
WEST SIDE STORY - 1961
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA - 1962
MY FAIR LADY - 1964
THE SOUND OF MUSIC - 1965
THE FRENCH CONNECTION -1971
THE GODFATHER -1972
THE STING - 1973
THE GODFATHER II - 1974
AMADEUS - 1984
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - 1991
UNFORGIVEN - 1992
SHCINDLER'S LIST - 1993
THE ENGLISH PATIENT - 1996
AMERICAN BEAUTY - 1999
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN - 2007
31. KRAMER VS KRAMER - 1979
The premise behind this film is not overly promising. Joanna Kramer (Meryl Streep) walks out on her workaholic husband Ted (Dustin Hoffman) and son when she decides that she wants to live her own life. Ted has to change his life completely in order to become a single parent. Just has he is adjusting to this new life, Joanne returns and wants custody of their child.
There were so many films in the emotional family drama genre made in the 1980s, and they range from thoroughly watchable to absolutely dire, and then there is ‘Kramer vs Kramer’: easily the best film of this genre that I have seen.
But what makes it so good?
I have already written about my opinions on Dustin Hoffman in his other performances and ‘Kramer vs Kramer’ is another example of a great performance. Here is plays an everyday character unlike in ‘Midnight Cowboy’ or ‘Rain Man’, but still manages to create a person that is thoroughly watchable and that you want to know more about. I admire more these convincing normal roles than some of the more over the top Oscar winning performances over the ages because there is nothing for Hoffman to hide behind.
Streep also picked up the Oscar for Supporting Actress in this film. Meryl Streep is as diverse as Hoffman, and can play any role with conviction. As with Hoffman’s performance, this is one of her more normal characters and her acting is just outstanding.
Add to these wonderful performances some excellent supporting roles from Jane Alexander as the family friend and Justin Henry as the eight year old son: incredible for such a young actor.
Add to these performances a script that is poignant, realistic but also full of wit and gentle humour which gives the actors something great to work with. The script combined with the sensitive direction stops the film from falling into contrived nonsense, which is found in so many of these types of dramas. But it’s still extremely emotional: the ending is unexpectedly tearjerking but not in an over-the-top manner, but because of the realistic portrayal of a family torn apart.
‘Kramer vs Kramer’ is what family drama should be about. There are no unlikely twists, no over the top performances, such a few characters put in a realistic but sad situation and forced to deal with it. I don’t know if with a different cast that this would have worked, but with the leads of Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep this becomes a terrific film.
There were so many films in the emotional family drama genre made in the 1980s, and they range from thoroughly watchable to absolutely dire, and then there is ‘Kramer vs Kramer’: easily the best film of this genre that I have seen.
But what makes it so good?
I have already written about my opinions on Dustin Hoffman in his other performances and ‘Kramer vs Kramer’ is another example of a great performance. Here is plays an everyday character unlike in ‘Midnight Cowboy’ or ‘Rain Man’, but still manages to create a person that is thoroughly watchable and that you want to know more about. I admire more these convincing normal roles than some of the more over the top Oscar winning performances over the ages because there is nothing for Hoffman to hide behind.
Streep also picked up the Oscar for Supporting Actress in this film. Meryl Streep is as diverse as Hoffman, and can play any role with conviction. As with Hoffman’s performance, this is one of her more normal characters and her acting is just outstanding.
Add to these wonderful performances some excellent supporting roles from Jane Alexander as the family friend and Justin Henry as the eight year old son: incredible for such a young actor.
Add to these performances a script that is poignant, realistic but also full of wit and gentle humour which gives the actors something great to work with. The script combined with the sensitive direction stops the film from falling into contrived nonsense, which is found in so many of these types of dramas. But it’s still extremely emotional: the ending is unexpectedly tearjerking but not in an over-the-top manner, but because of the realistic portrayal of a family torn apart.
‘Kramer vs Kramer’ is what family drama should be about. There are no unlikely twists, no over the top performances, such a few characters put in a realistic but sad situation and forced to deal with it. I don’t know if with a different cast that this would have worked, but with the leads of Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep this becomes a terrific film.
Friday, 16 July 2010
32. THE LAST EMPEROR - 1987
One of the hardest stories to make into a Best Picture winner must have been ‘The Last Emperor’. The majority of epics take a story of a nobody and show how their character develops through a series of events to end in a big moment in their life or their dramatic death. ‘The Last Emperor’ does the opposite. It takes the story of Pu-Yi, who at the age of three becomes the emperor of China in 1908. He lives in the Forbidden City and never leaves. His life within these walls is excessive, but the outside world is unsafe and he is essentially a prisoner in his own home. By 1967, after many events he is a gardener in the Beijing Botanical Gardens.
‘The Last Emperor’ is not an easy film to watch. It is very long and deals with an unusual main character who is awkward and not easy to warm to, but it is a triumph of cinema: filming the impossible.
This film was made possible by one of the greatest directors ever: Bertolucci. He handles the topic in a very clever manner by having the main story running from 1950 to his death, with the childhood and years as the emperor told as a series of lengthy flashbacks. Although the technique of flashbacks is hardly revolutionary, I have seldom seen it so well done. Certain things trigger the memory of the Emperor and Bertolucci takes this opportunity to contrast the drab life of the older man to the colourful and extravagant life of his childhood.
The artistic quality of this film is outstanding. Every scene is shot in such a beautiful way: the costumes, cinematography, scripting: all carefully done to transport the viewer to the different eras.
It’s not a film that includes great famous performances. Although the film won all of the nine Oscars for which it was nominated, it did not include a single nod to the acting force. It did not help that the Emperor was played by different actors throughout the timeline, but each of the actors playing this unusual character bring something new to the role. Whereas Pu-Yi is a difficult character to really get inside, the actors are almost like props in this sumptuous epic. One actor who does shine is Peter O’Toole as the tutor who cares for the young emperor. He is the voice of reason in the Emperor’s surreal world and provides his usual level of wit that we have learnt to expect from such a great actor.
It is ultimately a film made possible by two men: Bernardo Bertolucci who proves himself as a wonderful director, able to make an epic that is both vast and intimate, and Pu-Yi, one of the most interesting and surprisingly not well known figures of the 20th Century.
‘The Last Emperor’ is not an easy film to watch. It is very long and deals with an unusual main character who is awkward and not easy to warm to, but it is a triumph of cinema: filming the impossible.
This film was made possible by one of the greatest directors ever: Bertolucci. He handles the topic in a very clever manner by having the main story running from 1950 to his death, with the childhood and years as the emperor told as a series of lengthy flashbacks. Although the technique of flashbacks is hardly revolutionary, I have seldom seen it so well done. Certain things trigger the memory of the Emperor and Bertolucci takes this opportunity to contrast the drab life of the older man to the colourful and extravagant life of his childhood.
The artistic quality of this film is outstanding. Every scene is shot in such a beautiful way: the costumes, cinematography, scripting: all carefully done to transport the viewer to the different eras.
It’s not a film that includes great famous performances. Although the film won all of the nine Oscars for which it was nominated, it did not include a single nod to the acting force. It did not help that the Emperor was played by different actors throughout the timeline, but each of the actors playing this unusual character bring something new to the role. Whereas Pu-Yi is a difficult character to really get inside, the actors are almost like props in this sumptuous epic. One actor who does shine is Peter O’Toole as the tutor who cares for the young emperor. He is the voice of reason in the Emperor’s surreal world and provides his usual level of wit that we have learnt to expect from such a great actor.
It is ultimately a film made possible by two men: Bernardo Bertolucci who proves himself as a wonderful director, able to make an epic that is both vast and intimate, and Pu-Yi, one of the most interesting and surprisingly not well known figures of the 20th Century.
33. MILLION DOLLAR BABY
Makers of ‘Rocky’ take note. This is how to make a sports film.
Sports films fall flat when they focus on the sporting aspect. The excitement of sport is not knowing the outcome, but in film dramas the director’s job should be to make the viewer think and make up their own mind about a certain situation. This is why the best films are the most intelligent films that give you challenging situations and complex characters. That is why ‘Million Dollar Baby’ is a success.
The film focuses on Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank), a waitress with no future who decides to commit herself to becoming a female boxer. She wants top coach Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) to train her. After initial reluctance he agrees. His attitude to training is not to push boxers to their limit, after a former pupil, Scrap (Morgan Freeman) lost an eye in his last final. Scrap is now a caretaker in Frankie’s gym. We also learn about Frankie’s relationship with his daughter which helps to explain the close relationship that develops between coach and fighter.
The purpose of the film is not to find out if Maggie wins a particular fight, or not. In every fighter’s career there are highs and lows and ‘Million Dollar Baby’ does not try to pretend that after starting to train into your 30s that you will suddenly become a world champion. Instead it focuses on the fragile and intricate relationships between these complex but every day characters.
I personally think I overlook Swank when looking at great actresses of our time, but she really is a fearless actress. Despite her obvious beauty, she attacks tough and unglamorous roles with determination and skill. Compare this role to her disturbing role in ‘Boys Don’t Cry’ (a film which without her would have bordered on mediocre but with her becomes a fascinating portrayal of a confused character) and you will see her talent. Maggie is a tough but likable character who we want to learn more about. We don’t necessarily mind if she wins fights or not, but we do want her to be happy, which is ultimately the most important thing for her.
As I have mentioned before, Eastwood has a limited range of characters that he plays, but this outwardly tough, but sensitive inside character is perfect for him. He can control the scene when required, but has the art of not dominating when not required. Because of his careful selection of roles I have yet to find an Eastwood performance that I do not like.
Morgan Freeman is always consistent, and the addition of this character gives the film an extra dimension.
Of all the Best Picture winners, this was easily one of the biggest surprises. I read about it and I thought: oh dear, a soppy film about a woman boxer. But, I found myself unable to tear my eyes away. Whether it was the great acting, the intelligent storyline and handling of issues, or the interesting way that the film was told, with Freeman’s character narrating, or most likely, a combination of all of these factors I’m not sure, but I found it to be one of the best films of the year and the second best winner of the last decade. For those apprehensive about watching this film as they will think it is not really their thing, I would suggest that you watch it, as you may be very very pleased that you did.
Sports films fall flat when they focus on the sporting aspect. The excitement of sport is not knowing the outcome, but in film dramas the director’s job should be to make the viewer think and make up their own mind about a certain situation. This is why the best films are the most intelligent films that give you challenging situations and complex characters. That is why ‘Million Dollar Baby’ is a success.
The film focuses on Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank), a waitress with no future who decides to commit herself to becoming a female boxer. She wants top coach Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) to train her. After initial reluctance he agrees. His attitude to training is not to push boxers to their limit, after a former pupil, Scrap (Morgan Freeman) lost an eye in his last final. Scrap is now a caretaker in Frankie’s gym. We also learn about Frankie’s relationship with his daughter which helps to explain the close relationship that develops between coach and fighter.
The purpose of the film is not to find out if Maggie wins a particular fight, or not. In every fighter’s career there are highs and lows and ‘Million Dollar Baby’ does not try to pretend that after starting to train into your 30s that you will suddenly become a world champion. Instead it focuses on the fragile and intricate relationships between these complex but every day characters.
I personally think I overlook Swank when looking at great actresses of our time, but she really is a fearless actress. Despite her obvious beauty, she attacks tough and unglamorous roles with determination and skill. Compare this role to her disturbing role in ‘Boys Don’t Cry’ (a film which without her would have bordered on mediocre but with her becomes a fascinating portrayal of a confused character) and you will see her talent. Maggie is a tough but likable character who we want to learn more about. We don’t necessarily mind if she wins fights or not, but we do want her to be happy, which is ultimately the most important thing for her.
As I have mentioned before, Eastwood has a limited range of characters that he plays, but this outwardly tough, but sensitive inside character is perfect for him. He can control the scene when required, but has the art of not dominating when not required. Because of his careful selection of roles I have yet to find an Eastwood performance that I do not like.
Morgan Freeman is always consistent, and the addition of this character gives the film an extra dimension.
Of all the Best Picture winners, this was easily one of the biggest surprises. I read about it and I thought: oh dear, a soppy film about a woman boxer. But, I found myself unable to tear my eyes away. Whether it was the great acting, the intelligent storyline and handling of issues, or the interesting way that the film was told, with Freeman’s character narrating, or most likely, a combination of all of these factors I’m not sure, but I found it to be one of the best films of the year and the second best winner of the last decade. For those apprehensive about watching this film as they will think it is not really their thing, I would suggest that you watch it, as you may be very very pleased that you did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)