Nominated for Best Actor (Leslie Howard), Best Actress (Wendy Hiller), Outstanding Production, and Screenplay Writing in 1938.
Until a few years ago, I totally thought this was an interpretation of some obscure Greek myth. You guys - it's totally "My Fair Lady"! The Rex Harrison film was based on this one, which was in turn based on a George Bernard Shaw play of the same name. We see the story of Eliza, a flower girl, and Henry, a prick. Henry is a hot shot diction teacher (because apparently that was a thing?) who makes a bet with his friend that he can turn Eliza the Gutter Rat into Lady Eliza that can Pass for a Duchess within six months. He succeeds so swimmingly that not only does Eliza pass for a duchess, she's so mysterious and lovely that she is assumed to be a princess.
The sets and costumes were completely gorgeous here. Particularly Eliza's ball gown, which is a gown that I can see any woman clamoring for today - it is exemplary of the fashion of the day but still completely stylish and royal.
This film is placed into the romantic genre, and as of many of its ilk I have a problem with the romance bit. The movie was a treat to watch, but fell to a lack of romance. We only learn that our main characters have feelings for one another well into the third act, and even then the emotions seemed like what the characters should feel, rather than what they choose to feel. "Welp. I'm here, and you're here, and we've put all this time into this thing, so we should probably . . . yeah?" No sweeping off feet, no flirtation. One could argue that there is passion in the arguments they fling, but romance? I didn't feel it.
It's astounding to see the way that cinema changed in only one short year. This was released in 1938, only one year before movies like "The Wizard of Oz" and "Gone with the Wind." This movie seems almost primitive compared to those epics but it only detracts from the charm at the beginning, and then I became accustomed to the shaky camera work and painted landscapes.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Possessed
Nominated for Best Actress (Joan Crawford) in 1947.
When I think of old school Hollywood sirens, images of histrionics, of smashing perfect eyebrows and pouty mouths on brawny men's chests, and lots of clutching of chests and faces are the first to come to mind. That's a terrible way to think, because these women are so much more than that, and also because there's surprisingly little of those images that actually occur in the movies.
Except in this one. There's a lot of flailing, but for good reason. Joan Crawford plays a home nurse who falls for the local gigolo. He spurns her love, and in an unrelated turn of events, she slowly loses her mind. The movie gave a surprisingly accurate depiction of the onset and diagnosis of schizophrenia, so accurate in fact that the film is sited in a 2003 text called "Reel Psychiatry" (which I highly recommend). I never would have imagined such a portrayal could have come in 1947, especially since mental illness is almost infallibly misrepresented in modern films. Curtis Bernhardt did a wonderful job of setting up tension and making the audience question Louise's reality.
So am still getting used to the styles of films made over half a century ago, but I am enjoying every minute of it. It's actually becoming more immersive for me, I think because of what I am so used to watching for 30 years. So I got that going for me. Which is nice.
When I think of old school Hollywood sirens, images of histrionics, of smashing perfect eyebrows and pouty mouths on brawny men's chests, and lots of clutching of chests and faces are the first to come to mind. That's a terrible way to think, because these women are so much more than that, and also because there's surprisingly little of those images that actually occur in the movies.
Except in this one. There's a lot of flailing, but for good reason. Joan Crawford plays a home nurse who falls for the local gigolo. He spurns her love, and in an unrelated turn of events, she slowly loses her mind. The movie gave a surprisingly accurate depiction of the onset and diagnosis of schizophrenia, so accurate in fact that the film is sited in a 2003 text called "Reel Psychiatry" (which I highly recommend). I never would have imagined such a portrayal could have come in 1947, especially since mental illness is almost infallibly misrepresented in modern films. Curtis Bernhardt did a wonderful job of setting up tension and making the audience question Louise's reality.
So am still getting used to the styles of films made over half a century ago, but I am enjoying every minute of it. It's actually becoming more immersive for me, I think because of what I am so used to watching for 30 years. So I got that going for me. Which is nice.
The Passion of the Christ
Nominated for Cinematography, Makeup, and Music in 2004.
*long, long, drawn out sigh*
I really feel like there has been enough talk about this movie. I'm definitely going to try to not raise any theological opinions here, because . . . well, just because. It's been done to death and I don't know anything, truly, about either side of the argument. I will admit to avoiding this movie for a very long time. Partly because it was described to me as anything from torture porn to Christian propaganda. I don't really think I agree with either of those assessments (and will note that the folks who called it torture porn have obviously never seen torture porn). It's also getting harder and harder for me to separate Mel Gibson from the art he makes, sadly.
It really was a beautifully made movie. The shots were incredible, a few of them actually breathtaking, but in all fairness - how could they not be with literal centuries of iconography from which they came? And casting actors who are largely (if not completely) unknown in the country you intend to distribute shows a true commitment to your subject, which I respect no matter how much I may agree or disagree with your vision. Not to mention the choice to make the film in a two thousand year old dead language.
My biggest complaint about the movie is that I felt it presumed that the viewer would already know the story of the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus. I don't, so I was a little lost at a couple points in the movie.
Last Summer
Nominated for Best Supporting Actress (Catherine Burns) in 1969.
"Last Summer" is pretty high on my list of The Most Disturbing Movies I Have Ever Seen.
Sandy, Dan, and Peter meet while their families vacation for a summer on Fire Island. The three rescue a wounded seagull, and thus ends any redemptive acts. Sandy is manipulative, Dan is arrogant, and Peter might have had a chance to be sensitive and kind had he never met the other two. They get drunk, get high, play games that center around revealing terrible secrets, and face no accountability due to absent and clueless parents. The three meet Rhoda, a nervous and shy girl who is also vacationing, and she tries to befriend the three. This angers Sandy, as she is very possessive of her male friends, and Rhoda quickly becomes the butt of many an antic.
This is a character driven movie. The beach scenes are of course beautiful, but other than that scenery and sets are unremarkable. The focus remains entirely on the deviant personalities of the stars and the flawed persona of Rhoda, and to that end it is completely successful.
The movie ends so painfully and abruptly that it is jaw dropping. My jaw literally dropped. I've been thinking about this movie for a few days now, wondering how to write about it. I think if you asked "well, did you like the movie?" I would answer that yes, I did, but I don't know if could tell you why, and I certainly would advise you to proceed with awareness that you will not feel good when it is over.
"Last Summer" is pretty high on my list of The Most Disturbing Movies I Have Ever Seen.
Sandy, Dan, and Peter meet while their families vacation for a summer on Fire Island. The three rescue a wounded seagull, and thus ends any redemptive acts. Sandy is manipulative, Dan is arrogant, and Peter might have had a chance to be sensitive and kind had he never met the other two. They get drunk, get high, play games that center around revealing terrible secrets, and face no accountability due to absent and clueless parents. The three meet Rhoda, a nervous and shy girl who is also vacationing, and she tries to befriend the three. This angers Sandy, as she is very possessive of her male friends, and Rhoda quickly becomes the butt of many an antic.
This is a character driven movie. The beach scenes are of course beautiful, but other than that scenery and sets are unremarkable. The focus remains entirely on the deviant personalities of the stars and the flawed persona of Rhoda, and to that end it is completely successful.
The movie ends so painfully and abruptly that it is jaw dropping. My jaw literally dropped. I've been thinking about this movie for a few days now, wondering how to write about it. I think if you asked "well, did you like the movie?" I would answer that yes, I did, but I don't know if could tell you why, and I certainly would advise you to proceed with awareness that you will not feel good when it is over.
The Brave One
Nominated for Film Editing and Original Screenplay in 1956.
When the opening credits rolled on this movie, I was really excited to fall in love. Unfortunately, the star, a young boy, got wildly annoying wildly fast. "The Brave One" tells the story of a young boy in Mexico who rescues a bull and expects to raise it as a pet. Things go well for a while, but via politics and the Mexican tradition and expectations of bull fighting, young Leonardo loses his bull. A lot. Like, a lot. For the better part of a two hour film. He appeals to a rich playboy and eventually takes his plea all the way to El Presidente and the fighting ring in Mexico City.
There were lots of pros here, honestly. The scenery was completely astounding. Everyone always talks about NYC being a main player in every movie in which its featured, but I have never seen a picture in which Mexico City is a star. I might be displaying my ignorance in full form here, but it seems to me pretty progressive that a film was made in Mexico and starred mostly (to the best of my knowledge) unknown Mexican actors in 1956.
I really like the idea of this movie. But the execution, including the performance of the star and the length of the bullfighting sequence, were just a little too much. I would very much like to see a child's reaction as it was made for a younger audience.
Super Fun Oscar Trivia: Dalton Trumbo won an Oscar for his screenplay, but as he was still considered part of the notorious Hollywood 10 he was unable to work in Hollywood during the time this movie was made. His Oscar was given to his pseudonym, but corrected to reflect the correct name in 1975.
When the opening credits rolled on this movie, I was really excited to fall in love. Unfortunately, the star, a young boy, got wildly annoying wildly fast. "The Brave One" tells the story of a young boy in Mexico who rescues a bull and expects to raise it as a pet. Things go well for a while, but via politics and the Mexican tradition and expectations of bull fighting, young Leonardo loses his bull. A lot. Like, a lot. For the better part of a two hour film. He appeals to a rich playboy and eventually takes his plea all the way to El Presidente and the fighting ring in Mexico City.
There were lots of pros here, honestly. The scenery was completely astounding. Everyone always talks about NYC being a main player in every movie in which its featured, but I have never seen a picture in which Mexico City is a star. I might be displaying my ignorance in full form here, but it seems to me pretty progressive that a film was made in Mexico and starred mostly (to the best of my knowledge) unknown Mexican actors in 1956.
I really like the idea of this movie. But the execution, including the performance of the star and the length of the bullfighting sequence, were just a little too much. I would very much like to see a child's reaction as it was made for a younger audience.
Super Fun Oscar Trivia: Dalton Trumbo won an Oscar for his screenplay, but as he was still considered part of the notorious Hollywood 10 he was unable to work in Hollywood during the time this movie was made. His Oscar was given to his pseudonym, but corrected to reflect the correct name in 1975.
Monday, June 18, 2012
A Star is Born
Nominated for Best Actor (James Mason), Best Actress (Judy Garland), Art Direction (Color), Costume Design (Color), and Music Scoring in 1954.
When I tell people that I watched nothing but Judy Garland movies one rainy Sunday, and that this one was my favorite, the reaction is inevitably "EW! That one is my least favorite!" They cite length, heavy handedness, and "it's just so depressing" as reasons, which either speaks volumes of the company I keep or of myself. Probably both, eh? Anyway.
This movie completely blew me away. From Garland's torch song performance to her first starring medley, the music gave me goosebumps. And I am wildly picky about my musicals, man. I tend to not like 'em. But these numbers were beautiful, and the cinematography? Shut. Up. I still marvel at the fact that the cinematographer was not recognized because the shots (especially in the aforementioned famous medley) seemed progressive and visionary.
I will fess up and admit that I go into movies that predate the 70's with certain negative expectations. I'm not proud of that and I am hoping that this project teaches me the err of my opinions. This movie certainly did. I always expect a certain crackle to costumes and clomp to sets that ruins my experience, but I certainly didn't get that here. Everything was lush and dreamlike (sometimes nightmarish), but never crisp and cheap. And the final shot actually made me completely weepy.
Super Oscar Fun Fact - this movie is a remake, and both the stars of this picture and the original were nominated for their performances.
When I tell people that I watched nothing but Judy Garland movies one rainy Sunday, and that this one was my favorite, the reaction is inevitably "EW! That one is my least favorite!" They cite length, heavy handedness, and "it's just so depressing" as reasons, which either speaks volumes of the company I keep or of myself. Probably both, eh? Anyway.
This movie completely blew me away. From Garland's torch song performance to her first starring medley, the music gave me goosebumps. And I am wildly picky about my musicals, man. I tend to not like 'em. But these numbers were beautiful, and the cinematography? Shut. Up. I still marvel at the fact that the cinematographer was not recognized because the shots (especially in the aforementioned famous medley) seemed progressive and visionary.
I will fess up and admit that I go into movies that predate the 70's with certain negative expectations. I'm not proud of that and I am hoping that this project teaches me the err of my opinions. This movie certainly did. I always expect a certain crackle to costumes and clomp to sets that ruins my experience, but I certainly didn't get that here. Everything was lush and dreamlike (sometimes nightmarish), but never crisp and cheap. And the final shot actually made me completely weepy.
Super Oscar Fun Fact - this movie is a remake, and both the stars of this picture and the original were nominated for their performances.
Fat City
Nominated for Best Supporting Actress (Susan Tyrrell) in 1972.
This is another defining 1970's movie for me. Everything looks dirty and like it might smell like my grandfather's old apartment (i.e. smoke and cheese). My first impression of the story was that it was telling the opposing trajectories of two boxers - one up and coming, one down on his luck and struggling. First impression can be gravely wrong however, and the movie strongly comments on race and class struggle. Jeff Bridges is young but otherwise mostly unremarkable, and Stacy Keach (yeah, THAT Stacy Keach) is heartbreaking, but Susan Tyrell will pull your heart out through the back of your chest and then cry sherry soaked tears all over it. We've seen hundreds of drunks in twice as many movies, but this woman gives the most infuriatingly real performance of an alcoholic that I have ever seen.
Also of note is that John Huston, MEGADIRECTOR of the 1940's, directed this movie. He adapted seamlessly into the styles popular by Hal Ashby and Peter Bogdanovich, and might have even done it better than they did. The movie is dated by more than the costumes and cars, unfortunately, down to the pop song that plays over the opening credits and the score (Marvin Hamlisch. AMIRITE?!!?). But the trials the characters face are still relevant to what I see going on in small town America every day.
This is another defining 1970's movie for me. Everything looks dirty and like it might smell like my grandfather's old apartment (i.e. smoke and cheese). My first impression of the story was that it was telling the opposing trajectories of two boxers - one up and coming, one down on his luck and struggling. First impression can be gravely wrong however, and the movie strongly comments on race and class struggle. Jeff Bridges is young but otherwise mostly unremarkable, and Stacy Keach (yeah, THAT Stacy Keach) is heartbreaking, but Susan Tyrell will pull your heart out through the back of your chest and then cry sherry soaked tears all over it. We've seen hundreds of drunks in twice as many movies, but this woman gives the most infuriatingly real performance of an alcoholic that I have ever seen.
Also of note is that John Huston, MEGADIRECTOR of the 1940's, directed this movie. He adapted seamlessly into the styles popular by Hal Ashby and Peter Bogdanovich, and might have even done it better than they did. The movie is dated by more than the costumes and cars, unfortunately, down to the pop song that plays over the opening credits and the score (Marvin Hamlisch. AMIRITE?!!?). But the trials the characters face are still relevant to what I see going on in small town America every day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)