Author: Snugglecub

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chicago – 2002

It is nice to see that Hollywood can still appreciate a good musical.  The last musical to win the coveted Best Picture award was Oliver! in 1968.  Chicago surprised everyone on a number of levels.  First, the fact that a musical could once again grab the brass ring was unexpected.  Second, several actors that we all know and love proved that they could both sing and dance, which is unusual for most actors today.  Third, the musical itself did not get the best reviews on Broadway.

The plot centers around the fictional characters of Roxie Hart, played by Renee Zellweger, and Velma Kelly, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones.  They are loosely based on the real-life criminals Beulah Annan and Belva Gaertner.  They were each murderesses in the Cook County Jail in Chicago, and most of the plot follows them as they await their trials.  They have both hired Billy Flynn, the super-star lawyer who has never lost a case, played by Richard Gere.  The corrupt warden of the Women’s prison is a woman who takes bribes in exchange for cigarettes and other contraband, Matron Mama Morton, played by Queen Latifah.  Roxie’s husband Amos, played by John C. Reilly, is a weak willed man who everyone tends to either manipulate or ignore.  That is the main cast, though other notable actors appear such as Christine Baransky, Tay Diggs, Lucy Liu, and Dominic West.

Interesting note:  It is strongly implied, but never actually stated that Mama Morton also demands sexual favors from her inmates.  Just listen to the lyrics for the song When You’re Good to Mama.

The story is so outrageous that it is actually fun, despite the dark nature of the subject matter.  Velma is a nightclub performer who has murdered her husband and sister after catching them in bed together, “Doing number 17… the spread eagle.”  (the number representing the 17^th acrobatic stunt in her nightclub act.)  Roxie is a woman who is unsatisfied with her mild-mannered husband and dreams of being a performer on the stage.   She is having an affair with a man who promises to help her realize that dream, but she murders him when she finds out that he has lied to her just to get her in the sack.  Both women end up in jail under the watchful eye of Matron Mama Morton.

They meet the other women on murderess row and learn their stories.  Morton helps them by getting Billy Flynn to defend them in court.  Richard Gere did a good job and was very believable as the amoral and slick lawyer who knows how to manipulate the press and the jury with equal skill and success.  He had several musical numbers in which he gave very admirable performances.

That is the basic plot and the pace of the movie is fast enough to keep it interesting.  Director Rob Marshall, who also happened to be the film’s choreographer, did a great job of using the medium of film to tell a story that was originally written for the stage.  That is more a difficult task than it might seem.  Certain things work on the stage that do not translate well onto the big screen, and vice-versa.  For example, on the stage, scene changes and costume changes are not instantaneous and time must be allowed for these things to take place.  But in movies, these things must happen instantaneously to maintain the flow and pacing of the narrative.  Also, movies have the advantage of being able to switch back and forth between sets and costumes to enhance the story in ways that cannot be done on stage.

The movie actually won 6 Academy Awards after being nominated for 13.  In addition to Best Picture, it took home Oscars for Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Costume Design, and Zeta-Jones won for Best Supporting Actress.  However, Zellweger was nominated for Best Actress, Latifah was nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and Reilly was nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

For me, the real stand-out member of the cast was Zeta Jones.  She was gorgeous, her singing was spot-on, and her dancing was incredible.  Granted, she and Gere had a history of working on Broadway, as opposed to Zellweger and Latifah who did not.  But Zeta-Jones really did such a fantastic job, far outshining her co-stars.  She had some of the most difficult dancing in the film, and she executed her moves with the sexy style and ease that her character demanded.

After all, the show was written to be a dance musical.  Bob Fosse, the famous choreographer, had worked with the show’s composer and its lyricist, John Kander and Fred Ebb on the original stage production.  The show was specifically known for its very stylized dancing and look.  The film had taken years getting from the stage to the screen, and unfortunately, Fosse died before that dream was realized.  Rob Marshall took over the choreography, saying that he didn’t want to copy Fosse’s style, but he did want to pay tribute to it.

The result was perfectly executed and the dancing in the film was fantastic.  The choreography was quite demanding of the actors.  In fact, Richard Gere had to learn to tap-dance for the film.  Zellweger had no dance experience at all and had to learn all her moves from scratch.  But I found that to be pretty obvious.

And honestly, that brings me to the movie’s biggest fault, in my opinion.  I didn’t like Zellweger that much.  I have never found her to be a terribly attractive woman and when the plot demanded that the world fell in love with her because of her beauty and personality, I just didn’t buy it.  I mean, I don’t want to assign too much significance to this than necessary, but she was very flat chested, which was very evident whenever she wasn’t facing the camera head-on.  Sorry, Renee, I’m just calling this one like I see it.  Not sexy.  And her dancing seemed forced, especially when put next to Zeta-Jones, who’s dancing seemed easy and natural.  Other than that, her acting was just fine.  And, I have to admit, I enjoyed her singing.  Her voice was especially good in the song Funny Honey.

In fact, the music in general was very well done.  Kander and Ebb’s score was intended to reflect the Vaudeville music of the 1920s, the era when the show takes place. The score is a memorable one.  Songs like All That Jazz, When You’re Good to Mama, Cell Block Tango, We Both Reached for the Gun, Mister Cellophane, Razzle Dazzle and Nowadays are all easy to sing along with and sit well in the ear.  Kander and Ebb had already proven themselves with another hit musical, Cabaret, and Chicago just cemented their place in musical theatre history.

Interesting note:  When Chicago originally opened on Broadway, the role of Roxie Hart was played by Gwen Verdon, Bob Fosse’s wife at the time.  Five days before the show opened, she inhaled a feather from one of the costumes, causing her to have surgery on the nodes in her throat.  The show was in danger of closing before it opened.  However, Cabaret star Liza Minnelli stepped in, and after only 5 days of rehearsal, she performed the role until Verdon was able to take back her part.

One song in particular stands out to me as a great dance number that was incredibly well choreographed, masterfully danced, and wonderfully fun to listen to.  It was also one of the darkest numbers in the whole show: Cell Block Tango.  This is the song in which the murderesses tell their stories about the killings that landed them in the clink.

Now, in order to explain the genius of this, and several other numbers in the show, I have to explain the unique vision of the director, Rob Marshall.  The key element that allowed the stage play to be made into a movie was the idea that all the musical numbers were told through Roxie’s perspective.  She was portrayed as a woman whose greatest dream was to be a nightclub performer.  So, when bad things happened, her mind went to her happy place: the stage.

Many of the songs used both her fantasy, which had the gowns, the glitter, the glamour and the dancing, and the “real world”, which made use of gritty reality, drab prison costumes, disheveled hair and iron bars.  In Cell Block Tango, Marshall showed each woman in both lights. And the costumes and dancing in the fantasy was fantastic.  Each woman, of which Velma was one, had on sexy black clothing that resembled bondage gear, giving them a dangerous look.  As they told their stories, their deceased men appeared to dance with them in a tango, which in itself is a very erotic dance.

When each woman got to the part of her story in which she committed the murder, she would pull a red handkerchief out of a hidden place on her victim, corresponding to the particular death.  The woman who stabbed her husband pulled it from his stomach.  The woman who poisoned her husband pulled it from his mouth, and so on.  This dance was very cleverly choreographed.

Interesting note:  One of the murderesses is a Hungarian woman played by a Russian actress named Ekaterina Chtchelkanova.  She tells her story in Hungarian, but I actually looked up the translation online, which reads as follows:  “What am I doing here?  They say my notorious lover held down my husband and I chopped his Head off.  It’s untrue.  I am innocent.  I do not know why Uncle Sam says I did it.  I tried to explain at the police station but they didn’t understand what I am saying.”  I have always taken the position that she was innocent, just as she claimed, and that she was wrongfully executed.  It is a nice contrast to the guilty women who are trying to prove their innocence.

And I can’t finish this review without giving a special honorable mention to John C. Reilly and his wonderful performance.  He really understood that character he was playing.  Amos was not too smart, but he did have feelings.  He loved his wife and was willing to go to jail for her until he realized that she had been cheating on him.  His big song, Mister Cellophane, was staged as a Vaudeville number.  He was dressed to resemble Emmett Kelly’s character of the hobo clown, Weary Willie.  The song was brilliantly performed.  Great job, Reilly!

Interesting note:  There was a wonderful song called Class that was filmed but ultimately cut from the film.  It was a crass duet between Mama Morton and Velma Kelly, as they complain that nobody ain’t got no class no more…  However, the song was included on the film’s soundtrack.

Chicago was a very good movie that was fun to watch.  For me, Zeta-Jones really sold the movie, and it wouldn’t have been the same without her.  Marshall’s directing choices and choreography were incredibly well done.  This movie was a worthy winner of the Best Picture award in more ways than one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Beautiful Mind – 2001

Here we have another movie starring Russell Crowe, which makes two years in a row, in which he was in the Best Picture winning film. It just emphasizes the fact that Crowe is a very good actor. And he is versatile as well. The character of Maximus Decimus Meridius is like a polar opposite from the man he plays in this film.

He plays the genius level mathematician, John Forbes Nash Jr. The film is, admittedly, only loosely based on the real Nobel Prize Winner. The filmmakers over-dramatized the real events and characters, changed several key points, and left out a few important details.  I’ll explain.  But in order to do so, I first have to delve into the plot and characters a bit.

John Nash is a prodigy in mathematics. He goes to Princeton University and right from the beginning, he is bored with his classes.  He thinks that all the concepts being taught are unoriginal.  It becomes his goal to excel and succeed by coming up with a completely original idea that will blow everybody’s socks off.  His fellow students laugh at him and his teachers are disappointed in his performance.  He spends all his time in independent study and does not attend his classes.

He is socially inept when dealing with his peers, and is positively shocking when it comes to interacting with the opposite sex. But he perseveres in his personal crusade, despite the bad influence of his roommate, Charles Herman, played by Paul Bettany. Charlie gets him to leave his studies when he forgets to do things like take a break, relax or even eat. And eventually, the brilliance of his incredible intellect comes into focus.

Just when everybody is ready to give up on him as a lost cause, he finds his original idea and writes a paper for Professor Helinger, played by Judd Hirsch.  His paper is so revolutionary and extraordinary, a concept that flies in the face of a hundred years of theories and practices in the field of economics, that he is validated. Above all of his classmates, he is offered his pick of any job he wants. He even gets to name two fellow students to go with him as his personal team. He chooses two men, Sol and Bender, played by Adam Goldberg and Anthony Rapp, respectively, and they get jobs at MIT.

Eventually, he takes a consulting job at the Pentagon where he meets William Parcher, played by Ed Harris. Parcher gives him an assignment cracking codes, saying that the Russians are planning to detonate a bomb somewhere in the U.S.. Nash now thinks of himself as a reluctant spy. Meanwhile, Charlie comes back into his life. This time he has his niece, Marcee, with him, played by young actress Vivien Cardone.

And lest we forget, along the way, he meets and marries an MIT student named Alicia, wonderfully played by Jennifer Connelly. The big romance of the movie begins, and after difficult courtship, she agrees to marry him. But then we discover that the characters of Charlie, Marcee and Parcher, people he has known for years, don’t exist – at least not anywhere outside of Nash’s mind. It turns out that he is a paranoid schizophrenic.

Interesting note:  Something that never caught my attention in the film, but I discovered as an interesting little trick Ron Howard slipped into the film.  At one point the character of Marcee runs through a field of birds.  None of the birds move, proving that she doesn’t exist.  Clever and subtle, Mr. Howard.

OK, now, this is how the movie differs from reality. First of all, the real John Nash only had auditory hallucinations, not visual. To me, that seems like a pretty big one.  Second, Nash never had a job at the Pentagon.  Third, the movie skips over the fact that Nash fathered a child, John David Stier, out of wedlock with a woman named Eleanor Stier.  But after learning she was pregnant, he refused to marry her, thinking her below his status.  He abandoned her and the child.

The movie never mentions the fact that John’s wife Alicia divorced him in 1963 and remarried him in 2001.  The movie also fails to show his arrest for indecent exposure in Santa Monica, California in 1954.  In addition, the portrayal of the Nobel Prize ceremony is quite fictional.  The Prize ceremony is one without speeches.  Also, he was not the only man to win the prize that year.  He shared the honor with John Harsanyi and Richard Selten.

Interesting note:  There was another historical inaccuracy in the film on which John Nash, himself, commented.  In the film, the old (around the time of his Nobel Prize accolade) Nash mentioned that he was still taking newer medications to help control his mental illness.  In fact, this was not true.  The real Nash said that he no longer took any medication.  Howard defended the film saying that he did not want to encourage the notion that all schizophrenics can overcome their illnesses without medication.

But never-mind all that.  There were specific reasons why Director, Ron Howard, made the changes he did, and ignored several of the more unsavory facts of the man’s life.  Knowing that A Beautiful Mind was never intended to be a literal translation of the life of John Nash, I find the changes easy to accept.  I am not a purest, and neither has Hollywood ever been, though filmmakers are always persecuted when they make such changes.  It is a dramatized story of the man’s professional life and it was meant to adhere to a dramatic and sometimes romantic narrative, not literal reality.

So, putting all those historical facts aside, the story that Ron Howard told was incredibly well put together.  It was very dramatic, and yet realistic and emotionally engaging.  The romance between John and his wife Alicia was really played-up, making the socially inept character of Nash almost charming at times.  This was a very specific request that Howard made of screenwriter, Akiva Goldsman.

Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly were phenomenal in their portrayals.  I already knew that Crowe was an exceptional actor, and though I have only seen a few of the movies in which he has starred, I would venture to say that this was one of the finest performances of his career.  He really had an opportunity to get into a unique role and show his acting chops.  For me, he knocked this one out of the park.  I was both shocked and dismayed to learn that he did not win the Academy Award for Best Actor, though he was at least nominated.

And Connelly really surprised me along with most of Hollywood.  She was gorgeous and elegant.  She showed real emotional depth that the world had not yet seen from her.  Her performance earned her the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress.  She really was incredible, and a pleasure to watch.

Other actors whom I liked were Josh Lucas as Martin Hansen, a fellow classmate, the leader of those who taunted Nash at Princeton, and Christopher Plummer as Dr. Rosen, the psychologist who treats Nash when he is admitted to the mental institution.  Lucas, I must admit, has always had a face that naturally says, “jerk” to me.  But his character turned out to be gracious and sympathetic to Nash and I ended up liking him.  Well done, Lucas.  And Plummer also did a fine job.  His character was that of a doctor who truly cared about his patient, and did his best to help and comfort him.

When it comes to Ed Harris, I was rather unimpressed, but this was not the actor’s fault.  The character just didn’t stand out for me.  Harris did a good enough job as the mysterious government agent, but the role was just too one-note and uninteresting to allow Harris to do much with it.

The music for the film was written by James Horner.  Horner wrote a score that really tapped into the somewhat sterile precision of mathematics, while at the same time, enhancing the emotional content of the film.  He has written other such great movie scores as Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Field of Dreams, Legends of the Fall, Apollo 13, Braveheart, Titanic and Avatar.  He really knows what he is doing and his score for A Beautiful Mind really caught my attention.

Another thing that was noteworthy about the film was the sets and costumes.  The movie covered Nash’s life between 1947 and 1994 – a period of 47 years.  All the sets and costumes remained quite true to their proper eras.  The clothing and cars from the 1940s all appeared authentic and well thought out.  Even the hairstyles of the students at Princeton University looked like something you would expect from that time in history.

And at the end of the movie, before the credits start, a little blurb is shown on the screen.  It says, “Nash’s theories have influenced global trade negotiations, national Labor Relations, and even breakthroughs in evolutionary biology.  John and Alicia Nash live in Princeton, New Jersey.  John keeps regular office hours in the mathematics department.  He still walks to campus every day.”  I like it when films give a little extra meaningful information like that at the end.

All in all, this was a good film.  The acting was phenomenal and the plot was engaging, if not historically accurate.  It is a movie that never fails to catch my attention.  I have come to expect a certain level of quality from any film directed by Ron Howard.  A Beautiful Mind did not disappoint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gladiator – 2000

I will start off by saying that this is a highly enjoyable movie, but it has generally been my opinion that it should not have won the award for Best Picture. Now, there are several specific reasons why I think that. First of all, the dialogue was very poorly written. It was, at times, unnatural and forced, at other times too verbose and awkward. The actors did the best they could with what they were given, but it is often hard to polish dialogue that is poorly written.

Another thing about the film that I found lacking was the character development. Only one of the main characters had any depth, and even that was only for a short time. Most of the characters were very one dimensional. They started one way and remained that way, without any changes, until the end of the movie – All except for the character of Lucilla. But I’ll get to that in a bit.

Thirdly, it was up against some pretty good films like Traffic, Erin Brockovich, Chocolat and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Well, OK that makes me pause. The only one of those I would consider competition for Gladiator is Erin Brockovich. Traffic was simply too unmemorable. Chocolat was too confusing and had too little emotional punch. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was a good movie but was too gimmicky – like a fad. Erin Brockovich was good but even so, the it only succeeded because of Julia Roberts. Without her it would have been just an average movie.

So… Why not Gladiator? Gladiator certainly had a large and epic feel that transported audiences to an exotic and mysterious time in history that is known for its world changing people and events; a time of emperors, slaves and peasants. It is known for its cultural excesses and depravities, the extreme cruelty of some of its leaders, and yet also the incredible advances in art and science that helped to shape the world we live in today.

Ridley Scott was the director of this piece of historical fiction about a soldier in the Roman legions named Maximus Decimus Meridius. He is a skilled fighter who has achieved the rank of General. He is the kind of man who personally cares for each of the men under his command and has consequently earned unwavering respect and loyalty from his men.

Interesting note: If the name was actually said properly, according to Roman tradition, it would be Decimus Meridius Maximus. In fact there were enough departures from true history that at least one historical advisor who worked on the film resigned due to the changes that Scott made. Another asked not to be mentioned in the credits.

Maximus is played by actor Russell Crowe. I know that as a celebrity, Crowe has built himself a reputation as… to put it bluntly, an asshole.  But there is no denying that he is a very good actor. His character was a conglomeration of several historical figures, taking the best qualities of each of them and making one man. The trouble is, this turns the man into a saint. There was nothing human about him. He was good to a fault. He killed only when it was necessary. He was sure of his motives and unwavering in his morals.

Interesting note: The screenplay had to have a lot of rewrites, as Russell Crowe kept questioning every aspect of the script and actually walked off the set when he did not get the answers he wanted. In fact, one of the writers, William Nicholson, said of the overly-melodramatic line, “In this life or the next, I will have my vengeance,” Russell refused to say it. When he finally relented, he did so saying, “Your lines are garbage but I’m the greatest actor in the world, and I can make even garbage sound good.“

Opposite him was Commodus, played by Joaquin Phoenix. He was the bad guy. His every line, every action and every motive was evil. He was selfish, cruel, dishonest, manipulative and vain. He hadn’t a single redeeming quality, not a single virtue. Again, I have to call this poor writing. As the audience, we have no sympathy for him. There was no question that he needed to be defeated in the end and when it happened, we were just glad to be rid of him.

I think the plot, the emotional depth, and the engagement of the audience would have all been better served by making the two lead characters a little more human. Maybe they could have made Maximus a little darker or unsympathetic. Maybe they could have made him a man who enjoyed the all the violence and killing a bit too much. Maybe they could have made Commodus a little more sympathetic. Maybe they could have given him motives that were close to understandable or a past that made him seem misunderstood. Things like that would have made for deeper characters. It would have made for greater emotional involvement from the audience. But as it was, the characters were shallow, making the movie somewhat predictable.

Now, having said all that, I will reiterate, I enjoyed the movie. The action sequences were very exciting to watch, the sets and costumes were magnificent and grand, the music was intense, and the cinematography was wonderful. Even the predictable ending was somewhat uplifting.

General Maximus was head of the Roman Army under Emperor Marcus Aurelius, played by Richard Harris. Marcus Aurelius knows that his son Commodus will make a terrible ruler, and names Maximus his heir, charging him with restoring Rome to a republican form of government. Instead, Commodus murders Marcus before the announcement can be made. He seizes the throne and orders Maximus to be executed along with his wife and son.

Commodus’ sister Lucilla, played by Connie Nielsen, was the only character that wasn’t easy to figure out… at first. You weren’t sure where her loyalties were placed. She apparently used to be Maximus’ lover and still held a secret torch for him even though they had both married other people and had children of their own. Was she on her brother’s side or the handsome General’s?

But after the Emperor’s murder, she had no choice but to bow to Commodus. Her 8 year old son Lucius, played by young actor Spencer Treat Clark, was the next in line to the throne, since Commodus had no children. That put him in a position of danger, because Commodus wanted an heir of his own…. with his sister. But never mind that.

Either way, Maximus escapes his execution and is captured by slavers who sell him to a man named Proximo, played by Oliver Reed, who is barely recognizable as the same man who was in the 1968 Best Picture Winner, Oliver!

Interesting note: Oliver Reed actually died of a heart attack before filming was complete. In order to finish the movie, a body double was hired to play his remaining scenes and a 3-D image of Reed’s face was digitally added in post-production at a cost of 3.2 million dollars. This was done for 2 additional minutes of footage.

But the point I’m trying to make is – that is how Maximus becomes a GLADIATOR! And really, this is what we have all come to see. Just like the Roman citizens, we want to see people beat the crap out of each other. Why else is modern boxing and cage fighting so popular? We like seeing competition that has a combination of strength, skill, stamina and danger. And Maximus, having been trained as a soldier, excels at dealing out death. But he dislikes the killing, despite the fact that he is good at it. Remember, he must remain noble at all times. He only does it because he has to.

I have to admit that even I am excited by the violence and gore of the fighting scenes, though I don’t think my attitude would be the same if I knew that it was real. With my modern sensibilities, I would be disgusted with that kind of entertainment. But in the movies, anything goes!! Bring on the blood! Bring on the guts! Bring on the death! In spite of the underdeveloped characters, the movie had its heart in the right place. It understood what the audiences wanted to see and it delivered.

Crowe, Phoenix and Nielsen all did good with the script they were given, delivering the melodramatic dialogue as well as can be expected, though someone needs to tell the writer that putting an “Oh” before a statement does not make it more dramatic. It just makes it awkward because very few real people talk that way. “Oh, you should see the Coliseum, Spaniard.” “Oh, Sister. I wouldn’t want to be your enemy.” “Do they hear you? ‘Who?’ Your family in the afterlife. ‘Oh, yes.’” It just sounds unnatural to the ear.

I mentioned the great music earlier. Hans Zimmer wrote a score that was a study in mounting tension. The director spent a fair amount of time showing the lead-up to each battle sequence, allowing Zimmer to build and build the tension with his music. But I’m afraid we can’t really give all the credit for the score to him alone. What I mean is that the music for the action sequences was quite blatantly taken from Gustav Holst’s Symphonic Suite: The Planets. Specifically, there were passages that seemed to be lifted directly from the movement entitled Mars. But even if the notes are not exactly the same, they are very close. Still, this makes it no less effectively used, and no less enjoyable to listen to.

Another thing I’d like to give my opinion on is the costumes. Costume designer, Janty Yates, did a fantastic job and took home the Oscar for Best Costume Design. The Roman soldiers in their battle armor, the fancy robes of Commodus, the dirty and worn shifts of the slaves, and even the fantasy armor and helmets worn by Maximus in the gladiatorial arena were fantastic and so well done. I particularly loved the beautiful and colorful gowns worn by Lucilla. Yates really must have had some fun designing those fabulous dresses for Nielsen and she wore them very well.

The large sets were a combination of real sets and CGI. But most of it was done so seamlessly that it never even occurred to me that computers were responsible. As is often the case, the most effective special effects are the ones you don’t see. If you can tell that it is a special effect, then the film makers didn’t do their jobs right. For example, the crowds in the Coliseum were shown to be gigantic, made up of around 35,000 spectators. However, during filming, only 2,000 extras were used, a fact I would never have known if I hadn’t done my research. I wouldn’t have even considered the crowd at all. That means the CGI and computer enhanced compositing was done right.

There was another actor that I need to make note of who I think stood out above the rest of the supporting cast. Derek Jacobi played the part of Senator Gracchus. He had a very easy manner about him that made him seem natural. His character had a calm and placid surface, but a quick and calculating mind beneath. Jacobi was great. He had just the right amount of haughtiness in his performance to show that he had a bit of an ego, but not so much that you didn’t like him. Well done Jacobi.

All in all, I think I have changed my opinion about Gladiator. While it might not be the best film ever made, it was highly entertaining. I can guarantee that this is not the last time I will ever watch it. Considering everything, it deserved the Best Picture win just as much as anything else did. If only that pesky dialogue and the need for character development didn’t have to get in the way!

Interesting note: In 2009, details of a rejected sequel turned up on the internet. In it, Maximus would be reincarnated by the Roman gods and returned to Rome to defend Christians against persecution. He would then be transported to several other important periods in history, including WWII, the Vietnam War, and finally as a modern day General in the Pentagon. I think it is a cool concept for a movie or possibly even a franchise, but not as being associated with Gladiator. Look for the brilliant series of Casca books by Barry Sadler and you’ll get the same concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

American Beauty – 1999

This winner was certainly a strange one. The story was engaging, the acting was incredibly good, the music was modern and unique, and the style was fascinating to watch. But the big question on everyone’s mind is what did it all mean? What was the movie about?

That’s the trouble – nobody knows. But that is also part of its genius. The point of the film is very much open to interpretation. Even the title of the film was left a bit ambiguous on purpose. I mean, American Beauty could mean any number of things. I remember seeing this movie when it first came out in theatres. I remember that I liked it, but I couldn’t put my finger on why.

The movie was nominated for 8 Academy Awards and won 5. It won for Best Picture, Best Director (Sam Mendez), Best Actor (Kevin Spacey), Best Original Screenplay, and Best Cinematography. Annette Benning was nominated for best Actress, and I found it surprising to learn that she did not win. She was incredible.

But let’s take a look at Spacey first. Spacey played the character of Lester Burnham. He is the guy who is average to a fault. He is a good and faithful husband. He supports his wife, played by Benning, and has difficulty relating to and communicating with his daughter Jane, played by Thora Birch. He has an average job which he hates, an average house in which he feels ignored. There is almost nothing about him that is interesting in any way, except for one thing: In the opening voice-over, he states quite casually that he will soon be dead. But even that doesn’t seem to matter because, in a way, he is dead already.

Immediately, you want to know why. Then you quickly get to know his family, his neighbors, his dreams, his fantasies, his struggle to revitalize his life, and the events that, by the end of the film, lead him to his demise.  Spacey was very believable as Lester. He had a polite and calm exterior of civility that was punctuated with scathing quips of self-loathing and spiteful sarcasm that left no doubt: He was in no way a happy man. The movie has been billed as a comedy/drama, though the comedy, the way Spacey played it, was very dry and somehow dreadfully sad.

His character at the beginning of the film is almost difficult to watch because it is so easy to see a little bit of him in myself. I’d even go so far as to say that there is a little bit of Lester Burnham in most people. There are times when each of us is dissatisfied with our lives, and we feel trapped in an existence in which we never intended be. That is Lester. It has been a long time since the love had left his marriage and the highlight of his boring day is when he masturbates in the shower each morning.

Benning played Lester’s wife Carolyn. She is a mildly successful real-estate agent who has some serious psychological issues. She is a perfectionist with absolutely no tolerance for failure in anyone, least of all herself. She goes out of her way to display the perfect home, the perfect yard and the perfect image of everything she can. Lester’s average existence is a huge disappointment to her upon which she can only look down on in disgust and for which she can feel nothing but embarrassment.

You know that her extreme, obsessive-compulsive behavior is actually borderline psychotic when she fails to sell a house and breaks down in tears – something anybody might do if they fail to reach an important goal. But then she starts slapping herself across the face and calling herself horrible names, first for the failure, but then for the crying. This woman is on the verge of either murder or suicide.

Benning was incredible in those moments of rage and self-hate. She was scary and yet pitiful at the same time. She was wound up tighter than a snare drum and her mental breakdowns were heart-wrenching to watch. She was so over-the-top, and yet strangely believable. It is almost creepy how real her performance was.
Jane is a normal teenage girl in high-school. She is not overly-attractive or too popular. She is a cheerleader, and one of her friends on the squad is the beautiful blonde girl Angela, played by Mena Suvari.  Here is where Lester begins to awaken.  His life changes, both for the better and for the worse.  Upon seeing Angela, he immediately falls in lust with her.  He begins having erotic visions of this teenage girl who is flowering into womanhood.  Images of rose petals begin bursting from her as he stares at her and imagines her cheerleading routine turning into a sexual dance performed for him alone.

I could go on, explaining the plot, but suffice to say his life changes in various ways.  He becomes more confident, more aggressive, more confrontational and more self-serving.  But everything that happens seems to point to a mid-life crisis taken to the extreme.  His behavior throws the lives of his wife and daughter up in the air and turns them up-side-down.

Another few characters that I have to mention are the new neighbors, the Fitts family.  Chris Cooper plays the father Frank, a retired Marine Corps Colonel.  He is an abusive husband and parent, both mentally and physically, controlling his family with a strict and militant lifestyle.  He has crazy fits of rage in which he beats his teenage son Ricky, played by Wes Bentley.  Ricky is a high-school student who also happens to be a drug dealer, selling marijuana.  As a result of the strict disciplinarian upbringing he endured under his father, he has spent time in a mental institution, though not for the reason you might think.  He later becomes Jane’s boyfriend.

His mother is played by Allison Janney.  She is a woman who has spent her entire adult life married to an abusive husband.  She has no personality, no life in her eyes, and has been reduced to a near-catatonic state most of the time.  Her role was small but frightening to watch.  Janney is such a great actress and turned in a stellar performance.  I have seen her in several other roles in films like Drop Dead Gorgeous (1999) and the wonderful TV show The West Wing.  She is always a pleasure to watch.  She was especially good in the scene in which Ricky leaves home.  She has a moment of perfect clarity and understanding.  She knows that she will never see him again and she is almost happy for him that he is getting out from under the fists of his abusive father.  She calmly accepts his departure without any questions or protestations.

There are several other scenes in the movie which stood out to me as particularly well-acted or intense.  There is a scene in which Lester quits his job in a most fantastic and memorable way.  It is a way in which we all wish we could quit our jobs at one time or another.  He blackmails his boss into awarding him a severance package of a year’s salary.  He can be seen walking away from the office with a smile on his face and a sense of confidence and purpose.

Another intense scene is the fight that Lester has with his family when he tells them of his decision to quit his job.  Benning and Spacey were especially good in this scene.  Carolyn’s neuroses flare to an alarming size and Lester actually gets mad enough to throw a plate of food against the wall.  Jane is forced to sit and witness the whole confrontation.

And then, there is the strange scene in which Colonel Fitts, mistakenly believing that his son Ricky is accepting money for having sex with Lester, goes to Lester who is lifting weights in his garage.  In a strange and confusing moment of grief, Frank tries to kiss him.  A confused Lester gently rebuffs him and he leaves without a word.  I always got the impression that Frank was not really trying to seduce Lester.  He was trying to understand his son whom he has just thrown out of his house.  It was a bizarre scene and slightly unnerving.

And lest I forget, a great scene, and actually one of the actually funny scenes in the film is a scene in which Carolyn, along with her lover Buddy Kane, played by Peter Gallagher, are driving through the drive-through at a fast food restaurant.  Lester, after having quit his job, has gotten a simple and yet satisfying job at the burger joint.  As Carolyn pulls up to the window, Lester is there, catching her in the act while his shift manager watches and says “Whoa! You are so busted.”  Carolyn snaps, “You know, this really doesn’t concern you,” to which Lester replies, “Well, actually, Janine is the Senior Drive-thru Manager so you are on her turf.”  That scene was very well played.

I must also mention the music.  The score written by Thomas Newman was interesting, modern, and unique… very much like the movie itself.  It had a quirky and off-the–wall sound that could be very discordant and jarring one moment, and then very serious and incredibly introspective the next.  I know Newman’s style from the soundtrack for the made-for-TV movie: Angels in America, and his theme music for the Television show Six Feet Under.  He has an almost haunting style that is quite beautiful in its own way.

The film, with all its interesting characters and stories, is a hard one to figure out.  It is one that makes you think and consider long after the end credits are done scrolling up the screen.  According to Wikipedia, there are several themes in the film that can be examined.  The film can be seen as being about imprisonment and escape from imprisonment.  It might be about conformity and beauty.  It could be about sexuality and repression.  Some people say that it is a study of the secret life of the average middle-American while others say it is about finding beauty in the every-day world around you.

I tend to think that is about all these things.  It is a movie that tells its stories on multiple levels at the same time.  It is a layered film that reveals more and more the deeper into it you go.  Each character is well written with a well-developed personality and a story of their own to tell.  Like I said it was a strange one to win the Best Picture award, but I think it was definitely worthy of the honor.  I’m just not yet sure if I have decided exactly why.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shakespeare In Love – 1998

I love this movie. I have seen it many times before, but it never fails to catch my heart. It is a romance done right. Normally I’m not a huge fan of romances, but that is because they are usually painfully predictable or simply dull and lifeless. This movie gets it right without being sappy or dim-witted. It is based on one of Shakespeare’s most famous plays, Romeo and Juliet, but it does so in a most clever way. And it is interesting to note that the writers unapologetically ignored many historical facts and wrote a work of fiction.

Joseph Fiennes, the brother of actor Ralph Fiennes, plays a very young William Shakespeare in 1593 London. He is having writer’s block when starting a comedy, Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate’s Daughter. His financer, owner of The Rose Theatre, Philip Henslow, played by Geoffrey Rush, is demanding the new play, which Shakespeare’s writer’s block will not even allow him to start. But actors are called for and auditions begin.

One of the actors who auditions is a young man named Thomas Kent. He is actually a woman disguised as a man because women were not allowed to act on the stage in those days. She is actually Lady Viola de Lesseps, played by Gwyneth Paltrow. She is a young lady who loves plays, the theatre, and poetry above all. She has loved Shakespeare from afar because of his poet’s soul. She recites some of his poetry at her audition and he is so impressed that he demands that she remove her hat and say who she is. Doing so would reveal her gender, so she runs. He follows her and discovers who she is. And their romance begins.

Paltrow was incredible in her part as the high-born Lady who is hopelessly in love with the low-born and penniless playwright. This is the first movie in which I remember seeing her and I was so taken with her poise and beauty on the big screen that it came as no surprise to me when she won the Academy Award for Best Actress. She really turned in a wonderful performance.
And the romance was so well handled, so well written. Marc Norman wrote the screenplay along with playwright Tom Stoppard. The rest of the plot follows the two lovers’ passionate relationship as Shakespeare is inspired to write his famous love story Romeo and Juliet. The play he writes reflects his own romance with Viola. It is so incredibly clever and surprisingly believable how the events in his life make their way into the play.

But this clever device was used again on a larger scale at the same time. Little references from many of Shakespeare’s plays kept popping up in the movie at various times and in very subtle ways. You would really have to be an astute student of all of Shakespeare’s plays to get them all. For example, at one point, Shakespeare says to Henslow, “Doubt thou the stars are fire / Doubt that the sun doth move.”: a line from Hamlet. Even the first time Fiennes is on the screen, we see him crumpling paper into balls and throwing them around his room. One lands near a skull, another reverence to Hamlet, while another lands near an open chest, referencing The Merchant of Venice.

Another example is the whole plot device of a woman dressing as a man which was also done in Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night. At one point, it is even shown that Shakespeare’s Two Gentlemen of Verona is being performed. And of course there is the concept of a “play within a play” as the actors, playing actors, act out Romeo and Juliet as it is being written. There are even lines that show up in the normal conversations between characters that are references to several of Shakespeare’s sonnets. Norman and Stoppard obviously know their Shakespeare. And all these little things show up in the film as if they are the things which inspire Shakespeare to use them in his own plays.

But just like that of Romeo and Juliet, the relationship between Shakespeare and Lady Viola is doomed. Lady Viola is given in marriage to Lord Wessex, an arrogant man with no money and the good name of a nobleman. He is excellently played by Colin Firth, whom we may remember from his rather unmemorable role in The English Patient. But here, he had a more significant part and showed his skill as an actor quite well.

Interesting note: This is the second film in which Colin Firth has had his love interest stolen by one of the Fiennes brothers, the first being The English Patient, the Best Picture winner of 1996.

And while we are on the subject of good actors in the film, I would be remiss if I did not mention Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth I of England. Now, she was incredible. She was a real screen stealer. She drew my focus and commanded my attention. She was wonderful to watch. She was simply perfect for the part and believable in her portrayal. She was mesmerizing and she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for the role.

Interesting note. Dench won the Best Supporting Actress award, though she had only about 8 minutes of screen-time. This is the second shortest winner in the history of this category, the first being Beatrice Straight in 1976’s Network.

Other notable actors in the movie were Simon Callow as Edmund Tilney, the Master of Revels in the employ of the Queen, Imelda Staunton as Viola’s nurse, Tom Wilkinson as Hugh Fennyman, the money behind Shakespeare’s play, Mark Williams, playing a bit part in the play, though he is most famous in America as Arthur Weasley in the Harry Potter Franchise, and Rupert Everett as Christopher Marlow, another famous playwright, a contemporary of Shakespeare.

Interesting note: Imelda Staunton and her husband Jim Carter both get to play the same role in the film. They both play the Nurse – Staunton as Viola’s Nurse, and Carter (remember – all female roles had to be played by men in those days) as Juliet’s Nurse.

But there are two other actors who caught my attention who are not big names or anyone whom you might even recognize. Barnaby Kay and Gregor Truter both played actors in the production of Romeo and Juliet. Their names were never given in the course of the film, though they were in the credits as Nol and James Hemmings, respectively. I’m not sure what it was about the two actors that caught my attention, but they did, and there you have it.

The music for the film was written by Stephen Warbeck and was really something special. It was lush, gorgeous, romantic and uplifting, all at the same time. And there were odd times in the film, times in which you would not expect to hear underscoring, when the music would be continuing in the background, giving the plot the feeling of being intertwined with some ephemeral beauty. Music is generally used to enhance action when no dialogue is being spoken. But Shakespeare In Love used it behind some of the dialogue, which had the effect of giving extra weight to the words coming from the actors. True, that is done in movies often enough, but it was a little trick Director John Madden used to wonderful effect. Warbeck took home his own Oscar for his work.

Another aspect of the film that won an Academy Award was the costumes. They were incredible. Of course, the women’s clothing of that time in history, at least the high-born ladies, were exquisitely detailed and elaborate. Women’s dresses would have been custom-made as well as hand-made. Each garment would have been unique. I imagine that the clothing worn by Judi Dench would have been designed based on existing records or portraits, but the gowns worn by Paltrow would have allowed the costumer, Sandy Powell, a little more freedom. And she really knew her stuff. She did a fabulous job and Paltrow looked stunning. The fact that her hair and makeup were always flawless didn’t hurt either.

Yet another thing that was impressive about the movie was the language. One of the drawbacks of Shakespeare, in general, is that its language is often difficult to understand. I suspect that what you hear in a Shakespeare play is fairly indicative of the actual language of then late 1500s. But Norman and Stoppard wrote a script that gave the audience no trouble at all in understanding what was being said, and yet it all sounded perfectly believable as language from that era. There was just the right mixture of old English and modern English.

Shakespeare In Love also had the wonderful opportunity to stage an engaging production of Romeo and Juliet, or at least scenes from it. Several scenes from the play were actually used as part of the plot of the movie itself, such as the famous balcony scene. Shakespeare actually climbs up to Lady Viola’s balcony, just as Romeo does in the play. But the comedy of the movie then took over as it is the nurse that finds him when he reaches the top. She begins screaming and he falls to land in the bushes. He is then chased across the grounds and out of the front gate.

I think that it was in this “play within a movie” where the two previously mentioned actors, Kay and Truter really caught my attention. And the costumes for the Romeo and Juliet scenes were fantastic. The Montagues were all in shades of blue while the Capulets were all in shades of red, making it easy to tell the two opposing families apart.

Through a specific set of circumstances, Viola ends up going on-stage as Juliet while Shakespeare, himself, ends up playing Romeo. And what happens is magical. They know that at that point in the film, Viola has been married to Lord Wessex. They can never be together. Acting out their parts in the play was like the final stolen moment of their passionate love-affaire. Their on-stage kisses were true and real.

And the final scene of the play was so well directed. It was priceless. Romeo enters the tomb and finds Juliet. He drinks his poison and dies, and it is like Shakespeare is the one drinking his death instead of Romeo. There is a perfectly timed pause as the tearful audience weeps at his tragic fate. But then when Viola sits up, an audible gasp is heard. She sees her dead lover and with real emotion, kills herself with his dagger. By the time it is all over, both I and the fictional audience was awash with tears.

Because as we all know, the play must end. And when it does, we must return to reality. In the context of the film, the reality is that Viola is married and must leave for Virginia while Shakespeare must watch her depart, knowing that he will never see her again. I shed even move tears.

Again, Norman and Stoppard’s script really tied up their story with a heart-wrenching ending worthy of a Shakespeare play. It was marvelously done and a pleasure to watch, even though I can never get through it without winding up as a puddle of tears. The Academy loves dramas, and while there was a fair amount of comedy in this movie, the intensity of the romantic drama was undeniable. It is easy to see why they, like me, loved Shakespeare In Love.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Titanic – 1997

Titanic was a movie that was… dare I say it… titanic.  It was monstrous in its scale and gargantuan in its financial success.  It swept the Oscars and won 11 out of the 14 awards for which it was nominated.  It was the highest grossing film of all time for twelve years after its initial release, eventually being surpassed by Avatar.  Both films were directed by James Cameron who has a history of making other hugely successful movies such as The Terminator, Aliens, and The Abyss.

I have to start off by dispelling a misconception about the film.  At least it was my misconception.  Even though I really like the movie and have seen it multiple times, when looking at it with a critical eye, I found that the movie is not about the sinking of the Titanic.  The movie is, first and foremost, a romance story.  It is set against the backdrop of the famous tragedy, but the romance story never goes away.

It stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, with supporting roles by Gloria Stuart, Billy Zane, Frances Fisher, Kathy Bates, Bill Paxton, David Warner and Victor Garber.  Many of the characters in the movie were completely fictional, though there were just as many characters who were based on real people.  Cameron took on a monumental task, doing extensive research, even becoming obsessed with paying as much attention to detail as possible in the making of Titanic.  The historical characters were treated with as much accuracy as possible while still remaining true to the fictional story being told.  The sets and costumes were as authentic as could be done.  Many of the original blueprints and design documents were retrieved from the archives of the White Star Line company in order to recreate as many of the specific details of the actual ship correctly.

Now, the romance story, as romance stories go, is somewhat predictable and sappy.  And I’ll be honest, it isn’t why I enjoy the movie as much as I do.  I mean, really, I like watching the visual effects and realism of the sinking of the ship.  It was incredibly well done.  It was enormous and complex.  A mixture of real sets and special effects, live actors and CGI images combined to make a startling and amazing spectacle of the horrific event.  Though there have actually been 4 movies and several TV miniseries made about the sinking of the Titanic, Cameron was the only one with the budget to really do the cataclysm and enormity of the event justice.  The movie is worth seeing just to witness the scale of Cameron’s version of the tragedy.

But the Titanic doesn’t even hit the iceberg until an hour and forty minutes into the movie.  The film is 3 hours and 14 minutes long, so at least half the film is dedicated to the romance before the real reason why we have all come to see the movie begins.  Then I would venture to say that at least another thirty minutes are devoted to the continuation of the romance between the two lovers as the ship sinks and they struggle to survive.  Then about an hour is given to the crew and passengers as they to their best to live through the horrific event.

Interesting note:  In the movie, exactly 37 seconds pass between the lookouts warning and the actual collision with the iceberg – the exact same amount of time it took in real life.  But Cameron even went farther than that.  If you remove all the scenes in the film that take place in the present day (we’ll get to that in a bit) and the opening credits, the running time of the film is exactly 2 hours and 40 minutes – the exact time it took for the Titanic to sink.

And when it comes to that, Cameron really did a great job in the pacing of the tragedy.  At first everyone is calm and dismissive about it all because none of the passengers really knew what was going on.  But as the front of the ship starts going under the water and as more and more decks begin to flood, the mounting chaos and panic amongst both the passengers and the crew becomes intense.  The climactic scene when the stern finally goes down is incredibly well shot and is amazing to watch.

But back to the romance.  DiCaprio and Winslet had a pretty good chemistry with each other.  Their passion seemed unfeigned and unafraid.  DiCaprio plays Jack Dawson, a penniless, homeless artist who has won his ticket on the Titanic in a game of poker.  This is a very telling plot point, emphasizing that he is the kind of man who lives his life riding the winds of chance and going wherever he is blown.  The point is made that he lives his life playing whatever hand he is dealt and makes every moment count.

On the flip side, Winslet plays Rose DeWitt Bukater, a 17 year old girl who has been born into high society with all the social demands of a young girl of the early 1900s that go along with it hovering over her head.  She is being forced into marriage with a rich but abusive man whom she does not love.  She feels trapped with her own life and longs for freedom and adventure.

The two actors did a good job.  As a viewer, you end up feeling for them both in their whirlwind relationship.  You want them to end up together.  They are true star-crossed lovers just like Romeo and Juliet, and their affair is just as brief and tragic.  DiCaprio was 22 years old when Titanic was filmed, but he has a very young look about him and could have passed for 18.  His skills as an actor had already been proven.  He is one of those rare people who have successfully made the transition from child actor to adult actor.  Winslet also played her part very well.  This was the first film in which I remember seeing her, and I have always been impressed by her performance.

The rest of the cast, who are really too numerous to mention, did a great job as well.  I had no problem with any of the acting in the film.  However, I have to give a few honorable mentions.  Billy Zane was wonderful in his portrayal of Caledon Hockley, the rich man whom Rose is supposed to marry.  Zane was incredibly attractive and yet such an ass that you just wanted him to die with everyone else.  But he was so conniving and self-serving that he was able to survive on one of the lifeboats.  Fortunately, we learn that eventually his character lost all his money and committed suicide.  Yay!  Another honorable mention is Frances Fisher, Rose’s mother.  She always had a calm and practiced exterior and yet you could just see the cold-hearted and venomous woman that resided beneath the surface.  Fisher did a great job.

And I would be remiss if I did not mention Gloria Stewart.  She played the part of Rose DeWitt Bukater – as a 100 year old woman.  That brings me around to the beginning and end of the film.  The beginning really starts out as treasure hunter Brock Lovett, played by Bill Paxton, is searching the wreckage of the Titanic in search of a lost diamond that is worth more than the Hope Diamond.  He locates Cal’s safe and brings it to the surface.  He hopes to find the diamond called the Heart of the Ocean within, but instead finds a drawing of a naked woman wearing the jewel, dated the day the Titanic sank.  After recognizing the woman in the recovered portrait on the news as herself, the old Rose travels to the research & recovery vessel to meet with Lovett.  There, she tells her story, so really the main body of the film is a flashback which is narrated by Stewart.  She does an incredible job narrating.  Her voice sounds like the female version of Morgan Freeman: kindly, insightful and pleasant to listen to.

Now the ending of the movie is an interesting one.  Once the Titanic has gone down, Jack dies, Rose is rescued and the flashback ends.  The old Rose finishes her story and Lovett feels shame for his treasure-hunting, saying that he never let any of the reality of the tragedy in and that he never really understood that he was trying to benefit from ruined lives of others.  Then we cut to a short scene in which it is revealed that the Old Rose has had the sought after treasure all along.  She quietly makes her way to the back of the ship and with a smile on her face, she tosses the priceless diamond into the ocean where it is lost forever.

At that point, I can’t help but look at it through my own eyes – the eyes of a man who would never throw away that kind of financial security.  I want to jump into the screen and throw her overboard as well!  I mean, returning the Heart of the Ocean to where it “belongs”, being noble and embracing the idea that life and freedom are more important than money, is great as a concept.  But come on!  We live in the real world!  She could have made sure that her descendants for generations would have been securely wealthy.  But instead she casually throws it away, making the point that she was able to survive and thrive without Cal’s lingering influence on her life.

But at least that was better than the alternate ending that was included on the DVD.  In the alternate ending, Rose’s granddaughter sees her at the back of the boat and is afraid she is trying to jump overboard to join the ghosts of her past.  She and Lovett run to her but she makes them come no closer.  She then reveals that she has the Diamond.  Lovett’s eyes light up as he realizes that she has had the jewel all along.  He pleads with her not to toss it into the sea, but she quietly convinces him that it is the right thing to do.  He asks to hold it in his hand just once before it is tossed overboard.  Rose allows him to hold it briefly before she flings it into the ocean.  And he allows it, realizing that she is right:  Life and freedom are more important than money.  While that is fundamentally true, they could have had all three.

So all that being said, when I finished watching the movie I made note of several questions I had and inconsistencies in the film.  Some of these questions were answered when I watched the deleted scenes and some were not.

First, the one that gets me every time I watch the movie is Lovejoy’s Head wound.  Lovejoy is Cal’s manservant, played by David Warner.  As the Titanic is going down, he remains relatively unscathed until his death scene, at which point he is inexplicably shown with a bleeding head wound.  A deleted scene shows him in a fight with Jack where he is pitched into a glass window pane.  Another scene shows a shelf full of dinner china falling off a shelf and crashing onto the floor.  However, the part of the ship that is still above water is at a 45 degree angle.  Those plates would have crashed to the floor a lot sooner.  And I have always wondered why none of the people floundering in the water after the Titanic was gone did not start swimming toward the rescue boats.  I still don’t know about that one.

If the entire story was supposed to be told as Rose’s flashback, how is it that nobody figured out that Rose had the diamond?  That might be explained by saying that Rose was not present when the diamond was put into the pocket of the coat she was given, but Cameron maintained the flow of the plot by showing the audience anyway.  And finally, if Rose became an actress after surviving the sinking of the Titanic, wouldn’t her mother or Cal, who had also survived, recognize her or see her image at some point?

Titanic was certainly an entertaining film.  The sheer scale of the movie and the production values were incredible, even overwhelming.  The music was alright, though in my opinion, nothing terribly special.  It seemed to me that there was too much of a synth sound to some parts of the score.

 

Interesting note:  It is rumored that when Celine Dion came to the recording studio to record the movie’s hit song, My Heart Will Go On, she did one take and proclaimed, “That was perfect.  I do not need to record it again,” and the walked out of the studio.  But if you really listen to her performance, you hear sing, at one point, “My heart will go OND and on.”  Sorry, Celine – OND is not a word.

But the costumes and sets couldn’t have been any better.  And the last hour of the movie was spectacular, and I might even say frightening to see.  At the very least it was very intense.  Of course Titanic won the Best Picture award.  How could it not?  It had everything a Best Picture winner should have.  It had big stars, big sets, big epic plot and big production values.  I think this one was a bit of a shoe-in.

Interesting note:  This was the year in which Cameron, who also won the award for Best Director, asked for a moment of silence for the 1,500 people who died in the terrible tragedy.  So, live on national television, an extremely long and awkward moment of silence was observed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The English Patient – 1996

Here we are back in WWII… again.  We are also back in Africa… again.  The English Patient, I must admit was not a movie I was looking forward to seeing.  I had seen it before a long time ago and was bored to tears.  However, I tried to go into it with an open mind.  I remembered next to nothing from that first viewing so it was like watching it for the first time… again.

And I’ll be honest, it isn’t nearly as bad as I remembered it to be.  However, it was still a slow, slow movie.  Not a bad one, but a slow one.  It took 3 hours to tell a story that could have been told in an hour and a half.  Actually, the first cut of the film was 4 hrs and 10 minutes long.  Thank goodness that is was cut down a bit!

The overall plot is actually made up of two different stories, which together made up the greater story.  Ralph Fiennes plays the part of Count Laszlo Almasy.  He is one of the two characters who appear in both story lines.  The other is David Caravaggio, played by Willem Dafoe.  The “current” story that starts the movie is continually punctuated with flash-back sequences.  Through them, we learn who the burned man is and how he came to be where he was.

The first story takes place in the final days of WWII as the Count is flying a biplane across the Sahara Desert.  His mysterious passenger is a woman who appears to be asleep.  They are shot down by German forces and the woman is incinerated.  The man suffers third degree burns over most of his body but survives.  He is saved by desert Arabs and given to the English.  He apparently has no memory of who he is or where he came from.

Juliette Binoche is Hana, a French-Canadian nurse who has lost everyone whom she has ever loved in the war.  When the English decide that the dying burn victim without a name cannot be saved, they decide to leave him behind and let him die.  Hana decides to move him into an abandoned monastery and care for him until his death.

In comes a mysterious vagabond / thief named Caravaggio.  He apparently has some sort of connection to the dying man, though he will not say how.  Also, Kip, played by British actor Naveen Andrews, an Indian sapper working with the English, arrives to defuse any booby-traps left in the monastery by the Germans.  Hana and Kip start a romance together while Caravaggio, who has apparently lost both of his thumbs, interrogates the burn victim.

Slowly, he begins to remember his past and the second story line is revealed.  The dying man, Count Almasy, was apparently a cartographer before the start of the war.  He and his partner were financed by Geoffrey and Katharine Clifton, played by Colin Firth and Kristen Scott Thomas.  He’d had a very passionate love affair with Katharine.  Her maddened husband attempts to murder the Count, resulting in his own death and that of his wife as well.  Through a complicated series of events, the Count, it is revealed, is indirectly responsible for Caravaggio’s severed thumbs.

And that is it, in a nutshell.  It took three hours to tell those two stories.  In my opinion, the movie needn’t have been so long-winded.  At least an hour could have been safely shaved off and it would have been just as entertaining.  So as I often do when I come across a movie that I have such issues with, I have to question:  What was it about The English Patient that put it above the rest?  Why did it win Best Picture?

First of all, I think the Academy is a sucker for epics and dramas.  I get that.  I love epics, too, and this was certainly an epic.  It had very grand and lofty themes and covered quite an extended period of time.  It told its stories of great passion in such a way as to make them engaging to the masses.  It dealt with forbidden love, infidelity, revenge, unbelievable loss and sadness, and forgiveness.  Many audiences like those kind of lofty themes.  They were portrayed with a kind of self-importance that made them seem more weighty than they would normally be.

But the film’s big romance was one that was not at all pure.  It was needy and possessive.  It was urgent and selfish.  The adulterous love affair between the Count and Mrs. Clifton was clearly wrong, by all societal standards.  But the overwhelming, all-consuming fire of their passion was portrayed as something so great that it would have been a sin to deny it.  It seemed to glorify the concept of illicit relationships as long as the lovers’ passion is strong enough.  Fortunately it was balanced out with the smaller, cleaner romance between Hana and Kip.  Both of them were unattached and so the romance was unencumbered and honest.

I also have to look at what it was up against.  In 1996, the nominees for Best Picture were Fargo, Jerry Maguire, Secrets & Lies and Shine.  I’ve seen the first two and while I liked Fargo very much, I don’t think it was any better than The English Patient.  I feel the same about Jerry Maguire.  But the Oscars went gaga over the English Patient.  It was nominated for 12 Academy Awards and won 9.  Binoche walked away with the Award for Best Supporting Actress.  The film also won for Best Art Direction – Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Director (Anthony Minghella), Best Film Editing, Best Original Score and Best Sound.

Next, I’ll look at the individual performances.  Our leading man, Fiennes, did a terrific job, just as he always does.  He is a very good actor.  He was good as the lover, but I thought he was even better as the dying burn victim.  The makeup was very good, though I must admit, I don’t really know what a real burn victim looks like.  I can say that I THINK it looked realistic.

Interesting note:  Fiennes’ burn makeup took 5 hours to apply every day.  Fiennes insisted that the full body makeup be applied even for the scenes where only his head would be filmed.

Binoche did a very good job as well.  She was gorgeous and had a hidden fire in her eyes that was mesmerizing to watch.  She was definitely a screen stealer.  She had an ease about her that was endearing and a softness and vulnerability that really made you feel for her character.  I have never seen her in a role in which I didn’t like her.

Naveen Andrews was also a bit of a screen stealer.  I know him mostly for his role on the television show, Lost.  But he was younger here and very sexy.  I even thought he looked great in his turban.  I have to give him credit for a job well done.  I was less impressed with Kristin Scott Thomas and Colin Firth.  I felt Thomas could have turned in a deeper performance, though she did well enough.  She was nominated for Best Actress, though she did not win.  Firth’s role was just too small and under-played to be taken too seriously.

Interesting note:  There is a scene in the movie in which Kip must disarm a bomb that is found in a kind of well.  It is a tense scene that puts him in danger of being killed.  When he reads off the bomb’s serial number to his partner, it is shown to start with “K-K-I-P…”  The bomb literally has his name on it.

Willem Dafoe was also pretty good, but for a character to have gone all over the world in search of revenge, only to discover that he could not carry it out when it was time, I think there should have been a more overt shift in his emotions.  I’m not saying I know how that should have been shown, but I would have liked to see something more dramatic than simply staring out a window and quietly deciding to forgive rather than punish.  He wasn’t even very menacing to the man he had come to murder.  I felt no sense of danger when he was trying to force the man to divulge his real identity.  But this problem was not with his performance.  The problem was in the writing.

I also must mention the cinematography.  It was really very well done.  The opening sequence of the tiny biplane flying over the desert was beautiful.  The shifting patterns in the sands were intriguing and fascinating to see.  Another location that was wonderful was the Cave of Swimmers.  As a cartographer, Count Almasy found this wonderful archeological site, and he later used it to hide and shelter his lover, Mrs. Clifton, as she died.

Interesting note:  The Cave of Swimmers is a real site, and was actually discovered by the real-life explorer Laszlo Almasy, but since its discovery in 1933, it has been a popular tourist site.  Unfortunately, years of unchecked tourism and vandalism have reduced the ancient and beautiful art to a horribly damaged state.  The cave had to be recreated by a modern artist as a film set for the movie.

The music was written by composer Gabriel Yared.  He won the Oscar for Best Original Score, but to be honest, the music didn’t really stand out to me.  It was passable and had a distinctly Middle-Eastern flare, but I don’t think it complimented the epic nature of the film very well.  It seemed to me to be too small scale.  Apparently, the Academy did not agree with my assessment.

Now, all that being said, I don’t think it was a bad movie – just a slow one.  The story was interesting enough, I guess.  I just don’t think it needed to take 3 hours to tell it.  It was simply too slow for my tastes.

Interesting note:  At the end of the film, following the previous year’s Best Picture winner Braveheart being called one of the most historically inaccurate movies ever made, The English Patient showed the following message on the screen before the credits began to appear:  “While a number of the characters who appear in this film are based on historical figures, and while many of the areas described – such as the Cave of Swimmers and its surrounding desert – exist, and were explored in the 1930s, it is important to stress that this story is a fiction and the portraits of the characters who appear in it are fictional, as are some of the events and journeys.”  In other words:  Sure, reality is being ignored, but at least we are acknowledging that this movie is historical fiction.

I actually appreciated their honesty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Braveheart – 1995

Another great movie! I went into this one having seen it before a few times, so I already knew the story. The plot is one on a very grand scale. The film stars Mel Gibson, Sophie Marceau, Patrick McGoohan, Catherine McCormack, Angus MacFadyen, and Brendan Gleeson. Actually those actors just make up the main cast. There were about a dozen other actors making up the supporting cast, and about 1,600 extras, most of whom were members of the Irish Army Reserve.

Interesting note: To save money on the production, Gibson used his Irish extras to play both the English and Scottish armies. The extras had to be given permission to grow beards and exchange their drab uniforms for medieval garb.

Now, I’ll admit right from the very beginning, in my research, I found that Braveheart was… nowhere near historically accurate. In fact, the very title of the film is misleading. It is clearly referring to the character played my Mel Gibson, but in reality, the name Braveheart refers to Robert the Bruce. Still, I didn’t think this made it a bad movie, just a fictional one. It was still highly entertaining and exciting to watch. Just throw the historical accuracy out the window and enjoy the action. But I’ll get to a few of the glaring examples in a bit.

Mel Gibson did a pretty good job as the character of William Wallace, historical inaccuracies aside – not great but not bad at all. His Scottish accent was a little inconsistent, but that is fairly easy to forgive. Scottish is one difficult accent to fake. Gibson looked alright with long hair and pulled off the kilt without a problem. He was even fit enough to lose his shirt every now and then.

If I had any real complaints about his performance, it would be that there was very little subtlety. All emotional content was very much on his sleeve. There were several scenes in which I believe he could have dug a little deeper in himself and pulled up a stronger performance: specifically, all the scenes after the death of his wife Murran, played by Catherine McCormack, in which he thinks of her, dreams of her, or speaks of her.

Other cast members who stood out to me were Angus Macfadyen, Sophie Marceau, and Brendan Gleason. Macfadyen played Robert the Bruce, the rightful heir to the throne of Scotland. He had a heart that was in the right place, though he was caught switching sides between that of his Scottish countrymen and England. He was too obedient to his father, who encouraged him to be self serving, even to the point of betraying Wallace. It was actually a pretty complex role to play and Macfadyen did it pretty well.

Marceau played Princess Isabella of France. This was a simple role in that the emotions of the character, as she is married off to a man who did not love her and used as a pawn in the political schemes of the King Edward “Longshanks”, needed a more subtle approach. Marceau did a good job of holding those emotions beneath the surface, even though she became very passionate about the events that were unfolding. The rare moment when she was allowed to lose control and take Wallace into her bed was also well played.

Then we come to Gleason, playing the part of Hamish, Wallace’s best friend. He was a big and burly man, a great fighter, and a fiercely loyal friend. He could have easily been a pretty one-dimensional character, but Gleason made him stand out to me. There was even a scene when his father died where he was able to display some real and convincing emotions. His quiet sobbing brought me to tears as well.

And finally, I have to mention another actor who, while we are not supposed to like him, did a great job. Peter Hanly played the part of Longshanks’ son, Prince Edward II. The character was portrayed as a homosexual and a weak, whimpering brat. Hanly was actually very believable in his portrayal. It was not too over the top and he made me dislike the character just enough to be believable.

Now, there was some controversy surrounding his character and his gay lover Phillip, played by Stephen Billington. It has become pretty common knowledge that Mel Gibson, the film’s producer, director, and lead actor, is very anti-gay. There is a scene in which Phillip is murdered by the King and the film received criticism because of the gratuitous death of a gay character. But I think those critics missed the point. First, historically, homosexuals have never been looked on in a favorable light, and for a prince who would one day sit on the throne of England to have a gay lover that clearly influenced him in his political dealings, it must have been a nasty thorn in the King’s side. If you’ll notice, the King actually tolerated him as long as he stayed in the background. But when he, a veritable nobody when it came to the monarchy, its politics and its military campaigns, began to usurp more power than he was due, the psychopathic King simply removed him in a swift and unapologetic manner. The fact that he was gay was not the main reason for the murder.

Gibson expressed bewilderment by audience reactions of laughter when it happened. I think I can explain that a little, He was made out to be such a smarmy and smug character that I was glad when he was taken out of the picture. It was the quick and impulsive manner in which it happened that was amusing.

Now, the cinematography, as you might imagine for a movie that takes place in the beautiful country of Scotland, was pretty spectacular. Scotland is actually a very small island, but it has, in my opinion, some of the most gorgeous and lush natural scenery in the world. Gibson and cinematographer John Toll really took advantage of the beauty of the Scottish countryside.

And it was also, during those scenes that showed the wonders of the Scottish landscapes, that the volume of the music of James Horner was really turned up. The soundtrack, as you might imagine, was as gorgeous and lush as the scenery. It was designed to be uplifting and inspirational as we follow the legendary Wallace on his path to greatness. Of course, bagpipes were often used to wonderful effect, lending a distinctly Scottish flavor to the music.

The film starts out when William Wallace is a peasant child and he begins to see the evils perpetrated against the Scotts by King Edward Longshanks, who lures the Scottish Nobles to a meeting under a flag of truce and murders them all, leaving their bodies on display in a public place. Within that sentence lies the first several of the movies many inaccuracies.

First of all, King Edward I was not as evil as he is depicted in the film. Specifically, the murder of the Scottish Nobles never happened. That was made-up. Second, Wallace was not a peasant. He was born into the gentry of Scotland. And it just keeps getting worse from there. I think that some of the most amusing and glaring fallacies in the film can be summed up by this hefty quote I have lifted directly from Wikipedia:

“Sharon Krossa notes that the film contains numerous historical errors, beginning with the wearing of belted plaid by Wallace and his men. In that period ‘no Scots … wore belted plaids (let alone kilts of any kind).’ Moreover, when Highlanders finally did begin wearing the belted plaid, it was not ‘in the rather bizarre style depicted in the film.’ She compares the inaccuracy to ‘a film about Colonial America showing the colonial men wearing 20th century business suits, but with the jackets worn back-to-front instead of the right way around.’ ‘The events aren’t accurate, the dates aren’t accurate, the characters aren’t accurate, the names aren’t accurate, the clothes aren’t accurate—in short, just about nothing is accurate.’ The belted plaid was not introduced until the 16th century. Peter Traquair has referred to Wallace’s ‘farcical representation as a wild and hairy highlander painted with woad (the blue face paint) 1,000 years too late, running amok in a tartan kilt 500 years too early.’”

Interesting note: Wallace’s affair with Princess Isabella of France? Never happened. In actuality, Isabella was three years old and living in France at the time, was not married to Edward II until he was already king and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.

nother Interesting note: When asked by a local why the Battle of Stirling Bridge was filmed on an open plain, Gibson answered that “the bridge got in the way“. “Aye,” the local answered. “That’s what the English found.”

So how can a movie that was based on historical events, but got so few of them right win the Academy Award for Best Picture. Braveheart has been described on numerous occasions and by several sources as one of the most historically inaccurate movies of all time.

I think I can sum that up pretty easily. This is Hollywood, my friends! It did not win for Best Documentary. It won for Best Picture. In this rare instance, I’m OK with making things up as long as it is entertaining to watch. Mel Gibson actually acknowledged many of the inaccuracies and defended his film, saying that the way events were portrayed in the film was much more “cinematically compelling” than historical fact.

In other words, the fictional story told on the big screen was more dramatic than reality. And the film’s drama was certainly compelling. The action sequences were exciting to watch, the characters’ motivations were believable and the movie’s pace made it all quite engaging. Gibson gave audiences what they wanted to see.

Making Wallace a peasant automatically makes him a common man like most of us, and an underdog to boot. Turning his crusade into a mission of revenge for a murdered wife, which actually had a small amount of truth in it, gave the hero an understandable justification for all the bloodshed for which he was responsible. It also had the benefit of throwing a bit of romantic motivation into the character.

In short, whatever Gibson did with historical truth, he made a good movie with a gripping story line and audiences ate it up. The film won 5 of the 10 Academy Awards it was nominated for. In addition to Best Picture, Braveheart won for Best Director (Gibson), Best Cinematography, Best Makeup, and Best Sound Editing.

But I guess if you want the real story of William Wallace, you’ll have to do your own research. As long as you keep in mind that the film is historical fiction, you should be able to enjoy this movie as much as I did.

Interesting note: William Wallace gives a speech in which he says the famous quote “Every man dies – Not every man really lives.” This famous quote commonly attributed to the “Braveheart” character was actually authored by a 19th Century American Poet whose name was William Ross Wallace, famous for writing the poem “The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Is The Hand That Rules The World”, who is of no relation to the William Wallace in the film.

Another Interesting note: Mel Gibson originally turned down the role of William Wallace saying that he was about a decade too old for the part – a sentiment I actually agree with. However, the only way he could get Paramount Studios to green-light the film was to agree to star in it, himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forrest Gump – 1994

Oh my goodness!  This was such a great film.  This is one of those movies that I could watch over and over again and not get bored.  I have seen it many times, and watched it again for this review.  Each time I see this movie, I find something new.  The casting was spot-on, the acting was wonderful, the epic scope of story was incredible, the costumes were great, the music was gorgeous and the emotional content was poignant.

Tom Hanks, of course, carried most of the film, though other great actors like Robin Wright, Gary Sinise, Sally Field and Mykelti Williamson made up the supporting cast.  Hanks turned in an excellent performance, creating a very unique and memorable character.  He really showed off his versatility as an actor.  I have never much seen Hanks as an action hero.  His early career was mostly comedies, though later her turned more towards dramas.  But even the action sequences in Vietnam were done quite well.  This was the second year in a row that Hanks won the Award for Best Actor.  The previous year he had taken home the Oscar for his role in Philadelphia.

Forrest Gump was a man with below average intelligence who is aware that he is not smart.  He had a southern drawl and a conservative manner.  He was unfailingly honest, completely loyal to his friends and family, polite, hard-working and just an all-around good guy.  I look at the story as a fantasy that is based in reality.  Over the course of his charmed life he takes part in or is present at, many significant events that took place in the United States during the 60s, 70s and 80s.  He also meets a number of important historical figures.  I call this movie a fantasy because while it is possible that one man could have done all the things that the character of Forrest Gump does, it is improbable that one man could have all the remarkable experiences depicted.

Interesting note:  In addition to the events portrayed in the movie, the original novel on which the movie is based features Gump as an astronaut, a professional wrestler, and a chess player.

So while the plot is not entirely realistic, it is a very good fantasy.  It is basically a good vehicle to explore those decades that had such a huge influence on the world.  The events that took place, the social movements, the music and the historical figures all had a hand in shaping the world as we know it today.  We see history unfold through the eyes of Forrest Gump whose character, due to his slowness, is a blank slate or sounding board.  He sees events through the eyes of innocence, letting us remember for ourselves, allowing us to form our own opinions.  Hanks was incredible in his portrayal.  He really pulled off that innocence well.

Opposite Hanks was Robin Wright, playing the part of Gump’s one and only love, Jenny.  While Gump represented the conservative side of society, joining the military, fighting in the Vietnam War, working hard to earn a living, and living a quiet life, Jenny represented the liberal side, embracing the counter-culture lifestyle, becoming a hippie, using recreational drugs and engaging in sexual promiscuity.  It would be easy to say that the film had a pro-conservative political agenda, though the filmmakers claimed that no such agenda existed.  I prefer to take them at their word.  If there was any agenda to be perceived, it is only because the movie was told through the perspective of Gump and not Jenny.  I thought both sides were equally represented.

Jenny was a wonderfully complex character.  She had been sexually abused by her father at a very young age and that trauma affected her entire life, her personality.  Many of the bad decisions she made stemmed from that abuse, her damaged self-esteem, and her self-loathing.  It wasn’t until the end, when her wild lifestyle gave her a death sentence, that she stopped punishing herself for what happened, and started blaming her father.  Wright was phenomenal.  The scene where she nearly commits suicide is awesome and frightening one to watch.

Gary Sinise was also a stand-out member of the cast, playing Lieutenant Dan, and he had more than just the challenge of performing a complex role.  His character loses both of his legs in Vietnam and so he had to work with the special effects department to convincingly create that innovative illusion.  It was around this time that good CGI (computer generated imagery) was starting to take hold and look believable.  And it is used in subtle ways that you wouldn’t even notice if you didn’t know what to look for.  Sinise did a wonderful job and was very believable as someone who was faced with his crippling disability.  He had some very dramatic moments which he handled very well.

Sally Field, playing the part of Forrest’s mother, did well, as you might expect and Mykelti Williamson, an actor who has a familiar face, but not a familiar name, also did a great job as Gump’s friend in the army.  His stand-out feature was his protruding bottom lip, which was done with a gum implant.  Both of these characters had their own death scenes to play and each one succeeded in bringing me to tears.

Another actress in a pretty minor role that I have to mention is Marla Sucharetza, playing Lenore, a slutty party girl Gump meets in New York.  She is shown to be frivolous and air-headed, but she has a strange and somehow beautiful moment in a single line she delivers.  I’m not sure if it is what she says or how she says it, but the line strikes me as vaguely haunting and very telling of her character.  While still in party mode, she says, “Don’t you just love New Year’s?  You can start all over.”  But then she turns suddenly very serious and introspective, saying, “Everybody gets a second chance.”  In that one line, I always hear a sad hollowness and a longing that is somehow heart-wrenching.  I’m not sure why, but I have to give Sucharetza a special nod for a job well done.

The cinematography was also very well done, especially in the sequence when Forrest is describing the beauty of the places he has seen to Jenny.  He seems to have led a charmed life, while she seems to have lived a cursed one.  As he describes those times in his life to her, beautiful images of an amazing sunset in the desert, a crystal clear mountain lake reflecting a deep blue sky, and the stars over the Vietnam jungle are shown.  She says, “I wish I could have been there with you,” to which Forrest replies, “You were.”

You see, Forrest loved Jenny with a pure and unconditional love.  He thought of her often and wanted nothing for her except happiness.  She was his angel, no matter what she did or where she went.  In the end, they have a son together and then get married.  But the marriage is short lived because Jenny dies of AIDS.  The film never actually named her illness, but made it pretty clear.  In this way, Forrest becomes a father to Forrest Jr., played by Haley Joel Osment who looked like he was no more than 4 years old at the time.  The biggest tear-jerking scene was the moment where Forrest is standing over Jenny’s grave, talking to her and trying not to cry.  “I miss you, Jenny.”   Ugh!  Tear my heart out!

The special effects in the movie were revolutionary for the time.  Several unique things were done that had never been done before.  First the image of Tom Hanks was inserted into old archival footage.  For example, in one scene, he is in a black and white newsreel where he is telling JFK that he has to pee.  Kennedy laughs and says, “I believe he said he has to go pee,” before walking away.  Another scene shows him having a Congressional Medal of Honor placed around his neck by LBJ.  Another scene shows him on an interview panel with John Lennon.

These scenes were all done by filming Tom by himself, and compositing his image into the archival footage.  This generally worked very well, except for one scene: the scene in which Gump shows up beside Governor Wallace.  This must have been their first attempt at this kind of special effect, because he doesn’t seem to fit as well into the picture as he does in other scenes with the same effect.  Also, he is supposed to be part of the background in the scene, as if he is a bystander who happened to be present when the news cameras were rolling.  But he was bouncing around and drawing too much attention to himself, making himself the focus.  His image also seemed too bright to blend into the darker original footage.

Another thing the special effects people did to those scenes was to morph the mouths of the historical figures, making JFK, LBJ and Lennon speak to the fictional character of Gump.  I remember the first time I watched this movie in 1994.  I was amazed and it all looked so real.  But in watching it again, I have to admit that I am spoiled by modern technology.  The movement of the mouths didn’t always match up very well with the words, especially in the case of Lennon.  I believe they could do it better today.

 

Interesting note:  Dick Cavett actually played himself in the archived footage.  The set for the Dick Cavett show was recreated and the real Cavett was given a make-up treatment that made him look younger so that he could play himself.

Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the music.  The soundtrack for the film was incredible!  Alan Silvestri provided a full orchestral score that was just beautiful, capturing the innocence of Gump’s character and really enhancing the visuals of the movie.  But in addition to that, music from the 60s, 70s and 80s was used.  I think we can all agree that a decade can be easily defined by its music.  Songs that people from my generation know and recognize, instantly take us to a specific time in history.  When the credits were rolling, I counted.  There were a total of 57 songs that were used in the film, not counting Silvestri’s score.

Artists like Elvis Presley, Fleetwood Mac, Credence Clearwater Revival, Lynyrd Skynyrd, The Birds, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, The Mamas & The Papas, Simon & Garfunkle and Bob Seger were included on the official soundtrack, though mostly snippets of their music were actually used in the film.  But it is music great that audiences know and love, and automatically associate with certain periods in history.

Forrest Gump was a wonderful and unique movie that had an incredible story, appealing to my love of epics.  The fantastic cast of actors really stepped up to the plate and turned in some awesome performances, making this a very worthy winner of the Best Picture award.  In addition to the Award for Best Picture, Forrest Gump took home Oscars for Best Actor (Hanks), Best Director (Robert Zemeckis), Best Visual Effects, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Film Editing.  Great job everyone!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Schindler’s List – 1993

There is so much to say about this movie.  Out of necessity, this is going to be a pretty long review.  This winner, in my opinion, was one of the big ones, up there on a scale matching Gone With the Wind, and Ben-Hur.  The film was huge in its sheer size and scope.  It was also an important movie that has a very powerful message.  But I must warn anyone who wants to see this movie: grab the hankies.  It is an emotionally wrenching film.

How can it not be?  It is, of course, about the Holocaust, and as such deals with some very disturbing and difficult subject matter in a graphic way that is sometimes very cold and dispassionate in the sense that it shows the atrocities of the Holocaust as they were carried out: very matter-of-factly.  This movie portrays the utterly dehumanizing and unbelievably horrifying treatment of the Polish Jews living in Krakow during WWII.  The movie was directed by Stephen Spielberg, a Jew himself.  As such, the telling of the story which was based on real events was told with a great amount of passion and sensitivity.

Interesting note:  The filming was done, as much as possible, in the actual locations where the real events took place.  As such, most of the time there was a feeling of solemnness and depression on the set.  The director felt the effects of this feeling very acutely.  On several occasions, Robin Williams called Spielberg to cheer him up and offer him encouragement.

The main plot told the story of one man, a Nazi supporting German, named Oskar Schindler, played by Liam Neeson, an actor who was fairly unknown at the time.  He attempted to re-create the real man, which he did with respect, and I could tell, a certain amount of rare humility.  Neeson was incredible.  He was nominated for the Best Actor award, though he did not win.

Schindler started out simply as a supporter of the Nazi Party, and why wouldn’t he be?  The Nazis were his countrymen and the war was good for his business.  He became a very rich man.  But when he became a witness to the atrocities carried out by the Nazi soldiers against the Jews, he had a change of heart.  He conceived of a plan to help the Jews in his own way.  He used the money he earned, every last penny, to save as many lives as he could.  He brought them in to his factory, using them as slave labor on the surface, but actually saving them from Nazi death camps.  In doing so, he sometimes put himself under suspicion, but in that way he was able to save them.

In the end, he was only able to save just over 1,000 people, a relative few compared to the millions and millions of men, women and children who lost their lives.  But the emotional climax of the film, which brought me to tears, was when the end of the war was announced and those he did save tried to thank him.  All Schindler could to was break down into sobbing and tears because he had not been able to save more.  Even now, I am getting misty–eyed  just thinking about it.  Neeson was incredible and really drove that scene home.

But the film was not just about him.  The film was also a simple and honest testament to what happened, a statement that says we must never forget the truth, lest history be allowed to repeat itself.  Spielberg filmed it in black and white for three very specific reasons that I feel need to be mentioned.  First was that, as a director, he tried to be as objective about the subject matter as possible, even going so far as to make the film almost like a documentary.  In the 1940s, black and white was still the normal and most common film format.  Second, Spielberg said that the whole feel of the Holocaust was one of joylessness and death.  Having the film done in black and white emphasized this feel in a way that a color film could not.  And third, at four points in the film, color was used to show the importance and significance of a character or event.

The image of a three-year-old girl in a red coat wandering the streets during the Liquidation of the Krakow ghetto, one of several scenes in the movie that was horrifying to watch, was one of those four special scenes.  The little girl, played by Oliwia Dabrowska, was supposed to be a symbolic figure.  Spielberg said the scene was intended to symbolize how members of the highest levels of government in the United States knew the Holocaust was occurring, yet did nothing to stop it.  I didn’t exactly get that from watching the film.  However, I felt it was significant to the plot.  Later, Schindler sees the girl on a cart of corpses.  It a turning point for his character, the moment when, in his heart, he ceases to be a Nazi sympathizer, and starts his campaign to help the Jews.

Interesting note:  Spielberg asked the young Dabrowska not to watch the film until she was an adult.  However, she watched it when she was eleven, and was apparently “horrified” by the graphic content.  But watching it again as an adult, she was mature enough to understand what she was watching and was proud of the role she played.

As with most films, there were plenty of sub-plots and separate stories that were told.  The film also followed the lives of several Jewish families and people through the horrors of the war, and showed how they were saved by Schindler.  Several actors and actresses stood out to me as incredibly good.  Ben Kingsley, for one, who we remember from the 1982 Best Picture winner, Gandhi, played the part of Itzhak Stern.  He was Schindler’s bookkeeper, and eventually his friend who helped him in his efforts to save as many Jews as possible.  Kingsley turned in another great performance.  He was real and believable, as he always seems to be.  It was the character of Stern that actually typed the infamous list, dictated from Schindler, containing the names of Jews on whom the film is based.

Two women who did a fantastic job were Embeth Davidtz and Miri Fabian.  Davidtz played the part of Helen Hirsch, a young Jewish girl who is forced to work as a housemaid to a vile Nazi monster, Amon Goeth, superbly played by Ralph Fiennes. (I’ll get to him in a bit.)  He casually beat her and terrorized her according to his whims.  The actress was incredible, portraying the constant fear that Hirsch felt during her time in Plaszow.  Every day she lived with the knowledge that eventually, Goeth would murder her.  The scene in which she confesses this fear to Schindler is a powerful scene.

Fabian played the part of Chaja Dresner, a Jewish mother who desperately tries to hold on to her children, which would have been near impossible to do.  She goes from being the mother of a well-off family, to having everything stripped away, her possessions, her dignity, her family, and even her hair.  She, and the women with her are dehumanized and brought to the brink of death.  There is a scene in which the women are sent to Auschwitz.  They see the black smoke pouring out of the chimney of the furnaces.  They smell the stench of burning flesh.  They are made to strip themselves naked and are herded into a shower room, not knowing what will come out of the shower-heads – water or lethal gas.  Fabian, and the women with her, did such a great job.  Their stories were heart-wrenching.  They made me actually imagine myself in their shoes.  What must it have been like?  How would I have handled the fear?

Ralph Fiennes’s portrayal of Amon Goeth was incredible.  I can’t even imagine how an actor can portray such a role without being emotionally affected.  The character, based, of course on a real man, was accurately described as a monster.  What he was, really, was a fanatic who believed so completely in Hitler and his ideals, that he, like Hitler, no longer saw the Jews as human beings.  They were less than dirt.  He would stand on his balcony at Plaszow with his rifle, using the Jews for target practice.  Prisoners of the camp lived with the fear of instant and random death hanging over their heads.  Fiennes was such a great actor, and I have to applaud him for a job well done.   In the end, it was showed that he was hanged for his war crimes.  Before the stool is kicked out from under his feet, he utters a very telling, “Heil Hitler,” showing just how much of a fanatic Goeth really was.

Interesting note:  Ralph Fiennes actually looked very much like the real Amon Goeth, so much so that when one of the real Schindler Survivors, Mila Pfefferberg, was on the set and met him in his Nazi uniform, she actually trembled in fear.

As usual, when a film is based on actual events, I have to do a little research to find out if the film is loyal to the truth.  How much was realistic, and how much was invented for the movie?  This time, I really didn’t even need to look any further than the documentary that was included on the DVD.  Several of the real survivors of the Holocaust were interviewed and told their stories.  I watched and listened as the true facts came right from the mouths of the people who experienced it.  Spielberg’s film was spot on.  Every detail seemed to be adhered to.  A man described seeing the women, who had been on a train separate from the men, as they arrived in Brinnlitz.  He said that it was a night and it was foggy.  The women almost seemed like ghosts as they got off the train and were marched into the barracks.  Every one of those details was there in the film.  Everything in the film seemed to be just like the Survivors described it.

Interesting note:  A man who was interviewed told a story that was not covered in the film.  He described his experience in the Polish military at the start of the war.  He recounted his experience, marching out as part one of Poland’s first engagements with the German forces.  They had no idea what they were up against.  His regiment was massacred, starting with thousands, and ending with less than 300.

Now, I have to make special mention the music.  John Williams does it again.  But this time he got world famous violinist Itzhak Perlman to play the main theme.  The music really is something special.  The emotion that it evokes effortlessly tugs at the heart.  Williams took home his fifth Oscar for Best Original Score, the others being Fiddler on the Roof, Jaws, Star Wars and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.  Williams’ score was truly a work of art in itself and Perlman’s playing simply validated his status as one of the world’s greatest violinists.

There were so many powerful stories in the movie, and based on the documentary included with the DVD, they were portrayed pretty accurately, making them even more remarkable.  Spielberg did a fantastic job of bringing them to life in a way that only he could.  As a matter of fact, he was originally so daunted by the project that he tried to get other directors to take it.  He offered it to Roman Polanski, Sydney Pollack, Martin Scorsese and Billy Wilder.  But they each turned it down for similar reasons.  Spielberg finally decided to do it himself when Holocaust deniers were being taken seriously by the media.

Interesting note:  Studio Executive Sid Sheinberg green-lit the making of Schindler’s List on the condition that Spielberg first direct Jurassic Park.  While Schindler’s List was being filmed in Poland, Spielberg spent several hours every night editing Jurassic Park.

Another interesting note:  Schindler’s List was made on a budget of $22 million.  Spielberg refused to accept a salary, calling it “blood money”, believing that he should not profit from the tragedy of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust.  He believed that the film would flop.

Oskar Schindler was a man whose business ventures before and after WWII were largely unsuccessful.  He actually died in poverty years later in Argentina, of all places.  It was only during the war, when his fellow human beings needed the help that he was in a position to give, that his business thrived, enabling him to do what he did.  I have heard his career described as one touched by divine intervention, a claim which is difficult to deny.

The emotional end of the film changes back to color, and shows a long line of real Holocaust survivors who were alive only because of Oskar Schindler.  Beside them are the actors who portrayed them in the film.  Together, they place stones on the grave of Schindler, who was interned in Israel.  The final image before the credits start to appear is Neeson placing two red roses on the headstone which is now crowded with stones.  It was a very emotional ending that left me in tears… again.

This was an incredible movie with some powerful performances, a profound and realistic script, a masterful score, and a deep, important message.  But it is not one that I will be rushing out to watch again.  It was depressing and difficult to watch, simply because it did not shy away from the evils that it portrayed.  It showed in graphic detail, some of the darkest years in human history.  As such, it made me reflect and turn my eyes inward, forcing me to embrace my own humanity.