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.
Monday, 29 November 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)