Last year, when the winner of the Best Picture Award was announced there was very little surprise. ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ had won several awards before the Oscars and the momentum had kept going.
Of one the most original winners, ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ told the story of a young boy from Mumbai’s slums who appears on ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’ in an attempt to find his long lost friend. He is able to answer the questions as he is able to use his past experiences, resulting the film being shot in a series of flashbacks as we are taken through the boy’s story.
The film featured a cast of unknowns as is one of only a handful of Best Picture winners in which no actor has appeared in any other Best Picture winner. The acting is fine, although as the film is a series of flashbacks into the boy’s youth, the main characters are played by a series of different actors, and therefore no actor really gets enough screen time to steal the film. Dev Patel plays the protagonist Jamal at his oldest, and he delivers a steady performance as the boy accused of cheating on the game show. The game show host, played by Anil Kapoor, is over the top and more of a caricature, and the childhood friend and love interest played by Freida Pinto, is sweet, but it’s hardly a knockout performance.
Instead, this film is a success because it is so beautiful. The colours, the music, the scenery all pull the audience in and it makes the film as exciting as could have been possible. Personally, this film would not have been my choice of winner in 2008 (I would have opted for ‘The Reader’, although I realise that I am largely on my own there), but in terms of direction, ‘Slumdog’ was definitely a worthy winner.
One of the successes of the direction is the contrasts that it manages to put into the film. We have, what is essentially a violent and quite dark subject matter. We see prostitution, child abuse, gun crime throughout the film, but also friendship, love and great humour. It is a feel-good film, but does not gloss over the gritty background to the story.
This is a film where the cinematography really does shine. The camera weaves its way through the slums and crowded trains bringing the claustrophobic atmosphere to life which endeavours to transport the viewer to India, and manages to show beauty in the least likely of places.
The only thing that I would really like to change about the film is the flashbacks are delivered in chronological order and I would have preferred it if they were shown in random order as that would have added to the mayhem which the film tries to portray, especially as it is unlikely that the order of the questions would match the order of the events in his life, but this is more of a personal preference, and in fairness the story is not the most realistic to be committed to screen.
This film was much hyped when it was released, and although it does not manage to quite reach the top 40 of the Best Picture winners of all time, it is a thoroughly enjoyable and watchable film largely thanks to the stunning production.
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
42. RAIN MAN - 1988
When playboy Charlie Babbett’s (Tom Cruise) father dies, he leaves his fortune to the brother that Charlie never knew he had. Charlie tracks down his brother, Raymond (Dustin Hoffman) and finds that he is institutionalised and suffers from autism. He kidnaps him with the intention of holding him to ransom and together they embark on a road trip across America, during which the impatient Charlie becomes frustrated with his brother’s habits and mannerisms.
‘Rain Man’ is the ultimate road trip film, in which two brothers travel across America and find things about themselves that they never knew before, and it is a charming film.
Tom Cruise is not an actor who is always highly regarded. I feel, however, that in his defence, that it is more to do with the films in which he was in. His parts tend to be one dimensional action heros in which he is just unable to shine. But, give him a good part, like in ‘Rain Man’ or ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ and he is able to deliver. In this film he transforms from frustrated and jealous to a much more compassionate character. When he first spends time with Dustin Hoffman he finds him impossible, and this frustration is very real and believable. His transformation is slow and, once again, believable. For me, this is Cruise’s best role to date.
Despite this, it is Hoffman who shines. Dustin Hoffman is one of my favourite actors of all time. Like Meryl Streep he is able to play any part. His three performances in Oscar Best Pictures, in this, ‘Kramer vs Kramer’ and ‘Midnight Cowboy’ are totally different, and it’s impossible to mention Hoffman without acknowledging his perfect portrayal of Ben in ‘The Graduate’. Hoffman’s portrayal of Raymond Babbett in ‘Rain Man’ is one that no-one interested in film can miss. He shows how frustrating spending time with someone with autism must be, but rather than creating a overly sentimental film, he delivers his role with humour and integrity, and never for one second does not live the character.
This film could have been patronising and soppy, and with a lesser cast it could have been the ‘Forrest Gump’ of the 1980s. But, thankfully it is a charming and highly watchable film that engages from start to finish. Admittedly, the ending is predictable and the production is not the most exciting ever, but the script moves effortlessly from scene to scene which moves the film along at a healthy pace and the Hans Zimmer score really enhances the film: the main theme accompanies the theme of a journey both physically and emotionally.
At the end of the day, this film won due to the high quality level of acting found from beginning to end, and it is one of the best winners from the decade.
‘Rain Man’ is the ultimate road trip film, in which two brothers travel across America and find things about themselves that they never knew before, and it is a charming film.
Tom Cruise is not an actor who is always highly regarded. I feel, however, that in his defence, that it is more to do with the films in which he was in. His parts tend to be one dimensional action heros in which he is just unable to shine. But, give him a good part, like in ‘Rain Man’ or ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ and he is able to deliver. In this film he transforms from frustrated and jealous to a much more compassionate character. When he first spends time with Dustin Hoffman he finds him impossible, and this frustration is very real and believable. His transformation is slow and, once again, believable. For me, this is Cruise’s best role to date.
Despite this, it is Hoffman who shines. Dustin Hoffman is one of my favourite actors of all time. Like Meryl Streep he is able to play any part. His three performances in Oscar Best Pictures, in this, ‘Kramer vs Kramer’ and ‘Midnight Cowboy’ are totally different, and it’s impossible to mention Hoffman without acknowledging his perfect portrayal of Ben in ‘The Graduate’. Hoffman’s portrayal of Raymond Babbett in ‘Rain Man’ is one that no-one interested in film can miss. He shows how frustrating spending time with someone with autism must be, but rather than creating a overly sentimental film, he delivers his role with humour and integrity, and never for one second does not live the character.
This film could have been patronising and soppy, and with a lesser cast it could have been the ‘Forrest Gump’ of the 1980s. But, thankfully it is a charming and highly watchable film that engages from start to finish. Admittedly, the ending is predictable and the production is not the most exciting ever, but the script moves effortlessly from scene to scene which moves the film along at a healthy pace and the Hans Zimmer score really enhances the film: the main theme accompanies the theme of a journey both physically and emotionally.
At the end of the day, this film won due to the high quality level of acting found from beginning to end, and it is one of the best winners from the decade.
Saturday, 5 June 2010
43. MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY - 1935
‘Mutiny on the Bounty’ was one of the most pleasant surprises for me when I watched the Best Pictures. I imagined a gung-ho adventure film with over acting and silly stereotypes. Instead I got a intelligent character study.
The premise is straightforward. Captain Bligh (Charles Laughton) is the captain of a ship travelling from England to Tahiti. As the journey gets harder and harder he becomes more and more ruthless and his methods of maintaining discipline are brutal. On the return journey first mate Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable) revolts against the captain. The crew, however, do not account for the captains return. The film also stars Franchot Tone as the midshipman Byam: torn between loyalty to the captain and his belief in what is right.
The film moves along at a pleasing rate. There is snappy dialogue that enables the scenes to move on quickly and efficiently. The film never gets dragged down with lengthy fight scenes and the viewers are never taken down a sub-plot with no relevance. It is a well constructed film. Admittedly the cinematography now looks dated, but it does not take away from the overall impact of the film, and the fantastic score really helps to add to the overall exciting impact of the experience.
But the film is a triumph for the acting. It is the only film in the history of the Oscars to receive three nominations for Best Actor in a Leading Role (although this was before the days of the Best Supporting Actor award), and all the nominations are worthy. Tone plays the man in the middle of the two factions and does a perfect show of a character split between his moral views. His part is the hardest due to this split conscious, but he does an excellent job of it.
Clark Gable proves himself as the leading man of the 1930s with his portrayal as the ‘hero’, but due to the clever positioning of Tone’s character, we, as the audience are not sure is we are fully behind Gable’s first mate. Gable clearly relishes playing this role and he makes the part more than just another dull swashbuckling hero.
It is, however, Laughton that makes the biggest impact. From ruthless villain to loser in battle to his comeback and return to England, he plays them all with conviction, and is watchable throughout. In the way that Gable’s character is not quite the hero, Laughton makes the captain not quite the tyrant that he could have been. Instead we see a complex character: a captain with difficulties in keeping control over his crew.
In brief, I found ‘Mutiny on the Bounty’ to be a thoroughly enjoyable film about character development with some excellent performances, and even if the production and storyline were slightly dated it is still one of the best sea adventure films that I have ever seen.
The premise is straightforward. Captain Bligh (Charles Laughton) is the captain of a ship travelling from England to Tahiti. As the journey gets harder and harder he becomes more and more ruthless and his methods of maintaining discipline are brutal. On the return journey first mate Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable) revolts against the captain. The crew, however, do not account for the captains return. The film also stars Franchot Tone as the midshipman Byam: torn between loyalty to the captain and his belief in what is right.
The film moves along at a pleasing rate. There is snappy dialogue that enables the scenes to move on quickly and efficiently. The film never gets dragged down with lengthy fight scenes and the viewers are never taken down a sub-plot with no relevance. It is a well constructed film. Admittedly the cinematography now looks dated, but it does not take away from the overall impact of the film, and the fantastic score really helps to add to the overall exciting impact of the experience.
But the film is a triumph for the acting. It is the only film in the history of the Oscars to receive three nominations for Best Actor in a Leading Role (although this was before the days of the Best Supporting Actor award), and all the nominations are worthy. Tone plays the man in the middle of the two factions and does a perfect show of a character split between his moral views. His part is the hardest due to this split conscious, but he does an excellent job of it.
Clark Gable proves himself as the leading man of the 1930s with his portrayal as the ‘hero’, but due to the clever positioning of Tone’s character, we, as the audience are not sure is we are fully behind Gable’s first mate. Gable clearly relishes playing this role and he makes the part more than just another dull swashbuckling hero.
It is, however, Laughton that makes the biggest impact. From ruthless villain to loser in battle to his comeback and return to England, he plays them all with conviction, and is watchable throughout. In the way that Gable’s character is not quite the hero, Laughton makes the captain not quite the tyrant that he could have been. Instead we see a complex character: a captain with difficulties in keeping control over his crew.
In brief, I found ‘Mutiny on the Bounty’ to be a thoroughly enjoyable film about character development with some excellent performances, and even if the production and storyline were slightly dated it is still one of the best sea adventure films that I have ever seen.
Friday, 4 June 2010
44. BEN-HUR - 1959
The most famous of all the Roman epics is this lengthy, extravagant, most grandiose of films. It tells the story of Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston), a Jewish prince in Jerusalem during the time of Christ. His old friend, Messala (Stephen Boyd), arrives in the city to command the Roman army there. Initially they try to rekindle their old friendship, but their political differences come between them, and when Ben-Hur refuses to tell him the names of Jews who oppose the Roman rule, he is sent as a slave and his family sent to prison. This sets the scene for a film based on the revenge of the Jewish prince.
It is a mammoth production. Everything about the film is huge. From the sweeping vistas to the soaring musical score, it never fails to show the audience that they are watching a giant of a film. A few words need to be said about the cinematography: I cannot think of a film before ‘Ben-Hur’ that reached that stage in production. I can imagine the impact of watching this film in 1959 and being blown away by it. I cannot to this day think of a scene as big as the infamous chariot scene. The speed of the horses and the heat of the sun are really brought to life by the production team.
Heston is a likable hero. This is not a film that one would necessarily watch for great acting performances, but he puts on a good show as the hero of the film. I find Boyd more captivating as the rival to the hero. His character develops over the beginning of the film from believable friend to desperate and treacherous nemisis.
It’s not really a film about the story either. The film is essentially a series of events following the arrival of Messala in Jerusalem and there are scenes/sections of the film that could have been cut without losing the overall impact. This film was made solely for the production values, and it does at time show.
I was surprised to find that in length ‘Ben-Hur’ actually is only the third longest Best Picture winner: both ‘Gone with the Wind’ and ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ are longer, but ‘Ben-Hur’ does feel at times never ending. At times I wanted the film to move at a much slicker pace.
What does elevate this film above many other epics is how it treats religion. There is a wonderful section of the film where the prince is offered a drink of water by a carpenter (Jesus). Later in the film when Jesus is being led to death, Ben-Hur then offers him a drink. It is a powerful moment, and although this section of the film is very dark, it gives Ben-Hur hope and new found faith.
It is not a perfect film, but it is extremely impressive and a film that anyone who loves grand epics should embrace and enjoy immensely.
It is a mammoth production. Everything about the film is huge. From the sweeping vistas to the soaring musical score, it never fails to show the audience that they are watching a giant of a film. A few words need to be said about the cinematography: I cannot think of a film before ‘Ben-Hur’ that reached that stage in production. I can imagine the impact of watching this film in 1959 and being blown away by it. I cannot to this day think of a scene as big as the infamous chariot scene. The speed of the horses and the heat of the sun are really brought to life by the production team.
Heston is a likable hero. This is not a film that one would necessarily watch for great acting performances, but he puts on a good show as the hero of the film. I find Boyd more captivating as the rival to the hero. His character develops over the beginning of the film from believable friend to desperate and treacherous nemisis.
It’s not really a film about the story either. The film is essentially a series of events following the arrival of Messala in Jerusalem and there are scenes/sections of the film that could have been cut without losing the overall impact. This film was made solely for the production values, and it does at time show.
I was surprised to find that in length ‘Ben-Hur’ actually is only the third longest Best Picture winner: both ‘Gone with the Wind’ and ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ are longer, but ‘Ben-Hur’ does feel at times never ending. At times I wanted the film to move at a much slicker pace.
What does elevate this film above many other epics is how it treats religion. There is a wonderful section of the film where the prince is offered a drink of water by a carpenter (Jesus). Later in the film when Jesus is being led to death, Ben-Hur then offers him a drink. It is a powerful moment, and although this section of the film is very dark, it gives Ben-Hur hope and new found faith.
It is not a perfect film, but it is extremely impressive and a film that anyone who loves grand epics should embrace and enjoy immensely.
Thursday, 3 June 2010
45. ALL THE KING'S MEN - 1949
I could be wrong, but I imagine that this 1940s political drama would feature towards the middle of most people’s ranking of the Best Picture Winners. It is a totally solid film even if it is a difficult film to really love.
It is the tale of Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford) a man who is one of the people who wants to take a stand against the corrupt nature of politics by running for county treasurer. Although he does not win the election, he later becomes involved in politics and as he rises up the ladder he becomes more and more corrupt just like the politicians that he was trying to stand against. The film is based on the Pulitizer Prize winning novel of the same name and was loosely based on the story of Huey Long.
It’s a film that is equally relevant now as it was then. Political Scandal still exists as does the general feeling that voters want a leader who thinks about the people above personal gain. From recent leaders like Obama, to the worst dictators in modern history like Hitler and Stalin, all have tried to show that they are essentially one of the people.
The film is not a vivid and cheery number: the cinematography is bleak and dull and it’s not a particularly glamorous film. This makes the film successful. In the midst of this glum surroundings is Stark: someone who brings hope to the people with his sincere and honest speeches.
Crawford is great in this role: he plays the role of politician with studied ease. You can understand how he could have motivated the people and won them over with his brilliant rhetoric and public presence. His rise to power and fall from public grace is measured and largely not overacted, although there are a couple of over the top scenes.
The scene also looks at his relationship with Sadie Burke (Mercedes McCambridge). She gives the best performance in the film: balanced, dignified and commanding of the screen, even though her role is not massive. Their relationship is based around her role as his ambitious and backstabbing political aide and the audience can really believe their relationship would work in the way that it does in the film. The film really does succeed in making the two stories (his rise and fall as a politician along with the adulterous relationship) work at the same time, without feeling that one of the stories is being pushed into the background.
For a film made in the 1940s it is not glossy and sumptuous, but instead is one of the first Oscar winners that tries to bring realism to the screen. There are times when the film has its over the top moments that don’t fit into the film’s gritty nature, but on the whole this is a relevant and intelligent film that has aged well over the years and should be essential viewing for anyone interested in political dramas.
It is the tale of Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford) a man who is one of the people who wants to take a stand against the corrupt nature of politics by running for county treasurer. Although he does not win the election, he later becomes involved in politics and as he rises up the ladder he becomes more and more corrupt just like the politicians that he was trying to stand against. The film is based on the Pulitizer Prize winning novel of the same name and was loosely based on the story of Huey Long.
It’s a film that is equally relevant now as it was then. Political Scandal still exists as does the general feeling that voters want a leader who thinks about the people above personal gain. From recent leaders like Obama, to the worst dictators in modern history like Hitler and Stalin, all have tried to show that they are essentially one of the people.
The film is not a vivid and cheery number: the cinematography is bleak and dull and it’s not a particularly glamorous film. This makes the film successful. In the midst of this glum surroundings is Stark: someone who brings hope to the people with his sincere and honest speeches.
Crawford is great in this role: he plays the role of politician with studied ease. You can understand how he could have motivated the people and won them over with his brilliant rhetoric and public presence. His rise to power and fall from public grace is measured and largely not overacted, although there are a couple of over the top scenes.
The scene also looks at his relationship with Sadie Burke (Mercedes McCambridge). She gives the best performance in the film: balanced, dignified and commanding of the screen, even though her role is not massive. Their relationship is based around her role as his ambitious and backstabbing political aide and the audience can really believe their relationship would work in the way that it does in the film. The film really does succeed in making the two stories (his rise and fall as a politician along with the adulterous relationship) work at the same time, without feeling that one of the stories is being pushed into the background.
For a film made in the 1940s it is not glossy and sumptuous, but instead is one of the first Oscar winners that tries to bring realism to the screen. There are times when the film has its over the top moments that don’t fit into the film’s gritty nature, but on the whole this is a relevant and intelligent film that has aged well over the years and should be essential viewing for anyone interested in political dramas.
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
46. IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - 1967
There are some films that are made that are symbols of the era in which they were made, and ‘In the Heat of the Night’ sums up entirely the racial and social tensions present in America during the 1960s. It is not a preachy piece about race however, as it comes with a wonderful murder mystery which is equally as notable as the social aspects which it portrays.
Sidney Poitier is Virgil Tibbs, a black Mississippi-born detective working in Philadelphia. He goes to visit his mother in the southern state and whilst there, a rich, white tycoon is found dead. Race is enough for the local police to arrest the detective, although he is released when they find out about his profession. Rod Steiger is the Sheriff who has to then put aside his prejudice in order to let Poitier help his solve the murder.
It is difficult to discuss the mystery aspect of the film without giving too much away, but it is enough to say that it takes the viewer down a number of exciting twists and turns before revealing an ending that I think may just be the biggest surprise that I have ever seen on screen. The direction with the excellent script manages to keep the suspense throughout.
It is perhaps more important to comment on the racial aspects of the film as it is this that probably largely helped the film to win more than the murder story. There are countless films out their about racial prejudice that paint one sided characters throughout. Compare this to ‘Crash’ and the differences are remarkable. In ‘Crash’ all the characters have a place to play in the plot and there is no character development, as that would have halted the story. That is why ‘Crash’ is not a very good film. In ‘In the Heat of the Night’ the characters are so complex and interesting that they become believable people rather than just objects in a plot.
Tibbs has suffered from racism in his life. That does not make him into a bitter one-sided character, but instead he is balanced, poised, but has not shut these memories out of his head, and this shows. Sheriff Gillespie is even more interesting. He is bigoted and initially cruel, but the character grows in a believable way. Steiger was given the Oscar for his balanced and realistic performance.
Of all the Oscar winners that I had not seen before, I was most sceptical about watching this. I expected a dated and patronising film about stereotypical racism in southern America, but instead I was rewarded with a thoughtful and intelligent film with real feeling, a great storyline, and smooth direction that makes you feel how Mississippi was in the 1960s. Admittedly, my choice would have been ‘The Graduate’, one of my all time favourite films, but this is still a worthy winner.
Sidney Poitier is Virgil Tibbs, a black Mississippi-born detective working in Philadelphia. He goes to visit his mother in the southern state and whilst there, a rich, white tycoon is found dead. Race is enough for the local police to arrest the detective, although he is released when they find out about his profession. Rod Steiger is the Sheriff who has to then put aside his prejudice in order to let Poitier help his solve the murder.
It is difficult to discuss the mystery aspect of the film without giving too much away, but it is enough to say that it takes the viewer down a number of exciting twists and turns before revealing an ending that I think may just be the biggest surprise that I have ever seen on screen. The direction with the excellent script manages to keep the suspense throughout.
It is perhaps more important to comment on the racial aspects of the film as it is this that probably largely helped the film to win more than the murder story. There are countless films out their about racial prejudice that paint one sided characters throughout. Compare this to ‘Crash’ and the differences are remarkable. In ‘Crash’ all the characters have a place to play in the plot and there is no character development, as that would have halted the story. That is why ‘Crash’ is not a very good film. In ‘In the Heat of the Night’ the characters are so complex and interesting that they become believable people rather than just objects in a plot.
Tibbs has suffered from racism in his life. That does not make him into a bitter one-sided character, but instead he is balanced, poised, but has not shut these memories out of his head, and this shows. Sheriff Gillespie is even more interesting. He is bigoted and initially cruel, but the character grows in a believable way. Steiger was given the Oscar for his balanced and realistic performance.
Of all the Oscar winners that I had not seen before, I was most sceptical about watching this. I expected a dated and patronising film about stereotypical racism in southern America, but instead I was rewarded with a thoughtful and intelligent film with real feeling, a great storyline, and smooth direction that makes you feel how Mississippi was in the 1960s. Admittedly, my choice would have been ‘The Graduate’, one of my all time favourite films, but this is still a worthy winner.
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
47. HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - 1941
John Ford won four awards for directing, more than any other director in the history of the Oscars, but ‘How Green Was My Valley’ was the only one to also scoop the best picture award. It is easily the most famous film ever made to be set in Wales, and is also regarded as was of the least deserving Best Picture wins as it saw off competition from ‘Citizen Kane’ a film often regarded as the best film ever made.
It is a film told in flashback by Huw Morgan (Roddy McDowall) about his childhood in rural Wales at the turn of the last Century. The film looks at the changes in religion, economics and values over his childhood, especially at how the family struggle with the introduction of industry into the area. Maureen O’Hara plays the part of his sister with Walter Pidgeon as her love interest and the local minister.
The film is nothing if not charming. We see all the members of the family change over a period of years, and Ford manages to make us interested in the family. As a viewer we become involved with the characters from the beginning and this is one of the biggest successes of the film. Unfortunately whereas we are made to care about the family, due to the size and scale of the family, and the limitations of the film, some individual members of the family get lost.
Along with the story, the cinematography and music make this film memorable. We see beautiful camerawork, from sweeping scenes of rural Wales to more intimate scenes, and each one looks as if it was made with care: this is not a brash film but one that the makers clearly cared about. The scenes are backed with the tones of welsh male voice choirs. This, again, adds intimacy to the film, and makes it easy to like.
The acting is not the most memorable that I have seen in a Best Picture winner. This is largely because all roles are essentially supporting. Yes, it’s Huw Morgan telling the story, but he is not telling his story, rather the story of the family. O’Hara is pretty to watch, and competent, but it’s not a groundbreaking performance, and I’ve seen Pidgeon in more interesting roles.
‘How Green Was My Valley’ is essentially a heart-warming film about a bygone era, and yet despite its sentimentality, it never feels nauseating. This is largely due to fact that the characters are hardened and tackle anything that is thrown at them with a sense of determination, rather than wallowing in self-pity, and this allows the storyline to develop without getting trapped by the various misfortunes bestowed upon the family. It is a film that should be watched for its merits. It’s not ‘Citizen Kane’, but it is a very respectable and expertly directed piece of classic cinema and for that it should be acknowledged.
It is a film told in flashback by Huw Morgan (Roddy McDowall) about his childhood in rural Wales at the turn of the last Century. The film looks at the changes in religion, economics and values over his childhood, especially at how the family struggle with the introduction of industry into the area. Maureen O’Hara plays the part of his sister with Walter Pidgeon as her love interest and the local minister.
The film is nothing if not charming. We see all the members of the family change over a period of years, and Ford manages to make us interested in the family. As a viewer we become involved with the characters from the beginning and this is one of the biggest successes of the film. Unfortunately whereas we are made to care about the family, due to the size and scale of the family, and the limitations of the film, some individual members of the family get lost.
Along with the story, the cinematography and music make this film memorable. We see beautiful camerawork, from sweeping scenes of rural Wales to more intimate scenes, and each one looks as if it was made with care: this is not a brash film but one that the makers clearly cared about. The scenes are backed with the tones of welsh male voice choirs. This, again, adds intimacy to the film, and makes it easy to like.
The acting is not the most memorable that I have seen in a Best Picture winner. This is largely because all roles are essentially supporting. Yes, it’s Huw Morgan telling the story, but he is not telling his story, rather the story of the family. O’Hara is pretty to watch, and competent, but it’s not a groundbreaking performance, and I’ve seen Pidgeon in more interesting roles.
‘How Green Was My Valley’ is essentially a heart-warming film about a bygone era, and yet despite its sentimentality, it never feels nauseating. This is largely due to fact that the characters are hardened and tackle anything that is thrown at them with a sense of determination, rather than wallowing in self-pity, and this allows the storyline to develop without getting trapped by the various misfortunes bestowed upon the family. It is a film that should be watched for its merits. It’s not ‘Citizen Kane’, but it is a very respectable and expertly directed piece of classic cinema and for that it should be acknowledged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)