Snugglecub – Page 112 – Academy Award Best Picture Winners

1929 /1930 – Disraeli

Disraeli – 1929 / 1930

This movie was alright, but no better. The story was interesting enough, but the acting suffered from the era in which the film was made. It was an early example of a talkie, so some of the actors did just fine, while others still used the over-exaggerated movements and facial expressions left over from the silent era. Still others delivered all their lines super slow and took special care to fully enunciate every word, as if they were reciting Shakespeare on a stage. The result was a mix of different acting styles that didn’t really match, making the movie feel disjointed.

But the film did have some distinguishing marks that are worthy of note. For example, the lead actor, George Arliss, played the British Prime Minister of 1874, Benjamin Disraeli. Arliss played the politician in the stage play of the same name. He also played the same character in an earlier silent version of the film in 1921. Arliss also won the Oscar for Best Actor for his efforts. I think his acting was just fine, but his makeup was awful. He stood out among the entire cast, looking as though he was wearing a ton of stage makeup.

The plot is about Disraeli’s key involvement in the British purchase of the Suez Canal in Egypt, an action which secured control of India for England. He did it despite opposition from the House of Commons, the Bank of England, and Russian spies who have their own interests at heart. Of course, being a product of 1930s Hollywood, there was also a romantic subplot that takes place between Disraeli’s beautiful admirer, Clarissa Pevency, played by Joan Bennett, and the unambitious and inexperienced Lord Charles Deeford, played by Anthony Bushell. Not only does Disraeli outsmart everyone in the political and international espionage arena, he also plays matchmaker, ultimately bringing the two young lovers together.

Filling out the cast are several supporting characters. Disraeli’s beloved wife, Lady Beaconsfield, is played by George Arliss’ wife, Florence Arliss. Doris Lloyd, Norman Cannon, and Michael Visocoff, playing the Russian spies, Mrs. Travers, Mr. Foljambe, and Count Brosinov. And finally we have the leader of Disraeli’s opposition, Lord Probert, played by David Torrence.

Now, I liked the use of theatrical sets. The large open spaces gave the film a very open feel. For example, the interior of Disraeli’s office had large and unfurnished spaces, giving the actors plenty of room to move around. The walls went up so high that the ceiling could not be seen, even in the wide angle shots. Actors would enter the room from the foreground, as if they were coming in from off-stage. At times, it was as if a stage production of the play were just being filmed.

I also have to give Doris Lloyd proper credit for her final scene. The entire movie, she was one of the worst culprits of the slow over-enunciated Shakespearean acting that would have been good for a live performance, but which worked poorly for a film. People don’t really speak like that. Half the people in the movie didn’t speak like that. But when Disraeli finally got the best of her, causing her to admit defeat, her little smile and nod of acquiescence before exiting the room was perfectly executed, especially after her show of gloating when she thought she had won.

And that brings me to the end of the movie. I didn’t quite understand why a little subplot about Disraeli’s wife getting sick was included. It came in from left field, and made little sense. So, Disraeli has secured the Suez Canal for England, allowing the Queen to add Empress of India to her list of titles, and he is summoned to meet Victoria. But he very nearly declines the honor because his beloved wife is supposedly deathly ill. He doesn’t want to leave her side, but Lord Probert convinces him that attending to the Queen is more important than his dying wife. So he goes. Fine. But then while he is there, his wife suddenly walks in, fully dressed in her sparkly gown, with her hair expertly coifed to within an inch of its life. Huh?!?! I thought she was on her death bed!

Anyway, after doing my little bit of research, reading a few Wikipedia articles, I thought it interesting to note that in the film, when Disraeli was refused funding to buy the Canal from the Bank of England, he turned to Jewish banker, Sir Hugh Myers, played by Ivan F. Simpson, to fund the purchase. In reality he turned to Lionel de Rothschild, bringing to mind the 1934 Best Picture nominee, The House of Rothschild, in which George Arliss played Nathan Rothschild, father of Lionel.

1929 / 1930 – The Big House

The Big House – 1929 / 1930

This was a pretty average movie. It was not too long, but not too short. It had a bit of lead-up and a bit of action, though it was all a bit predictable. The acting wasn’t bad but it wasn’t great. The characters were one-dimensional stereotypes, but they were fun to watch anyway. There was nothing that really made the film stand out as above average, but I still enjoyed watching it.

It starred Wallace Beery as its big name, though he didn’t play the lead. That honor was taken by Chester Morris, playing the part of Morgan, a prison inmate who is in jail for robbery. Beery plays his cellmate, Butch, who is serving a life sentence for multiple murders. At first, I was lead to believe that the leading man was Kent, played by Robert Montgomery, a law-abiding citizen who has been sentenced to 10 years for vehicular manslaughter while driving drunk.

Kent enters the prison as a scared young boy. As the prison is overcrowded, he is placed in a cell with Butch and Morgan. Butch tries to bully him, but Morgan helps protect him. Angry at the disgusting food, and his bleak future, Butch constantly talks about starting a big jail-break, but Morgan is always successful at talking him out of it.

The prison’s warden, played by Lewis Stone, lets Kent know that he can get his sentence reduced if he becomes a stool-pigeon. He endeavors to befriend Butch and Morgan who are the leaders of the inmates in an effort to learn Butch’s plans for breaking out. One day, Morgan’s parole is approved, but through an unfortunate series of events, Kent messes it up for him.

What follows is Morgan’s successful escape, his romance with Kent’s sister, his re-incarceration, and Butch’s attempt at a major prison riot and escape. The riot scene was exciting enough to watch, the slow pace of the film finally picking up for a few minutes. There were inmates and guards running everywhere, lots of machine gun fire, smoke, men getting shot, and tanks.

But I have to mention two things that made me roll my eyes. First was a little thing about an unnamed inmate during the riot sequence. He was the man who, after the prison guards were herded into a cell to await execution as part of Butch’s negotiation tactics, was given the cell keys. He is shot and falls to the floor, apparently dead. Morgan takes the keys and locks the cell, denying Butch access to the hostages. When Morgan takes the keys, he feebly reaches for them and the collapses. Then, several minutes later, when Butch arrives and demands the keys, he suddenly moves again, just enough to point in the direction in which Morgan ran. “Um… I’m not quite dead, sir!”

The other thing which I have to roll my eyes at is the speed with which Morgan’s sister, Anne, played by Leila Hyams, falls in love with Morgan, a man who she knows to be the dangerous escaped criminal. It just goes to show that women in 1929 were all powerless against strong, handsome leading men. And of course, her love inspires Morgan to “go straight” and give up his law-breaking ways. OK – suspension of disbelief.

But the film, despite its obvious flaws, was fun to watch. Beery’s performance, while nothing to write home about, was entertaining, and had a little bit of depth. He portrayed his character as slow, uneducated, and violent, with a complete lack of morals. He casually talks about men and women he’d murdered with the other inmates. His portrayal, if anything, made the movie interesting to watch.

But watch out for the film’s final scene. I say this, not for what happens in the story, but for how abrupt it is. I have found that there are many movies from the late 20s and early 30s that do the same thing. The main story ends, and there is about a minute and a half, if that, of epilogue before the “The End” appears on the screen. It happens so quickly that there seems to have been very little thought behind it. Once the main plot is ended, give a quick nod to closure, and we’re done! Roll credits! A little more of an engaging epilogue would have served this movie well.

1928 / 1929 – The Patriot

This is a film that I cannot find to watch.

1928 / 1929 – In Old Arizona

In Old Arizona – 1928 / 1929

Here we have the first western that was nominated for the Best Picture award. Again, it was made right at the point where the silent era was dying and the talkie era was beginning. That being said, the actors were still acting the only way they knew how. They were making the big gestures and over-exaggerated facial expressions that were necessary for silent films. The subtleties of the new style of acting had not yet taken hold.

It starred Warner Baxter as the Cisco Kid, one of the most infamous criminals of the Old West. He was young, attractive and charming. But he also robbed stagecoaches at gunpoint and that sort of thing. Despite that fact, the film portrayed him as a sympathetic character. For example, he made a point of not stealing from any hard-working individuals. He only robbed businesses which could afford the losses. In fact, when it is revealed that some of what he stole belonged to a common man, he returned it to him with a smile, though he did so without revealing his identity.

He was a rascal who evaded the law, using nothing more than his wit and charm. He toyed with them, always maintaining his anonymity and making them look like fools. Even though he was technically the bad guy, the film portrays him as the hero.

But, all that being said, he had his one weakness, and her name was Tonia Maria. She was played by actress Dorothy Burgess, who incidentally was the worst offender of the “silent movie” style acting in the film. Tonia was a two-timing vamp who was selfish, devious and self-serving. Like most classic vamps, she used sex to get what she wanted, and it was the only way she knew how to behave when dealing with men.

The Cisco Kid was, however, crazy about her. He bought her things and professed his love for her over and over. But there was a fly in the ointment. The army officer charged with bringing in the Kid was Sergeant Mickey Dunn, played by Edmund Lowe. Tonia casts her spell on him and he is smitten with her, as is she of him, despite his arrogance and swagger.

Ah, the dramatic possibilities are endless. But suffice to say, that Tonia gets her just rewards in the end. She is accidentally killed by Dunn. You see, The Cisco Kid learned of her unfaithfulness and her plan to turn him in for the reward money. He engineered the accident and got away scot-free. But that’s alright, since by this point we have been captured by his charismatic charms.

The film was good in that it used authentic locations in Bryce Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, San Fernando Mission and the Mojave Desert. It also had the distinction of being the first talkie to be filmed outdoors, which at the time was a pretty impressive feat. In fact, the use of background sounds, which by today’s standards are taken for granted, such the sizzling of ham and eggs in a frying pan, or the rattle of a stagecoach as it rolls through the desert, were a novelty for the audiences of the 1920s.

However, the film’s biggest flaw was the pacing, which was pretty slow. The movie was just over an hour and a half long, but I think the story could have been easily told in less than an hour.

Interesting note: The original Cisco Kid was a fictional character created by O. Henry in his short story, The Caballero’s Way. He was supposed to be a 25 year-old desperado who killed for sport and was responsible for at least 18 deaths. In this film, he killed no-one.

1928 / 1929 – Hollywood Review

Broadway Review of 1929 – 1928 / 1929

This is going to be a difficult picture to review, mainly because it wasn’t a movie. It was exactly what the title says it is. It is a review. It was a combination of Vaudeville acts, the Ziegfeld Follies, and the Jack Benny Show. It was a show of individual acts that ranged from tap-dancing to acrobatics, from comedy routines to Shakespeare, and from love ballads to ukuleles. There was no story, no plot, no cinematography, few set decorations, and what little artfulness there was came in the form of special effects like turning the image of the dancers to a negative image, or making it appear that a woman was climbing out of a man’s coat pocket.

However, to give fair credit, there were a wide range of costumes and directing choices that added interest. And there was at least one song that I recognized. Who knew that the song Singing in the Rain was a hit before the Gene Kelly movie? And there were also a lot of famous names that are still widely recognized today such as Joan Crawford, Charles King, Anita Page, Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, and Jack Benny. So I suppose this review will have to be a critique of the various acts that stood out to me, and the directing.

The review started out with a song and dance number by the dancing chorus. The sound recording quality was so antiquated that I couldn’t understand what they were singing about. Their choreography was simplistic and poorly executed. It was as if they hadn’t had much time to rehearse and precision was not their top priority. When the troupe of 30 or so dancers extended their arms, they were all at different angles. Every now and then, I could see a dancer who appeared unconfident about his moves. It just started the entire show off with an air of shabbiness.

Next, Jack Benny came on stage, acting as the emcee and spouting inane banter that was supposed to be funny. Unfortunately, the jokes were obvious and clearly scripted. I’m sorry, but a joke generally isn’t funny if you can see the punchline coming. Case in point: The Laurel and Hardy sketch. Their physical humor and sight gags were mildly amusing, but when a gigantic cake is brought out, what do you think is going to happen? Of course Oliver Hardy falls over and does a face plant into the cake. It only would have been funny if I hadn’t seen it coming.

Anyway, a very young Joan Crawford had a song and dance that wasn’t too bad, though it was a far cry from Mildred Pierce or allegations of Mommy Dearest. Also, Charles King’s singing was very polished in the song Your Mother and Mine. Comedian Cliff Edwards had a few mildly amusing bits and actually got the song Singing In the Rain.

There was an enactment of Romeo and Juliet’s Balcony scene that was filmed in Technicolor with Norma Shearer and John Gilbert. First it was played out straight, but then, played out a second time, using contemporary slang instead of Shakespearean language. For example, Juliet would say “Now listen boyfriend. You have a nice line of chatter, but how do I know you care for me in a big way?” to which Romeo would reply, “Julie, baby, I’m gaga about you. No kiddin’ Honey.”

Girl tossing was a favorite game during the acrobatic numbers which showed lines of men tossing young women back and forth like rag dolls. And more than one act featured men in drag. Then, in a memorable scene, a bunch of young women were lying in beds as if sleeping, when a host of dancers in truly terrifying masks hypnotized them, forced them to dance, and then supposedly dragged them off to a fiery abyss. Creepy. Beyond strange, and creepy.

But though most of the acts are pretty unmemorable for modern audiences, I know why this film was nominated for Best Picture, despite the fact that it had no plot. There were two reasons. First, it was one of Hollywood’s earliest examples of a feature length film that used sound. And second, the performers were some of Tinsel Town’s biggest headliners in 1929. The film had a budget of $426,000, and made a profit of $1.1 million, which, in those days, was a seriously hefty bundle of dough. So, good for them. But I won’t be watching it a second time.

1928 / 1929 – Alibi

Alibi – 1928 / 1929

This film was… confusing. The plot wasn’t terribly deep. It wasn’t overly sentimental or dramatic. It didn’t have any comedic content, and the acting was a little off, though I have learned that there was a reason for that. But it did have a few redeeming qualities. Alibi seemed to be trying too hard to be something it wasn’t.

OK, first let’s look at the plot. A man is released from jail. Suddenly he is at a table in a nightclub with two people who are introducing him to a beautiful young girl. They dance and enjoy each other’s company. Already we have problems. At this point there is no way to know who the two people are, who the beautiful young girl is, or why they are all sitting together at the nightclub with the ex-con. For that matter, we don’t know why he was in jail, or even his name. It just started the film off as confusing, making it a challenge to decipher who anyone was or what their role in the plot was.

The jail-bird was prohibition gangster Chick Williams, played by Chester Morris. The young woman was Joan Manning, played by Eleanor Griffith. The two people who introduced them were fellow gangsters Buck and Daisy, played by Harry Stubbs and Mae Busch.

The character of Joan seemed to be all over the place. She knows that they are all gangsters, but she naively believes that they are good people who are trying to be respectable. She even goes so far as to marry Chick and plans to run away with him. Oh, and she happens to be the police chief’s daughter. But then she lies to her new husband. But she really loves him. But then she gives him away to the “coppers!” Pick a side, Joan!

The script was a little trite and had the actors using language that a modern audience might not understand, making everything seem very dated. The term “copper” was thrown around like an insult. The characters were written as stereotypes and were pretty one dimensional. The gangsters were all liars and cheats, the young girl was sweet and innocent, and the police were all clever and honest.

But once I learned who everyone was, and settled into the plot, it became easier and more enjoyable to watch. The character of the undercover cop Danny McGann, played by Regis Toomey, was particularly interesting. When dealing with his police co-workers, he was straight-laced and coherent. But when dealing with the mob, he acted the part of an over-the-top sloppy drunk.

But I have to mention his death scene. It was incredibly over-done and melodramatic. It took him forever to die after getting shot in the back by Chick. He is lying in a fellow police man’s arms and croaking things like, “It’s getting hard to see,” and “Goodbye, Tommy!” They actually started playing the Hawaiian ukuleles in the background as the sun set on Danny’s life.

However, after doing a little research, I have discovered why all of the acting was so over-done and, dare I say, a bit hammy. This movie was made right at the time when silent films were giving way to the talkies. There were several alternate scenes that were filmed so that the film could be released in both formats. The acting in silent films has to be done that way to display emotions without the use of spoken language. But unfortunately, that style of acting did not translate very well into a speaking movie.

Aside from that, the film was passable. The director, Roland West, did some interesting things with the camera, using unique angles and putting the camera on a rolling track for a few smooth motion shots. Add to that a few special effects that were fairly innovative for the time, and you have some minor technical achievements. But for my tastes, it didn’t hold up well, especially for a modern audience.

1927 / 1928 – The Racket

The Racket –1927 / 1928

I have to say, this was a rather average movie, even by the standards of the late 1920s. It was a silent film, complete with dialogue cards and continuous music, which in those days would probably have been played live at the cinema by an organist. The version of the film I watched had a re-done soundtrack by Robert Israel in 2004, which had been arranged for a full orchestra. It starred Thomas Meighan, Louis Wolheim, Marie Prevost, Henry Sedley, George E. Stone, Sam De Grasse, Richard “Skeets” Gallagher, Lee Moran, and John Darrow.

Before getting into the film’s plot, acting, and directing, I did find an interesting little bit of drama surrounding the film itself. According to Wikipedia, only one original copy of the film is known to exist. “It was long thought lost before being located in Howard Hughes’ film collection after his death.” I don’t know. I would guess that since it had been nominated for Outstanding Picture, someone would have thought to preserve a copy of the film simply for its historical value. It was only sheer luck that the famous philanthropist happened to keep a copy of the movie in his personal collection.

Anyway, as average a film as it was, I have been questioning why The Racket was nominated for the top prize. I can think of three reasons. First, the movie was based on a 1927 Broadway play of the same name. This tells me that it was a popular story that was fresh in the minds of theatre-goers. Second, it apparently dealt with a hot issue of the day, namely gangsters and a corrupt police department and government officials. For this reason alone, both the play and the movie were actually banned in Chicago. And third, this was the very first Academy Awards. They were still trying to figure out what really constituted a worthy nomination for the Outstanding Picture award.

My first two suggestions are certainly valid. Other movies have been nominated for lesser reasons than those: popularity and social relevance. My third speculation is little more than a guess on my part, but the reason I have to consider it is that I look at the two other movies it was up against in the Outstanding Picture category at that first awards ceremony. First was a movie called Seventh Heaven. This was a wonderful film that was innovative in both its story-telling, and its cinematography. It had a great cast that portrayed some pretty complex and fascinating characters. And then there was Wings, the first movie to ever take home the top honor. Wings was a thrilling war drama with some amazing action sequences, impressive special effects, and a gripping and poignant climax. The Racket just doesn’t measure up.

This was the story of a driven and dedicated police officer named Captain James McQuigg, played by Meighan. His arch nemesis is the gangster, Nick Scarsi, played by Wolheim. The plot follows Captain McQuigg as he does what he can to build a case against the murderous gangster. But he seems to be blocked at every turn. Scarsi has both police and politicians in his pocket. When any of his men are arrested, a writ of habeas corpus suddenly appears, demanding that they be released. However, just as an interesting side note, I did a little reading and found the movie got it wrong. A writ of habeas corpus cannot legally release an unlawfully arrested or detained suspect. What it can do is demand that the suspect be taken to a court to determine the validity of the arrest. It is not a “get out of jail free” card.

And what would a big Hollywood film of the 1920s be without a romance. In steps Helen Hayes, played by Marie Prevost. She is a nightclub dancer who has designs on Nick’s younger brother, Joe, played by Stone. Joe isn’t a criminal like Nick, but he also isn’t a nice guy. He tries to get fresh with her, and when she rejects his advances, he tells her to get out of his car and walk home. She flags down a copper who tries to lean on Joe for being a jerk to the young lady. Joe runs and a car chase ensues. Joe is caught and arrested, and Helen is detained as a witness.

With Joe in prison, McQuigg has the means to get at Nick. Nick arrives at the police station while McQuigg is out. He tries to bribe an officer to free his brother, but is refused. Nick then murders the officer and punches out a handsome young reporter named Dave Ames, played by Darrow, who has taken a liking to Helen. He goes out of his way to be nice to her, and she starts to fall for the boy. But the nail in Nick’s coffin is the dirty politician, who McQuigg convinces to turn against the gangster. When he is at last cornered, Nick tries to murder his arch rival and make a run for it, but he is shot and killed by the D.A., Mr. Welch, played by De Grasse.

The plot wasn’t special or unexpected. The directing of Lewis Milestone wasn’t inspiring or innovative. The action wasn’t that thrilling and the romance wasn’t that deep. The acting was passable for a silent film, though I will say that Meighan, playing the main protagonist, was completely outshone by his co-star, Wolheim, who was far more interesting to watch on the screen. The Racket wasn’t a bad film, but it just didn’t seem to be on the same level as its rivals.

1927 / 1928 – 7th Heaven

7th Heaven – 1927 / 1928

This was a sweet movie. But more than that, it was a story that touched the heart. This was one of the first movies ever nominated for Best Picture, running against the winner Wings and a gangster film called The Racket. I can easily see why this film was nominated for Best Picture. It had everything a good and well-told story ought to have. It had a strong and handsome hero, a sweet and beautiful heroine, an evil villain, romance, and a triumph of the human spirit. In several ways, this nominee was a better film than Wings.

I mean, I understand why Wings won: The battle sequences were much more exciting and well done, and it had Clara Bow. But I felt that 7^th Heaven had a deeper emotional content. The romance was so much more believable and well-developed. First of all we have Janet Gaynor as Diane, a woman who is regularly beat and abused by her absinth-addicted sister, Nana, played by Gladys Brockwell. When Nana attempts to murder her in the gutter, she is stopped by Chico, played by Charles Farrell. Farrell and Gaynor were actually in over a dozen movies together and they had a good on-screen chemistry. Farrell was a very attractive man, even by today’s standards. And while they went out of their way to make Gaynor appear plain and homely, they could not hide her amazing smile. Her face lit up like a light-bulb every time she turned it on. She was simply beautiful.

This life-saving intervention marks the beginning of the film’s romance and it was wonderfully portrayed. It was built up gradually which made it all the more believable and sweet. When the two finally declared their love for each other it was so beautifully done that it made me feel good just to be a witness to their happiness. Of course, World War I came in and parted the two lovers for years. In the end, Chico is almost killed, but Diane never loses faith, believing that he will return to her.

One of the great things they did was that as Chico is leaving to join the war, he tells Diane that every morning at 11:00 he will come to her and they will be together. Then every day at the same time they think of each other and in that way they are together. It was a sweet notion and made me smile.

Brockwell played a great villain. She was scary enough that whenever she was on the screen, she made me cringe and feel for Diane as she endured the abuse. And eventually, it is her love for Chico that gives Diane the confidence to fight back and drive Nana away for good. That was a very satisfying scene.

The battle sequences for the war were fairly well done, except for one thing which I felt was a little lacking: the use of scale models. At one point, there is a long line of French taxi-cabs that are commandeered to carry French soldiers to the front lines. The camera then gives several us a wide angle shots as they are driving across a bridge while shells explode around them. The cabs very obviously look like they are matchbox cars on a fixed track. They make the entire shot look very fake.

But I must admit, the battle sequence with the flame-throwers was pretty cool. And I liked the fact that, even though most of the characters came home alive, none of them came home unscarred. Chico’s best friend Gobin, played by David Butler, lost an arm, and Chico himself was blinded, possibly for the rest of his life. Incidentally, I really liked the character of Gobin. Butler did a great job and was a pleasure to watch.

In the end, love proved stronger than the horrors of the war, and even though Chico lost his sight, Diane greeted his unexpected return with bliss and unfailing love. It was a feel-good ending, which is never a bad thing. Ah, sweet romance!

2014 – Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) – 2015

Well, another year has gone by, full of good movies and bad. This year, the one that rose to the top and grabbed the brass ring was a strange one, to be sure. Birdman was a good movie. I’ll say that right off the bat. It had a good story, though eclectic. The acting was above average. The music was, at times, annoying, but effective (I’ll get to that in a bit.) And the ending was… hard to understand.

The film was trying very hard to be “artsy”, and on some levels, it succeeded. The story was easy to follow, and was punctuated by the self-destructive ravings of the protagonist’s imagination, which was good, because that was where most of the film’s drama came from. It had a handful of special effects that gave the whole thing a supernatural feel, though once I figured out that they were all in the main character’s head, a little bit of that magic went away.

Birdman starred Michael Keaton, who is a master of his craft. He is always an incredibly good actor, and this movie is no exception. He has been working pretty consistently since 1978, proving time and time again what he is capable of on the silver screen. Here he played the role of Riggan Thomson, a washed up Hollywood actor with a notable career behind him. His most famous role was, of course, Birdman, a costumed super-hero.

But Birdman is a thing of the past, existing now, only in Riggan’s mind. His ex-wife, Sylvia, played by Amy Ryan, and his daughter, Samantha, played by Emma Stone see glimpses of Riggan’s dangerous Birdman persona, but dismiss it as either the vanity of an actor, or the selfishness of a bad husband. Neither of them suspect that it is actually a kind of psychosis caused by the man’s failed career and the nostalgic remnants of his glory days.

The cleverly written script had flights of fancy that take place in Riggan’s mind as he listens to the voice of Birdman, telling him what to do and how to behave. To me, it was like his subconscious, goading and manipulating him to be the superhero of his own life. During these episodes, he has the power of telekinesis and flight, able to throw things around the room using the power of his mind, or soar above the streets of New York. But the film also makes the point that when he does these things, he is really just physically tearing the room apart, or imagining that he can fly.

The plot takes place in a theatre in the Big Apple. Riggan is trying to revive his stalled career by putting on a play based on Raymond Carver’s short story, What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. The cast of the play includes the young and upcoming actress, Lesley Truman, played by Naomi Watts, Riggan’s girlfriend, Laura Alburn, played by Andrea Riseborough, and a talented but narcissistic method actor, Mike Shiner, played by Edward Norton. The final member of the film’s cast is Riggan’s lawyer and best friend, Jake, played by Zach Galifianakis.

Interesting note: When the script was still in the early stages, Keaton was not in director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s mind to play the lead, but by the time the script was finalized, there was no longer any option. In his opinion, it had to be Keaton.

As the rehearsals for his play continue and as it goes into previews, Riggan’s cast becomes more and more difficult to work with. At the same time, his recovering drug addict daughter displays an incredible lack of support that borders on outright scorn. His girlfriend is playing mind games with him, and Mike the method actor seems to be going out of his way to ruin everything. But it was the ending of the play on opening night that brought the house down.

You see, in the stage show, Riggan’s character commits suicide by shooting himself in the head. And we, the viewers see it coming. The actor’s questionable mental state cannot possibly survive all the negative energy, the setbacks, the lack of support, and the sheer stress of surviving. So on opening night, when we see him grab a real gun instead of the stage prop, we are horrified, though not surprised.

But what really happened when the dreaded moment finally arrived, took me by surprise. He didn’t kill himself. Instead, he shot his nose off. The next scene shows him in the hospital wearing facial bandages that oddly resemble a superhero mask. But it was the last few seconds of the film that ultimately left me confused.

So I get that he had proved his point. He was validated by a good review of his performance which applauded his real ending. He says his farewell to his Birdman persona, who is, for once, silent. Then he goes to the window and sees birds gathered on the window ledge. He climbs out onto the ledge with them and then the scene shifts to show his daughter entering the room. She is confused by his absence and calls his name a few times. Then she goes to the window, looks down at the street, looks up into the sky, and smiles. Roll credits!

OK, so the big question is, what actually happened? Did he commit suicide? Did he fly into the sky? It was clear that he was no longer in the room, but if he had been dead on the street, then Samantha would have had reacted with horror. Based on her smiling reaction, though, we have to assume that she saw him flying. But by that point, I had already been convinced that all Riggan’s supernatural Birdman powers were only in his mind. And besides that, he had said goodbye to Birdman only a moment before, indicating that his self-destructive impulses had left him. It left me confused.

But I think that was the director’s intent. It was intentionally left open-ended, and while that can often be an effective way to end a movie, I don’t think it worked that well for this one. I would have liked to see one of two things instead. First he could have said goodbye to Birdman, and then made his peace with his family. The gunshot wound could have been an accidental catharsis for Riggan. Or second, we could have ended the film with him actually killing himself at the end of the stage show. It would certainly have given the film a more poignant and defined ending.

So, I didn’t particularly care for the nebulous ending, but it’s alright. There were some very distinct things about Birdman that set it apart from most other movies. The three that I’d like to focus on were the acting, the music, and the directing style.

The acting was all above par. Keaton, Stone, and Norton each stood out to me as particularly good. Keaton has always been a good actor. His performance was deep without being overdone or melodramatic. He has the feel of the common man about him that makes him easy to identify with. Stone’s dramatic scenes were well acted, but I have the sense that her performance was enhanced a bit by her incredibly well-written dialogue. And then there was Norton, who has always been a good actor, although, in this film, he seemed like he wasn’t really acting at all. He was playing himself, which, fortunately, was exactly what the character called for. He was a very believable over-the-top jerk.

Next I’ll discuss the music a bit. The soundtrack was a very unusual one, to be sure. First, there were a few well-known classical pieces of music that cropped up every now and then, but it was the film’s original score that was so unique. I’m referring to the fact that it was composed and played on a single instrument: the drums. There were no melodic passages, no easily recognizable themes. It was just a single drummer on a set of drums.

Now, supposedly, each character had his or her own rhythmic theme, but I guess my ear isn’t trained enough in percussion instruments to hear them. It just sounded like banging noise to my ears. In fact, there were times, usually when Riggan was having a Birdman episode and his sanity was slipping just a little bit, when the disjointed and chaotic score got in the way of the dialogue. I’m pretty sure that was on purpose, but by the end of the movie, it got old. Other than that, the drums added to the confusion and hard edged drama taking place on the screen. In that respect, the score was effective, if not enjoyable.

Interesting note: Jazz drummer Antonio Sanchez composed and recorded the film’s entire score. He and director Gonzalez Inarritu felt snubbed by the Academy when the score for Birdman was not nominated for Best Original Score. They appealed to the Academy, but were still denied on the grounds that “…the film also contains over a half an hour of non-original (mostly classical) music cues that are featured very prominently in numerous pivotal moments in the film…”

The third thing about the film which I have to applaud was the style in which it was filmed. What I mean by that is that most of the film was shot in long takes. There were a number of reasons for the choice, but the one that seems the most obvious to me is that Gonzalez Inarritu wanted the audience to feel as if they were there in the room with the actors, and in real life, there are no cuts between takes, no quick scene changes, and no switching back and forth between characters. It also had the added effect of mimicking the live performances of a stage show, like the one that Riggan and his troupe of actors were in.

This actually made the jobs of the cast of actors much more difficult than in a regular film. The long takes forced them to rehearse and rehearse a scene to get their timing perfect. They had to memorize long lines of dialogue. They also had to depend much more heavily on the competence and skill of the entire cast and crew to make it work. If they were filming a 6 minute sequence without a cut, then a mistake in the final minute could ruin the entire take. Also, the camera men and crew had to know their blocking just as much as the actors. It is an incredibly difficult way to film a movie, but it succeeded in giving the movie a very unique style.

Birdman was a good film and I enjoyed it. But I’ll be honest it is not one of my favorite Best Picture winners. I think it was trying too hard to be clever and artsy, which, for me, detracted from its overall effectiveness. It was good, but not as good as it thinks it was.

2013 – 12 Years a Slave

12 Years a Slave – 2013

This was one of those profound movies that displayed in graphic details the depths of human cruelty. Films like this are sometimes hard to watch, not only because of the scenes of violence and torture, but because of the severe injustices being portrayed. This film was about the slavery that was prevalent in 1841, and it showed many, though I’m sure not all, of the horrible conditions that went along with the practice of slavery.

The movie starred Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon Northup, a free colored man in Saratoga Springs, New York. He is shown to be an upstanding and respected member of his community, a good husband and a loving father. It was important to show his relationship with his community, because it would have bearing on the plot later on in the film. His wife and children go away on a planned trip, leaving him alone. He is a skilled fiddle player and makes his living as a hired musician.

Interesting note: When first offered the role, Ejiofor refused. When director Steve McQueen made the offer, he described it as the role of the actor’s lifetime. This actually scared Ejiofor away, because he thought he was not ready for such a high profile role and what it would mean to his career. Once he accepted, he actually learned to play the violin in preparation. He also immersed himself in the Southern plantation culture.

But then the pleasant story turns very dark as Solomon is hired by two strangers to play his fiddle in Washington D. C. He agrees to go and while there, he is drugged, put in chains and sold into slavery. He is transported to New Orleans and given a new name. Along with him are other free black citizens that have also been kidnapped, three of whom are a mother with her two children.

I had never given the matter of slavery much thought. I knew that Southern slaves were treated as less than dogs. I knew that they were bought and sold as property. But I had never imagined that free citizens were ever abducted from within our own borders to be made into slaves. The concept is just unthinkable.

Imagine being chained and taken away from your life against your will. Imagine being forced work hard every day from sun-up to sun-down for the benefit of others. Imagine being beaten and tortured at the whims of your fellow men. Imagine having to call another human being master.

To have been born into a life of slavery would have been bad enough. But to have been born a free man and then to have such a thing happen to you would have to have been a hundred times worse. It made the film that much more horrifying to watch. Ejiofor did a wonderful job and was so very real and convincing in his portrayal. The scene where he wakes up in chains really drew me in. I was horrified with him, though I knew just from the title of the movie what had to happen. The disbelief and despair on his face was incredibly well done.

A small cameo by one of my favorite actors, Paul Giamatti, surprised me. He plays the slaver who sells him to his new master, a man by the name of William Ford, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. He is actually a kind master, if you can call any slave owner kind, though it is important to note that he callously buys the mother of the two children without buying the children. They are cruelly torn from her and she never sees them again.

Now, not to belittle the events that take place in the film, which are based on true events, I do have to delve a little bit into the accuracy of the film. What I found made a certain amount of sense. The film was, for the most part, true to the autobiographical book, Twelve Years a Slave, Written by the real Northup. However, the book itself may not have been entirely accurate. You see, the book was written while Northup was working with the abolitionist movement. Some of the events may have been sensationalized for the purpose of the furthering the abolitionist cause. However, that being said, here is the only great inaccuracy that historians have been able to find.

As the abducted slaves are being transported by boat to New Orleans, one of the ship’s crew is drunk and wanders down to the slave pen to rape a woman. One of the other slaves tries to defend her. The boatman is ready with a knife and stabs the slave to death. This was not in Northup’s book and probably would not have happened. Slaves were a valuable commodity and the boatman did not own them. He would probably have been financially liable for the death. But from what I found in my research, the rest of the film was pretty true to life.

After an altercation with one of his white masters, Solomon is sold to a new master. He is Edwin Epps, played by Michael Fassbender. Epps is a cruel master who abuses his slaves and keeps them in deplorable conditions. He singles out a female slave named Patsey, played by Lupita Nyong’o, for her skill at picking cotton and her beauty. He repeatedly rapes her and beats her, sometimes simultaneously. His wife, Mary, played by Sarah Paulson, quickly develops an intense hatred of her and demands that she be sold. Ebbs refuses.

Nyong’o’s performance was enough to earn her the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. She really played the part well. There is one scene in particular in which she comes to Solomon to beg him to take her out into the swamp and kill her. He refuses, saying that he would not have the stain of murder on his soul. They both did such a great job. It made the whole whipping scene near the end of the movie that much more poignant.

I also have to give a special nod to Fassbender. He played the bad guy so well. Not only was he cruel and sadistic towards his slaves, but he was self-righteous about it, believing that such treatment of black people was his duty according to the Word of God. Which, by the way, how messed up is that? I was impressed with his performance, even though I hated the character.

Ultimately, the entire movie was well cast. Everyone played their parts well. There was another cameo by one of my favorite African-American actresses, Alfre Woodard. She played the favored mistress of a fellow plantation owner who had black slaves waiting on her. It was a small but memorable role. Brad Pitt, who also was one of the film’s producers, had a small put pivotal role near the end of the movie. He played Samuel Bass, a white man who is contracted to build a gazebo for Epps. He is sympathetic to the plight of the black slaves. He befriends Solomon who asks him to return to New York and bring his papers of freedom. This, he does, which allows Solomon to be finally freed and returned to his wife and family. Bass claimed to be Canadian, but Pitt made him look Amish. Also, the blonde highlights in Pitt’s hair looked very out of place for 1841. But never-mind that.

Another aspect of the film that I have to mention is the cinematography. The majority of the film takes place in the Deep South. Some of the transitional shots were of the natural beauty inherent in the Louisiana Bayou. The sunsets and sunrises were gorgeous with the beautiful trees indigenous to the region.

The overall message of the film was one that is often used in dramas of this nature: hope in the midst of horrific injustice. Time and again, I wondered if I would have had the will to continue to hope. Would I have been able to keep going under those kinds of terrible conditions, or would I have given way to despair? I don’t know. All I know is that I am glad such practices are, as far as I know, no longer tolerated in the United States. As for the rest of the world, I sadly have no doubt that such things still happen.

Nobody deserves to be treated like a slave, no matter what the circumstances. So perhaps movies like this are important. They are important as reminders of that shameful part of our history; important so that history would not repeat itself. There are still cruel men in the world today. There is still racism and hatred. There are still men who are capable of treating other human beings as animals.

And finally, I have to mention one last thing. This was actually something about the film that I didn’t particularly care for. The film was called 12 Years a Slave. So, apparently, he was a slave for 12 years. But that is the only indication in the movie as to how much time he spent as a slave. There was never any mention of the passage of time. How long had he been a slave when he was sold to Epps? How long had he been a slave when he met Patsey? I think that this kind of information would have made me more engaged in the story. And if you think about it, the plot is told through Solomon’s perspective. He was an educated man. He would have noted the passage of time like anyone who was taken away from his family.

I can’t even begin to imagine what it would be like to be in his situation, but the movie told a story that did a good job of putting me there. It never shied away from the graphic details of the atrocities that actually happened. In fact, I would guess that some of them were toned down a bit, though the whipping scene was pretty horrific. When it showed Patsey’s back afterword, it was terribly shredded. I imagine that performing such a scene would take an emotional toll on an actor. So I’ll give another nod to both Fassbender and Nyong’o for a job well done.

The film won two Academy Awards aside from Best Picture. Nyong’o won for Best Supporting Actress, and John Ridley won for Best Adapted Screenplay. In addition, it was nominated for 6 more awards: Best Director for McQueen, Best Actor for Ejiofor, Best Supporting Actor for Fassbender, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design and Best Film Editing.

Interesting note: This was the first time a film that was directed by an African-American has ever won the Best Picture Award.

Another interesting note: Northup’s original book sold very poorly when it was first published in 1853. Now, however, that it has been turned into an Academy Award Best Picture winner, the book’s sales have put it on the bestseller list.