1984 - Places in the Heart

Celebrity sighting #34: Whilst performing my ushering duties, Isabella Rossellini entered the theatre to be seated in the second row, which unfortunately meant I could only see the back of her fairly distant head owing to the fact that I was positioned in the back row. My colleagues assured me over the walkie that it was indeed the daughter of Ingrid Bergman, so I took their word for it.

(For the record, the number 34 is entirely fabricated. I am not, in fact, keeping a tally of my star-struckedness.)

Moving on...

The epic movie marathon that was the 1956 Best Picture race is now over and I must admit that, when I sat down to watch the next film for Matt vs. the Academy, it was nice to know that I wouldn't be spending over three hours in front of the television screen. The first of 1984's nominees was...

Places in the Heart

Director:

Robert Benton

Screenplay:

Robert Benton

Starring:

Sally Field, Lindsay Crouse, Ed Harris, Amy Madigan, John Malkovich, Danny Glover

Academy Awards:

7 nominations

2 wins, for Best Actress and Best Original Screenplay

In Waxahachie, Texas, during the Great Depression, Edna Spalding is attempting to recover from the devastating loss of her husband. In order to keep her two children housed and fed, she desperately needs to earn some cash. Since she is unable to afford the mortgage repayments, the bank manager urges her to sell the house. But Edna has a better idea. On the advice of a friendly unemployed black man named Moses, she plants cotton on her farm. The bank manager is unconvinced of this solution, so he persuades her to take on his blind brother-in-law as a tenant to help with the repayments. Battling a tornado, a slump in the cotton market and all sorts of prejudices - racism, sexism and blindism - this unlikely group must work together to bring in the crop.

Places in the Heart begins with a very slow pace. It's the deep South. It's the Depression. Understandably, things are slow. Even the accidental death of Edna's husband only heightens the film's energy briefly. However, the characters are so intriguing that it's enjoyable to spend time with this unlikely collection of acquaintances. I was definitely hooked by the story's powerful intensity. The tornado sequence, in particular, was genuinely heart-stopping, as was the tension created when Mr. Will, the blind man, attempts to rescue Moses from a Ku Klux Klan gang.

Speaking of the blind man, perhaps I've been spoiled by Al Pacino, but John Malkovich's eyes were not quite convincingly sightless. Maybe that's being picky, though. Sally Field (pictured) is affecting in the role that won her a second Oscar, prompting her famous acceptance speech, "You like me!" Also noteworthy is Danny Glover as Moses. Plus, for Lost fans, Terry O'Quinn, a.k.a. John Locke, appears in a supporting role.

As if the themes of death, the Depression and racism were not serious enough, writer-director Robert Benton also includes a major subplot involving the infidelity of Edna's brother-in-law. Heavy. It all works perfectly, though, without slipping into melodrama. One of the most moving scenes in the entire film is the very final shot. I'm not entirely sure I understood the exact meaning behind it, but it was powerful, nonetheless. That's precisely what I love about the art of film. It can make you feel all sorts of unexpected things without having the foggiest clue as to why you're feeling them.

Best Picture of 1956

Not one of the five previous verdicts over which I have pondered has been an easy task. The decision for the Best Picture of 1956 is certainly no exception. Due to my involvement in StinkyLulu's Supporting Actress Smackdown of the same year, three more films from 1956 crept into my viewing schedule and, as I already indicated, some of these additional films had me wishing they were in the Best Picture race. Nonetheless, I am to choose from the five films the Academy selected and so it shall be done.

The nominees for Best Picture of 1956 are:

• Around the World in 80 Days
• Friendly Persuasion
• Giant
• The King and I
• The Ten Commandments

1956 was certainly a year for epic films. Three of the contenders clock in at over three hours, but interestingly, these three epics are of completely different genres - one is Biblical, another comic adventure, the third an intimate family saga. So, as always, it becomes difficult to compare them with each other. As for the two shorter films - which are both still over two hours - we have a Broadway musical adaptation and a film which I'm not quite sure how to categorise since it contains elements from several genres - western, drama, war, comedy, family. For that reason, and the fact that it simply emits a less important vibe than the other four, I will remove Friendly Persuasion from my shortlist first.

Of the remaining four, any could be labelled my favourite. They each succeeded in their own particular way. The King and I is charming and beautiful, yet it remains overly sentimental. Around the World in 80 Days is certainly a fun adventure, offering some stunning cinematography, but its tendency to draw out certain sequences makes for an erratic pace. The Ten Commandments is a spectacle of design and visual effects with a weighty sensibility, but it is perhaps this self-important weight that left a funny taste in my mouth.

That leaves us with Giant, although, honestly, it's a very close call. Giant is not without flaws, but it emerged with more engaging emotional content than the others, largely owing to its performances. Hence, Giant shall be named my favourite of 1956.

Best Picture of 1956
Academy's choice: Around the World in 80 Days	Matt's choice: Giant

Your choice:

Don't forget to make your own voice heard by voting for your favourite 1956 Best Picture nominee above. Some of the previous votes have become very interesting, so check out those results, too. You can access them on their respective verdict pages by clicking on the years on the sidebar to the right. Next up we move to the 1980s...

And the nominees for Best Picture of 1984 are:

• Amadeus
• The Killing Fields
• A Passage to India
• Places in the Heart
• A Soldier's Story

Join me as we continue the ride through Academy Awards history with a year full of movies dealing with some fairly serious subject matter.

1956 - Around the World in 80 Days

As I complete the Best Picture nominees from 1956, make sure you check out the Supporting Actress Smackdown for the same year, which StinkyLulu has now posted. A lively discussion of the nominees for that race can be found there, including my own musings. Fascinating stuff, indeed.

Saturday night was my first Halloween in New York and an impressive sight it was. The effort that the people of this city go to is spectacular. The weather was atrocious and yet the party-goers were out in droves. Kat and I joined the multitudes lining Sixth Avenue to catch a glimpse of the parade. That experience was less than pleasant, mostly due to the discomfort provided by the rain and the crowds, but observing the array of creatively attired people wandering through Union Square more than made up for it. Some very inventive costumes everywhere we looked. We felt quite inadequate with our witch's hat and skeleton mask.

In my previous post, I erroneously cited the project's next film as the longest of the nominees due to the equally erroneous information on Netflix's website. In any case, to conclude the 1956 Best Picture contest, yesterday I watched...

Around the World in 80 Days

Director:

Michael Anderson

Screenplay:

James Poe, John Farrow & S.J. Perelman

(based on the novel by Jules Verne)

Starring:

David Niven, Cantinflas, Robert Newton, Shirley MacLaine and dozens of star cameos

Academy Awards:

8 nominations

5 wins, including Best Picture

Similar to fellow Best Picture nominee The Ten Commandments, producer Michael Todd's grand opus Around the World in 80 Days begins oddly with a hosted introduction. Unlike DeMille's picture, however, the introduction is not by the film's director, but by popular broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow, the first of a great many cameos in the film. He throws to clips of the silent classic A Trip to The Moon, considered to be the first science fiction movie ever produced, before the main feature begins.

Phileas Fogg is a wealthy English gentleman of the 19th century with far too much time and money on his hands. While at his gentlemen's club playing whist with his peers, the discussion turns to the advances in long-distance passenger transportation. Fogg comments that it would now be possible to circumnavigate the globe within eighty days, a claim doubted by his colleagues. A wager is set and the race is on. To accompany him on the trip, Fogg brings along his new valet, the highly resourceful and multi-talented Passepartout. Following them closely is Inspector Fix, who intends to arrest Fogg on suspicion of robbing the Bank of England. Using various methods of transport, they travel through Europe, Asia and North America, experiencing the local customs, in their attempt to return to London in time to win the bet.

Around the World in 80 Days is a charming adventure with a great deal of humour. My biggest gripe about it, though, is not so much the length itself, but the fact that it is an unnecessary length. There are simply too many sections that are drawn out gratuitously. The introduction is a prime example. We are shown clips of a classic French short film. The link to the main feature that follows is tenuous. Both stories are based on works by Jules Verne, but I imagine, just like The Ten Commandments, it is intended to instill in its audience a sense of wonderment and grandeur. Perhaps this is simply a convention to which a modern audience cannot relate, because I found myself merely wishing for the film to begin already.

Thankfully, once the introduction is complete, the story begins quickly. Fogg and Passepartout are in a hot air balloon (pictured) before you know it, having begun their race around the world. But the excitement from the thrill of the deadline does not last long. Once in Spain, there is an elongated bullfight scene that, although comical, could easily have been shortened by half without affecting the plot. And it continues this way through most of the film. With myriad sequences of local sights and customs, it almost feels like a geography lesson.

It's a double-edge sword, I suppose. On the one hand, the episodic feel of the film allows for an interesting and enjoyable diversity. On the other, we only catch a glimpse of each new mini-story and its characters that we are simply not invested enough in the outcome. However, I'm not convinced this is the source material's fault. The lingering shots of the dazzling locations are at the expense of much needed detail in the subplots.

After spending the majority of my review complaining about the film's gratuitousness, let me shift gears now in order to avoid giving the wrong impression. On the positive side - and there are honestly plenty of positives - the humour in the film is delightful and it is chock full of clever adventure. Fogg is constantly needing to be innovative to overcome the various obstacles. Plus, no method of transport is left undiscovered, allowing such gems as, "Follow that rickshaw," to be followed a few minutes later by, "Follow that ostrich." The final hour of the film regains some of that exhilarating urgency as they approach the conclusion of their journey. There is a particularly exciting action sequence on the train to New York, involving some stereotypically hostile Native Americans, made all the more amusing when several arrows miraculously bounce off Passepartout's body.

David Niven is highly amusing as the snobbish Phileas Fogg, the perfect complement to Cantinflas' adorably entertaining Passepartout. A young Shirley MacLaine plays an Indian Princess saved from a fiery death. Although from the subcontinent, her character got her education in England, and it seems she may have gotten her complexion there, as well. And then there are the numerous cameos. In fact, this film is often credited with coining the term 'cameo'. My favourite was Peter Lorre as the Asian steward of an ocean liner. And don't blink or you'll miss Frank Sinatra.

That concludes the nominees for 1956. The verdict is up next and, like my previous verdict for 2001, no one film is standing out as a clear favourite. So, yet again, my brain has its work cut out.

1956 - Giant

An interesting thing is happening as I review the films from 1956. As I mentioned previously, along with the Best Picture nominees, I am also watching the nominees from the Supporting Actress category for a Smackdown to be posted this Sunday at StinkyLulu's blog. The interesting thing is that I seem to be enjoying the supporting actresses' films more than the ones nominated for Best Picture. Written on the Wind and Baby Doll, for example, had me engaged on a deeper level than any of the Picture nominees so far. Not that I've specifically disliked any of them. I guess, as an actor, I'm simply bound to be drawn to films that contain more Oscar worthy performances.

Interestingly, the next film in Matt vs. the Academy, is not only the sole film to appear on both the Best Picture and Best Supporting Actress nominations list, but it also stars actors from the two films I mentioned above, namely Rock Hudson from Written on the Wind and Carroll Baker from Baby Doll. Coincidence? Probably. The film in question, which I viewed today, is...

Giant

Director:

George Stevens

Screenplay:

Fred Guiol and Ivan Moffat

(based on the novel by Edna Ferber)

Starring:

Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, James Dean, Carroll Baker, Chill Wills, Mercedes McCambridge, Dennis Hopper

Academy Awards:

10 nominations

1 win, for Best Director

As its title suggests, Giant is a big film about a big family living in a big state. The Benedicts are a wealthy Texan family with acres of ranch land. When the head of the family, Bick, brings home his new bride from Maryland, things become a bit rocky. Leslie is a bit of a feminist and Texan men are not in the mood for changing their traditions. Ranch handyman Jett is somewhat unpopular, but when Bick's sister dies, leaving a small piece of land to Jett, Bick can only stand by as Jett discovers oil, becoming wealthier than the Benedicts ever could have imagined. Time goes by and Bick and Leslie have three children, but it's his only son that Bick dotes over, expecting him to take over the ranch one day. But Jordy has other plans. Not only does he want to become a doctor, but he also falls for a Mexican-American woman, both cause for his father's disdain.

At well over three hours long, Giant certainly lives up to its name. It is a saga. But it's an intimate saga. Although the ranch is massive, the people living on it are still subject to the same human condition. They love, they fear, they fight, they learn. Director George Stevens is constantly obscuring his characters from view, behind newspapers or in darkness, as if to highlight how small they become amongst such a grand landscape.

Perhaps also it is symbolic of how hidden they are from each other. The main couple, Bick and Leslie, have opposing ideals. He is a traditionalist, she a progressive. Bick lives in a world where men are men and women are not. Leslie, with her feminism and humanitarianism, doesn't seem to fit in, but even she has her own prejudices. For instance, when her daughter shows an interest in ranching, Leslie is downright against it, preferring her to pursue a more refined career, one more suitable for a lady.

The film explores the dichotomy between our plans for the future and the reality. Bick, especially, struggles with letting go of tradition in a changing world. He is denied his vision of passing on the reins (literally) to his son. To add insult to injury, his ex-handyman becomes the richest man in Texas. In the end, however, he learns to adjust. Where once he supported the segregation of Mexican-Americans, he now stands up for their right to eat in the same diner as everyone else.

For its righteous themes, however, Giant contains a great deal of seemingly unnecessary fistfighting. As was standard in those days, throwing a punch seemed to be the only respected way to resolve an issue. I thought perhaps Bick had finally learned his lesson when he felt ashamed after a fight, but his shame was not from resorting to violence, but that he lost. He is buoyed by his wife, who even describes the altercation as "glorious", proud that her husband stood up for a worthy cause. It's as if to say, "Well, you may not have won, but at least you threw the first punch." Really? Is this sort of caveman attitude to be glorified? Or perhaps I misunderstood and the whole point was to represent the flaws in this kind of masculinity, especially in Texas.

James Dean, in his final role, exudes a unique energy, enough to garner him his second posthumous Oscar nomination. Elizabeth Taylor gives a mature performance beyond her years. She was just 23 years old when the film was shot, one year younger than Carroll Baker, who played her daughter. We are also treated to an impressive (and very young) Dennis Hopper as Jordy.

Only one more picture from 1956 to go, the longest one yet. Longer, in fact, than the first two 1956 nominees I watched put together!

1956 - The Ten Commandments

Braving Saturday night's miserable weather here in New York, Kat and I enjoyed a tasty meal in Little Italy before heading to an improv show. Not just any improv show, mind you. This one comprised of two stars of television's Whose Line Is It Anyway?, namely Colin Mochrie and Brad Sherwood. As an improviser myself, I always feel a tinge of envy watching other performers bring the house down, and these two were certainly no exception. It was positively inspirational to be witness to their quick-witted minds. The highlight is their grand finale, a backwards alphabet scene. Not so spectacular, I hear you say, but before the scene begins, stage hands littered the floor with 100 mousetraps. The scene is then performed with Colin and Brad barefoot and wearing blindfolds. Nothing short of hilarious. They have an extensive list of tour dates around the country, so definitely check them out if they come to your town. Tour dates are on their website.

Sunday was a lazier day, despite the weather being much more agreeable. In the afternoon, we had the chance to watch the epic that is the next nominee from 1956's Best Picture race...

The Ten Commandments

Director:

Cecil B. DeMille

Screenplay:

Æneas MacKenzie, Jesse L. Lasky, Jr., Jack Gariss, Fredric M. Frank

(based on three separate novels by J.H. Ingraham, A.E. Southon, Dorothy Clarke Wilson)

Starring:

Charlton Heston, Yul Brynner, Anne Baxter, Edward G. Robinson, Yvonne De Carlo

Academy Awards:

7 nominations

1 win, for Best Special Effects

A film of literally Biblical proportions, The Ten Commandments oddly begins with the director himself delivering a personal introduction. Stepping out from behind a majestic curtain, Mr. DeMille, with no hint of irony, announces just how important the following presentation is. After his absurd yet sincere plea for his motion picture to be considered alongside the Bible itself, the opening credits continue the grandstanding before the film finally begins.

Little baby Moses is reluctantly abandoned by his mother, who fears for his safety when the Pharaoh decrees that all Hebrew babies shall be killed. With a stroke of luck, it is the Pharaoh's own daughter who discovers the child, taking him in as her own to live the life of an Egyptian prince. Thirty years later, Moses is being considered for the throne along with his cousin, Rameses, who feels a sense of entitlement on account of the fact he is the current Pharaoh's son. With the throne also comes the hand of the beautiful Nefretiri, who has already given her heart to Moses, more fodder for Rameses' dislike of him. Moses' successful construction of a new city, partly attributed to his respect for the Hebrew slaves, wins the favour of the Pharaoh. However, before he is offered the throne, his true identity as the son of Hebrew slaves is revealed, forcing him to be ejected from Egypt. After a chat with the Almighty himself, Moses realises his destiny as the man to free the Hebrew people from slavery.

I am compelled to admit that I had a little difficulty with The Ten Commandments. Although I found the monumentally epic nature of the film entertaining, I struggled to keep my personal views on religion at bay. Perhaps if it were any other story, I may not have cared so much, but I guess I took exception at DeMille's own claims of authenticity. In his defense, there is a great deal of attention to detail put in to the historical accuracy of the time period, but to claim to have any more than one source for the religious elements of the story is simply ludicrous. Plus, at the risk of offending any Biblical inerrantists, if this were any other story, we'd all be commenting on the film's plot holes.

Okay, now that I've got that out of the way, I freely confess that the film's enormity is very impressive. Being a Cecil B. DeMille picture, we are graced with several awe-inspiring sequences involving thousands of extras and grand locations. Some of the film was, in fact, shot in Egypt using colossal sets built into the sweeping desert landscapes. Even the Oscar-winning special effects, which are fairly unconvincing by today's standards, must have been astonishing to a 1950s audience.

There is no denying, of course, that the story is a classic one - a tale of good versus evil with heroes and villains galore. Moses is almost portrayed as an action hero, diving to save an old woman from a crushing block of stone or swooping in to protect young Midian women from Amalekite bullies. His perfectly windswept hair constantly appears as though he just stepped out of the salon. The stark white, not grey, beard of old Moses, however, is perhaps a little laughable. Nonetheless, his words - and everyone else's, for that matter - are very poetic. There's a classic lyrical quality to the dialogue that creates quite a distinguished feel.

Yul Brynner, in opposition to the pantomime quality he brought to The King and I, shows versatility here in an intensely restrained performance as Rameses. Still, the Academy chose to award him the Best Actor Oscar for playing a Siamese King, rather than an Egyptian Pharaoh. And that's Charlton Heston's own son playing the baby Moses.