Category: Winners – 1990s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unforgiven – 1992

Unforgiven was a western starring Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman.  This was the second western to win the prized Best Picture award since Cimmaron in 1931, the other being Dances With Wolves.  And I should mention that, as a genre, I have never been a huge fan of westerns.

I should also mention that I have never been a huge fan of Clint Eastwood.  I have never actually disliked him, but I have never gone out of my way to see his films.  He is a good enough actor who generally knows what kind of role works well for him.  As such, he plays very similar characters in most of his movies.  This one was no exception.  Just change his name and insert him into any number of his other films and he would be right at home.

But, all that being said, this was still a good movie.  Hackman and Freeman are always good actors, the supporting cast did a fine job, and I had no problem with anyone’s performance.  Even the plot and characters were believable.  But if I sound like I am less enthusiastic about the film, I think I am.  And I think I know why.

It is because for the first three-quarters or so of the movie, almost nothing happened.  The plot just moved so slowly.  And to make it all the more sleepy, the music was like a lullaby, reminding me of the beautifully sweet soundtrack to the movie The Princess Bride.  The pacing was soft and gentle and un-hurried, which is in great contrast to the final quarter of the film.  Then, the action really ramped up into high-gear and it got exciting and engaging.

The film starts out in a whore house in the town of Big Whiskey, Wyoming.  A man gets angry with his prostitute, Delilah, played by Anna Levine, and starts to beat her.  By the time he is done, he has slashed her face to ribbons with a knife.  The town sheriff, Little Bill Daggett, played by Hackman, arrives but does little to the man and his partner.  They are not whipped, not put in prison, and not run out of town.  As punishment, they are made to pay five horses to the owner of the bar in which the whores reside and do their business.  But the women of the whorehouse band together and offer a bounty of $1,000 to anyone who will kill the two cowboys who hurt one of their own.

The Schofield Kid is a young man who looks like he is still in his teens.  He actually looked a little bit like Ricky Schroeder.  After hearing about the reward, he finds a gunman for hire named William Munny, played by Eastwood.  He asks Munny if he wants to partner-up with him to kill the two men and split the reward money.  Munny, who now has two young children, reluctantly agrees to go.  His son looks to be around 12 or 13, his daughter a few years younger.  Still, he leaves them on their own, saying he’ll be back in a few weeks.

Then we go traveling with William.  Along the way they pick up his old partner Ned Logan, played by Freeman.  Then they are traveling slowly.  Cut back to Big Whiskey as a few completely unnecessary characters enter the scene, another man with a gun named English Bob, hoping to collect the reward money, played by Richard Harris, and an author writing a book about him, played by Saul Rubinek.  But Little Bill beats up English Bob and runs him out of town.

And that is about the most exciting highlights until the last half-hour of the movie.  The main themes in the movie are the morality of violence, the difficulties of aging, and the consequences of ones actions.  But then finally, when that climactic ending sequence of events happens, you get to see just what kind of a hard-as-nails tough guy William really is.

You see, Munny’s partners spend most of the film making reference to how much of a cold-hearted and dangerous killer he used to be.  His only response is that he doesn’t remember much of that time in his life because he was drunk most of the time.  He has a very kind and gentle manner about him despite the mission of murder on which he is riding.  But in the end he is the first one to kill, and he winds up validating the dangerous reputation by becoming a cold-hearted and viscious killer.  He admits to having killed women and children, and threatens to do so again if driven to it.

And I have to admit, he actually becomes pretty bad-ass and scary when he lets himself go.  That part of the film was not slow, nor was it nice and easy and gentle.  It was violent, realistic, and exciting to watch.  As William’s old ways come back to him, you see how cold-hearted and frightening a man he really is.  You see, when the first cowboy with the reward on his head is shot, it was to have been Ned who did the shooting.  But he couldn’t do it.   Something in him knew that murdering for money was wrong and stopped him.  After William makes the kill, Ned says he wants out and heads for home.  But on the road, he is captured by Little Bill and his posse.

Little Bill tortures Ned to death and displays him for all to see as a murderer.  In the meantime the Schofield Kid makes the second kill and the reward money is collected.  But the whore who delivers the money tells William of Ned’s fate and he loses it.  Now it is personal and he wants revenge.

Eastwood played the old and gentle killer for hire well.  That aspect of his performance was enhanced by the gentle and easy sounds of the score, and maybe that is why such music was used, despite the fact that the entire movie was about his plan to commit murder for cash.  It also had the effect of making his change back to the deadly killer that much more shocking when it happened.  He was so mean and dangerous that after he killed Little Bill, he had the survivors of the massacre he enacted so scared of him that nobody even attempted to go after him when he left.  Some of his last words before leaving Big Whiskey were, “All right, I’m coming out.  Any man I see out there, I’m gonna shoot him.  Any sumbitch takes a shot at me, I’m not only gonna kill him, But I’m gonna kill his wife, all his friends, and burn his damn house down.”  And darned if he didn’t mean it!

Eastwood actually did a fantastic job, especially in that final scene.  But as I mentioned, it seems that this is the only kind of character he knows how to play, though I have to admit that I don’t know a lot about his career.  Maybe he is a much more versatile actor than I am aware of.  But his most iconic roles are from movies like Dirty Harry, A Fist Full of Dollars, The Good, The Bad and Ugly, Any Which Way But Loose, In the Line of Fire and Gran Torino.

Think about those movies and the characters he played in them.  Still, I can’t blame him for making a career on playing that kind of character.  He is very good at it.  And I have to acknowledge, he naturally has the perfect look for it.  But later on in his career, he started doing more work behind the camera as director.

Interesting note:  Eastwood not only starred in Unforgiven, he produced it and directed it.  He won an Oscar for his efforts as director.  However, he was not even nominated for Best Actor for his portrayal of William Munny.  It was Gene Hackman that took home the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor.

And speaking of Gene Hackman, I must also mention his performance.  He was the bad guy, but not because he was an evil man.  He just had an unbelievable and uncontrolled temper.  But aside from that phenomenal flaw, the character of Little Bill was actually a nice guy.  There is something to be said for Gene Hackman, as an actor.  For me, he just carries himself like a good-guy most of the time.  But when Little Bill lost his temper, Hackman played the violent bad-guy very believably.

And lastly, I have to mention the leader of the whores, who were, after all, an important part of the story.  She was a woman named Strawberry Alice, probably on account of her red hair, played by Frances Fisher.  She was undoubtedly the mother wolf and not the mother hen.  She looked out for her girls and when Delilah got hurt, she went out of her way to incite the rest of the whores to donate their life-savings to supply the reward money.  She was very vocal in her hatred of the offending cowboys, and in her disgust at the lack of punishment inflicted on them.  Fisher’s part did not seem a difficult one, but I thought she pulled it off quite well.

Unforgiven was a great movie if you like westerns.  It was up against The Crying Game, A Few Good Men, Howards End and Scent of a Woman.  So did it deserve to win the Best Picture award?  I don’t know.  I have seen The Crying Game and thought it was also an excellent movie.  For me, it would have been a close toss-up.  So, why not?

Interesting note:  There were two little flubs in the movie that were obvious enough for even me to catch while I was watching.  First, there is a scene in which Little Bill is reading out of a book.  The camera shifts to an angle in which a bright white piece of paper can be seen taped onto the page of the book – clearly the actor’s lines.  Second, when the Schofield Kid shoots the second cowboy in the outhouse, he fires three bullets:  once in the shoulder, once in the chest and once in the gut.  But when the cowboy is found by the fat man, a gunshot wound to his head can be clearly seen.  When did he get that one?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Silence of the Lambs – 1991

Oh My Goodness!  This was an intense movie!  My heart was beating fast at the end of the climax.  My pulse was racing!  Our two lead actors, Jody Foster and Anthony Hopkins both took home Best Actress and Best Actor awards.  In addition, the director, Jonathan Demme, and screenplay adaptor, Ted Tally, won Oscars, making the Silence of the Lambs the third film in Academy Award history to win “the big five.”   The other two were It Happened One Night in 1934 and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest in 1975.

Foster and Hopkins were both brilliant in this movie.  Their performances were so intense and… merciless.  They never let up, never backed down, and never held back.  Foster is the kind of actress that typically throws her entire being into whatever role she is doing.  She is not afraid of getting physical and personal.  Hopkins created an iconic character that actually popularized the psychotic serial cannibal, causing Hollywood to spawn more movies about him.

Foster plays FBI trainee Clarice Starling, a young woman who pushes herself to unbelievable limits to prove that she can handle anything.  She is in the top quarter of her class at the FBI Training Academy at Quantico, but she is called in to the office of Jack Crawford, played by Scott Glenn.  He is a part of the Bureau’s Behavioral Sciences Unit.  He enlists her help in interviewing a prisoner in maximum security lock-up for the criminally insane.

The man she is to interview is Dr. Hannibal Lecter, played by Hopkins.  His nickname is Hannibal the Cannibal because he is known for eating his victims.  But aside from being this monster, he is also a brilliant man with a mind as sharp as a blade.  Crawford believes Lecter can offer insight on helping to catch a serial killer knows as Buffalo Bill.

The famous first interview scene in which Clarice questions Lecter is actually pretty early on in the film.  The Director used a lot of extreme close-up shots, putting everything right in the face of the audience.  You are able to focus on the actor’s eyes and feel the full intensity of their gazes.  Their back-and–forth conversation is quick and unnerving.  Clarice is obviously being affected and is struggling to hold her composure.  Lecter is relentless as he drills into her psyche, forcing her to lay the painful secrets of her life before him.  It is no surprise that after she leaves the cell block, she is in tears.  But in return, he has given her essential insights into the Buffalo Bill case.

Interesting note:  Hopkins won the Best Actor Academy Award, though he only had a little over 16 minutes of screen-time.

Now, here I have to mention two other actors who did their jobs well.  First there is Anthony Heald who played the part of Frederick Chilton.  This is the character you are really not supposed to like, and Heald really played it perfectly.  He was smarmy, arrogant, chauvinistic, mean, and just an all-around asshole.  He was Lecter’s jailer at the facility for the criminally insane, but he was such an idiot that he enjoyed torturing the inmates in subtle ways, making fun of them to their faces and treating them like caged animals.  This makes the end of the movie especially satisfying, but we’ll get to that in a bit.

Next was Ted Levine, playing the part of Buffalo Bill.  OK, now this guy really played his part well.  He was the biggest creepy element of the film.  He was a serial killer whose particular kind of criminal psychosis was hard to define.  According to the director he was a man who hated himself so much that he had a desire to change himself as much as possible.  The most effective way he could do that was to become a woman.  However, the sex change clinics would not perform the operation for him because he was too unstable.  His solution was to abduct overweight women and remove their skins to make a “woman suit.”

“It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again.”  We have all heard that famous line from time to time, usually followed by a brief but awkward chuckle.  But when put in the context of the film, it is a chilling statement.  He would put his victims in a deep well to prevent escape, starve them for three days to loosen their skin, and eventually kill them to remove their skin.  It is a horrible and disturbing concept, made even more terrifying because we know that there are actually people like that in the world.

Levine was wonderful in the role.  It was the way he talked, the way he moved, the way he was calm one minute and enraged the next.  The character was beyond unstable and was absolutely unsettling to watch, which was exactly what he was supposed to be.  When he forcibly abducted the main victim of the film, a character named Catherine Martin, played by Brooke Smith, his moans of pleasure as he looked at the skin of her back almost sounded sexual in nature, though going by the director’s explanation of his character’s motivations, it was really not.  But the sick excitement he derived from his actions was part of what made his character so disturbing.

Interesting note:  When it came to casting, we very nearly had a quite different movie.  Originally, Gene Hackman was supposed to play the part of Hannibal Lecter.  He withdrew from the project when the evolving screenplay started to become too graphic.  Michelle Pfeifer was the first person offered the role of Clarice Starling, but turned it down because she was uncomfortable with the subject matter.

The music and sets were all pretty much as you might expect.  Howard Shore wrote a score that was appropriately dark and suspenseful, enhancing the unnerving content of the film.  One of the best parts of the movie, and one of the creepiest, is the scene in which Clarice accidentally stumbles on to Buffalo Bill and follows him into his labyrinthine basement.  She finds the abducted girl who is screaming in terror to be let out of the well.

Trainee Starling has her gun drawn and is searching the basement for the killer.  She sees some of the most disgusting and horrifying sights she has ever seen.  But then the lights go out and she is left in absolute darkness.  Buffalo Bill has put on a pair of night-vision goggles and can see her just fine.  Foster was particularly fantastic in this scene.  The intensity of her performance doesn’t let up for a moment.  As she is feeling her way along the walls, we see her through Bill’s goggles.  At several points, we see his hand enter the picture as the reaches for her, almost touching her several times, and she obviously has no idea how close to her Bill actually is.  Oh my God!  My heart was racing!  Great film making!

As I mentioned earlier, the film had a very satisfying ending.  In order to explain that, I have to give away a little more of the plot.  At one point, in a particularly horrifying sequence, Lecter manages to escape from prison, mercilessly slaughtering several people.  And while I am on that subject, I have to say that I thought this a little unrealistic.  In the real world they would not have just two morons guarding a maximum security level, criminally insane genius.  Nor would they ever have him in any kind of public building which might give him any kind of opportunity for escape.  They just wouldn’t.

But never-mind that.

OK, so Lecter frees himself and disappears into the world.  He is gone, never to be seen again… or is he?  In the penultimate scene as Clarice is graduating from the Academy, and is now a full-fledged special agent for the FBI, she receives a phone call that takes her away from the party.  She picks up the phone and hears Lecter’s voice.  The look of terror that washes over her face was incredibly realistic.  Lecter speaks to her as if she is an old friend, saying, “I have no plans to call on you, Clarice.  The world’s more interesting with you in it.”  He also tells her that he is meeting an old friend for dinner.

However, as he hangs up the phone, leaving Clarice cowering in fear by the phone, the scene changes to show Hannibal the Cannibal in a wig, sunglasses and hat.  He is watching Dr. Chilton disembark from a plane in what looks like a foreign country.  It is obvious that he means to murder and eat Chilton.

Now, while we, as the audience, know that it is sick and twisted, we also have to own-up to the fact that we secretly want it to happen.  By this time we have come to respect the dangerousness of the genius, Dr. Lecter (doctor because he used to be a psychiatrist before becoming a serial killer) and learned to dislike the character of Chilton for a number of reasons.  As Lecter follows his intended victim into the distance, the credits start to roll and we breathe a sigh of relief that the movie has reached its unnerving conclusion.  I stood up and had to do a little pacing to shake off that horrified feeling.  Very effective story telling!

Interesting note:  Silence of the Lambs was the first and only Best Picture winner that has been categorized as a thriller/horror movie.  Most films are listed as dramas with a number of musicals thrown into the mix.  The only exception to this might be Alfred Hitchcock’s Rebecca in 1940, though I might call that one a mystery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dances With Wolves – 1990

I have been looking forward to seeing this Best Picture winner for a very long time. It is a movie that I have wanted to see for years. But now that I have seen it, I find myself a little disappointed, though only a little. This is in no way the movie’s fault. I had built it up in my mind to be a phenomenal film, so much so that reality could never measure up to my expectations. In reality, it was a very good movie – there is no denying that. I just need to let go of the unrealistic fantasy I had envisioned it to be.

This was Kevin Costner’s directorial debut, for which he won an Oscar. The attention to detail and the high production values were incredible. Many of the actors including Costner and Mary McDonnell had to learn to speak in the Lakota Sioux language. Doris Leader Charge, the actress playing the part of Pretty Shield was actually the dialogue coach for the production.

Interesting note: The original book on which the film is based had used Comanche Indians, but my research sources gave two different reasons as to why this was changed to the Sioux for the film. One source claimed that the change was due to the availability of native Sioux speakers. The other source said that because of the importance of the buffalo to the plot the Sioux were used because they used to live near the biggest buffalo heard in the country.

Costner did a good job playing the part of John Dunbar, a soldier in the Union Army during the Civil War. He is first seen lying on a table, badly wounded as the doctors discuss amputating his foot. Instead, he runs away and tries to commit suicide by finding a battlefield, getting on a horse and charging the enemy lines alone. Fortunately he avoids being shot and inadvertently gives the Union Soldiers the opportunity to win the battle. As a reward, he is given proper care for his foot, the horse he had stolen to do his brave deed, and the choice of any post he wanted.
He chooses the western frontier, wanting to see it before it is gone. Through a series of unfortunate circumstances, he arrives at Fort Sedgwick, an abandoned post, and nobody knows or has any record that he is there. To make a long story short, he meets the Lakota Sioux Indians and befriends them, and this is really where the heart of the movie begins. This is what we have all come to see: the Indians. We learn how he becomes a member of their tribe, how he learns their language and customs, how he gets the name Dances With Wolves, and what happens when the rest of the white men finally do arrive.
Costner, as an actor, really did a good job, and of course, carried the lion’s share of the movie. The plot was told from Dunbar’s point of view, so Costner was in nearly every scene, which is saying a lot for a movie that was just under 4 hours long.
But honestly, I have always seen Costner as just a passable actor, though nothing I would call great. This film just reinforced that opinion. He always has a kind of natural calmness and, for lack of a better term, sleepiness about him that unfortunately often translates on the big screen as just low-energy. Obviously, he knows his lines and can run fast when he needs to, but I still found his performance a bit lack-luster.
Playing opposite Costner as the female romantic lead was Mary McDonnell. Her character’s name was Stands With a Fist. Like all Indian names for the Lakota tribe, hers was given to her and had a very personal meaning. Her story is interesting enough to mention here. She was the adopted daughter of Kicking Bird, the social and spiritual leader of the tribe, her parents having been slaughtered by the Sioux’s enemies, the Pawnee Indians. As a young girl, an older woman of the tribe would constantly call her names and beat her until one day she stood up and fought back. With one punch, she knocked the older woman out, thereby earning her name.
McDonnell did a fantastic job. She was integral to Dunbar’s integration into the tribe, as Stands With a Fist remembered a smattering of the English language from her early childhood. McDonnell turned in a very convincing portrayal of someone who is trying to remember a language in that way. The way she pronounced certain words, or the fact that some of her word inflections were just a little bit off made for a very realistic character. Well done McDonnell.
Among the Indians, there were a number of very good actors. Graham Green played the part of Kicking Bird, Dunbar’s main advocate among the Lakota tribe. He was a bit of a screen-stealer. When he spoke, his words always seemed to have weight and importance. Kicking Bird was a man of gentleness and wisdom, of quiet bravery and great honor. He was the kind of man anyone would want to know.
While Kicking Bird was the social and spiritual leader of the tribe, Wind in His Hair, played by Rodney A. Grant, was the military leader. I thought he also did an exceptional job. His character went through the biggest change of all, going from a position of great distrust of the white Dunbar, to becoming his greatest friend; who, when Dunbar was leaving the tribe at the end, stood on a bluff and shouted for all the tribe to hear, “Dances With Wolves! I am Wind In His Hair. Do you see that I am your friend? Can you see that you will always be my friend?” That was a very emotional scene.
Another honorable mention was Floyd Red Crow Westerman, playing the Lakota Indian Chief, Chief Ten Bears. He was the oldest and wisest of the Indians, often giving the most sage advice to Dances With Wolves. He did a good job, and I think I remember reading somewhere that he was the only member of the cast who was actually a native speaker of the Lakota Sioux language.
One of the iconic scenes in the movie was the great buffalo hunt. Taking over 8 days to film, it was a pretty intense and complicated sequence. It is important to note that this was done in the days when CGI was still in its infancy. There were no computer generated buffalo, though there were a few animatronic ones. This was a great scene which really drew you into the story. The buffalo were a very important part of the lives of the Plains Indians. In fact, the Sioux were also known as the Buffalo Tribe. The entire scene was done with a sort of reverence and joy that came across quite clearly. It was inspirational.
Interesting note: During the filming of the scene where a buffalo is charging at the young Indian Smiles a Lot, the buffalo was actually charging at a pile of its favorite treat: Oreo cookies.
A really great part of this movie was the soundtrack. Composer John Barry wrote what many consider to be one of the greatest film scores of all time. I know it is one of my personal favorites. John Barry also wrote the film score, and earned an Oscar for the previous Best Picture winner Out of Africa in 1985. He won the Best Original Score Academy Award for the Dances With Wolves soundtrack as well.
Interesting note: Pope John Paul II once mentioned that the soundtrack for Dances With Wolves was one of his favorite pieces of music.
One of the reasons that the soundtrack was so effective brings me to another wonderful aspect of the film: the cinematography. In a word, it was incredible. Cinematographer Dean Semler must have been given free reign when it came to getting shots of wide open country, nature scenes that would put most nature documentaries to shame, bright and brilliant sunrises, lush and vibrant sunsets, and everything in-between. Of course, Semler took home an Oscar for his work.
And finally, I have to mention that as tragic as the story ended, with Dances With Wolves and Stands With a Fist having to leave the tribe, I have to mention that the plot could have taken a much worse turn. Everyone knows that the American Indians were, historically, treated abominably. Most of them did not want a fight. They just wanted to be left alone in peace. The white man’s treatment of this country’s original inhabitants is a shameful part of our past. Costner and those who worked on this film with him portrayed the Indians in such a positive light, especially compared to the white men of the time. It was the Union soldiers who were depicted as the bad guys, and the Indians as the good guys. In fact, because the film was so uniquely positive towards Native Americans, the Sioux Nation adopted Costner as an honorary member.
Interesting note: This film was obviously a labor of love for Costner. The original budget for the movie was $15 million, but because of the high production values, the cost ended up going over $18 million. The extra $3 million was provided by Costner himself. Because of the film’s success, Costner reportedly took in over $40 million from his original investment.
If I had anything negative to say about the movie (aside from Costner‘s acting), it would be its length. Four hours is a long time to sit through a movie, and from what I have heard, there was even more footage that did not make it into the film. But the trick is that I can’t think of very much that I would have taken out. Everything seemed to be necessary for the in-depth character development and the realism of the plot. Not only did Costner know what he was doing in the director‘s chair, he stuck to his guns and eventually got the film he wanted.
In saying that, I have to explain that the original theatrical release was only about three hours long, but I watched the director’s cut. In general, I think that most movies should be seen that way with everything kept in that the director intended. It usually makes for a better film. And Dances With Wolves certainly was a good film that was well worth watching.