Well in my 1995 post we went from a G-rated movie for kids and ended with the Scottish war for independence, and we're going on a similar journey this time around as we begin with Beauty and the Beast. And let me make one thing abundantly clear right from the beginning: the fact that this is an animated film should in NO WAY detract from the film's quality and thus its eligibility as a nominee. The director of an animated film still has to set up shots and compose them in such a way as to convey the film's meaning. In fact, they work harder than live-action directors sometimes because they often do a lot of the concept art and artwork themselves. And the composing of music is the same process, in fact this film rightfully won a few Oscars for its sometimes breathtaking and other times flat-out fun and awesome music. The movie seriously makes me cry to this day, I think it's so beautifully put together and charming. It's easily one of the greatest Disney films ever made, if not the greatest. Belle is probably my favorite of the sometimes-infamous "Disney Princesses" because she's pretty but she's also smart (let's be honest, Cinderella was a bit of a flake, Sleeping Beauty was high maintenance, and Jasmine looks like a Kardashian so we all know what that implies). And much like some of my other favorites that I've mentioned on occasion, the movie could easily be cheesy with its "love heals all" message, but the delivery is perfect. I'd put it up against a live-action nominee any day, and it's way better than some of the crap I've had to endure lately.
It would've been nice if I could've segued right into the one I dislike for this year, but alas I cannot. Instead we've got an unfortunately-overlooked gangster film: Bugsy. I'm a big fan of the genre so I was surprised that I had neither seen nor heard of this film before. I'd heard of the man upon which it was based, Bugsy Siegel, but that was about it. Well, it's kind of an unfortunate genre in many ways because it contains what is probably the greatest film of all time and also the greatest television show (which of course began airing 8 years after this movie was released, but still). So you really have to do something different with it to get noticed, and I think this movie really achieves that. Because Bugsy wasn't actually IN the mob, he just utilized similar tactics and did business with them. This might not seem like a relevant discrepancy, but believe me it is. Because if you're in the mob and you make another mob family angry over money, no one wants a mob war and a sit-down is called (yes, I've seen the entire run of The Sopranos multiple times). But if you're not technically associated with anybody, then you could find yourself snoozing with the Pisces. The essential story is the classic Greek-type tragedy (or maybe not Greek...AP English class was a long time ago) wherein the hero has a fatal flaw. In this case, he had two: women and his temper. This is charming in the beginning of the film, and that's how it draws you in. You get to know Benny (as he preferred to be called) and you kind of like him in an odd sort of way. And he ends up with a hot movie-star played by Annette Bening. So the dude is pretty cool. And then he concocts an idea to found a resort/nightclub/casino called "The Flamingo." And you think to yourself: "that's a real place, he must succeed!" Well, he did...but it cost six times as much as he told the mob it would (and Annette was taking a few million off the top). Needless to say, poor Benny didn't last much longer. On the bright side, he was given an exceptionally well-done death scene (it'd be insulting to describe why it was good though). And then the film tells us the gazillions of dollars the casino ended up making. So now Bugsy is pretty much a Vegas god, figures. The highlight is easily Warren Beatty's stunning performance as the man himself, and in another year he might have netted himself an Oscar. Alas, no one had a shot against the winner.
Next up is a film I have some mixed feelings about, but is stylistically outstanding in parts: JFK. It's an Oliver Stone movie, and he can sometimes be a whiny douche (although he's Clint Eastwood as compared to that stunatz James Cameron. Stunatz being the Italian for "pinhead," another gem I picked up from Tony Soprano). But to Oliver Stone's credit, after the more controversial parts of the film were disproven, he came out and said that the conspiracy theory put forth in the film is basically crap. The theory being that the government had JFK killed because he wouldn't go along with invading Vietnam as much as they wanted. Umm...yeah, with an entire government worth of resources you'd think that they'd have been able to off the guy in a somewhat less blatant way. In case anyone's interested (unlikely) my theory is that since JFK had some friends in the mob who helped him get elected, and he then proceeded to become the first president to really crack down on the mob...that wasn't such a great idea. The film actually raises this theory and strikes it down because "when the mob kills you, they use a .22 in the back of your head." WELL, since it's infeasible for a mobster to kill in any other fashion I guess he's correct. All ranting aside, Kevin Costner is his traditional tolerable in this film (he's not bad but he's never particularly good either) but the supporting performances are what bring the film to life with some great work from Donald Sutherland, Gary Oldman, and Kevin Bacon, to name a few. Yet still the best part of the film is the beginning wherein Stone intercuts the infamous Zapruder film with footage that he himself shot. And you really cannot tell the difference, to the point that it's actually kind of frightening. I might be labeling myself as a moron in saying this, but did a dude actually put his umbrella in the air, as if to signal the hit, in real life? Because I honestly have no idea. Anyway, the rest of the film is a mix of courtroom drama and backdoor meetings. The theory itself is drivel, but it is quite an excellent movie from strictly a film perspective.
And NOW I can segue that junk, because a bad film from ANY perspective is: The Prince of Tides. Now, this could've been a pretty great movie. Because the underlying story is fascinating, and by underlying story, I mean the main plot in the book (I looked it up). See, the book focuses predominantly on flashbacks to the main character's childhood while he's in therapy. The movie focuses instead on the romance between the therapist and the main character. Which might not be too bad except the therapist is Barbra Streisand and I find her frightening (also: the main character is Nick Nolte and I find him frightening). But I guess the director was friends with Streisand...hang on, she directed it too. But I'm sure it wasn't her fault that the screenwriters chopped down the interesting part of the story and focused on her character instead, that's more of a producer's decision...wait a second, she produced it too. SO what we've got here is a story that should've been a well-acted and well-written character study and psychological drama that instead was Barbra Streisand saying to the world: "I can be a love interest! I'm still pretty! I can act!" The backstory focuses on the man's abusive childhood and the ultimate trauma of witnessing the rape of his sister and his mother. And then his older brother (a VERY interesting character from the flashbacks who I wanted to see more of, and he was a big part of the book that Mecha-Streisand decided to cut out) comes in and kills two of the rapists and his mother stabs the third. Then they clean up before the abusive dad gets home and go on with dinner as usual. That's pretty disturbing! But it takes a backseat to what's really important here: Babs' infinite desirability. What a jerk. The one thing I will say is that the music in the film is a James Newton Howard score and he's always great to listen to, so there's that.
Well I said we'd come full circle, and we started at a kid's movie and now we arrive at this year's winner: The Silence of the Lambs. And what an extraordinary piece of work it is. It's the first film since 1975's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (and still the only film since) to win Oscars for Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Screenplay. And rightfully so, because though the most memorable portion of the movie is Anthony Hopkins' chilling-yet-appealing performance as Hannibal Lecter, the other aspects of the film are also worth mentioning. But first: the obvious. This is easily one of the greatest villain performances of all time and also just one of the greatest of any kind of performance. They had originally tried to cast people like DeNiro in the role, and as much as I love him that would've been TERRIBLE. Because Hopkins is so unassuming in this role that it disarms you. You see DeNiro and you're ready to be tossed through a wall or something. But you see Hopkins and you think to yourself, "what a strange and mysterious little man." Then he starts to speak and a shiver goes down your spine, but at the same time...you can't help but admire him for his genius. And near the beginning of the film he does something disturbingly chivalrous for Clarice (which I won't discuss) in response to an...err...unfortunate incident she experienced while visiting the prison. And so how do we feel about this action? Very mixed, because on one hand it's creepy but on another it's admirable. Just as the entire time we know he knows the identity of the killer Clarice is chasing, but he won't reveal it because he has some ulterior motives. So he's genius! But he's a serial killer...but he's polite! Like really polite...but creepy. It's the ultimate dichotomy played to perfection by Hopkins. But Jodie Foster's performance shouldn't be overlooked, because she has to accurately convey the mixed feelings of dread and admiration that the audience is going through. And that's not easy. It's also not easy to play a vulnerable character in this type of film, especially as the lead. As much as Hopkins might lead the conversations between the two characters, if she didn't do her job just as well then the scenes and the movie wouldn't work at all. One more thing I'll mention: the directing. Jonathan Demme (who tragically hasn't done much since) often shows us the film from Clarice's point of view, such as when she enters the prison. It makes the prison look huge and imposing, which gives the audience a feeling of dread similar to what Clarice felt. But perhaps the best scene is the final conversation the two characters have before Lecter escapes, wherein Demme does two very interesting things: he has Lecter look right into the camera as he seduces Clarice (not in a sexual way, just in a "winning over" sort of way) and thus he is simultaneously seducing the audience. The other thing the director does is frame the shot in such a way where we see Clarice behind the bars (the way Lecter sees her) instead of the other way around, because Lecter holds all the power in their relationship and she is the trapped one. THAT'S how you direct a movie (stupid Babs). The film is pretty disturbing at times, which is why I don't recommend it too often. But this comes more from the psychological aspects and not the gore, which is really only present in one scene. So go watch it! But not alone, or at night, or while eating fava beans.
So there was 1991, an almost perfect year of films. Lots of great directors in there, and one poser. I had taken a little break and watched some Best Picture winners from way back in the 70s and 60s simply because they were films I've been looking to see for a while, and that helped my psyche recover from all of those period pieces. Hopefully 1990 will treat me just as well (psst: I've seen most of them already too, so it's probably good). All I can tell you now is it will see two vast takes on the gangster genre collide, two planes of existence collide (nearby a pottery wheel apparently, hubba hubba), and two normal-sized movies collide to form one big film about Kevin Costner.
No comments:
Post a Comment