I was actually so excited about my title for this year that I almost wrote it in my 1983 title slot by accident. Because I was watching the winner for 82 (much-deserved unlike 83's nonsense) and one of the characters says something like, "how can a little brown man capture the hearts of so many people?" And I was like, "oh man! Just like the other iconic movie from this year about the extra terrestrial...what up!" That's probably the most exciting thing that's happened to me in weeks. Ah the life of the unemployed bachelor bum. Well thankfully, there's only one movie that's TBD for this year, because I'm still watching it. And it began with some synthetic music and what sounded like bad dubbing or bad ADR. So I figured I might have to multi-task to get through it. Before I get to that I'd like to say a word about another movie that came out this year: Blade Runner. You might be surprised, but I'm not the biggest fan. It's good and I like it, but just because it portrays the future as trashy and gross doesn't make it a great movie. Interesting, yes. Gutsy? Perhaps. One of the greatest sci-fi epics of all time? Nope. Right then, let's get on with it.
And what better place to begin than with everybody's favorite little brown guy: E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Why oh why didn't it come out in 83? Then it might've had a shot, because sadly this year was pretty much a done deal before the awards were even announced (much like 84, 96, 97, and 2003. Check 'em!). I believe Spielberg called this his personal favorite of the films that he has made, and though it's obviously not his best work from a film perspective, it's certainly the most uplifting, heart-warming, and aesthetically pleasing. I'm oddly positive today...I began penning my autobiography last night so I guess that gave me a nice jolt. I'm sure I'll blather more about that later, for now let's talk about the movie. I'm ashamed to say I've only seen the 20th Anniversary Edition so I probably should've watched the original before I wrote this, just for the sake of being proper. The only main difference I remember is that they replaced the shotguns the cops are holding as E.T. makes his escape with radios. I go back and forth on whether I like that decision, because on one hand they wouldn't pull shotguns on a bunch of kids. But on the other hand, E.T. had some mojo in him and the cops didn't see the scenes with the Reese's Pieces so they might have felt threatened. Past all of that, this movie is just straight up charming. It features one of John Williams' most iconic and emotional scores, which is saying a lot considering his collected works over the years. Also, there's a stuffed animal of Yoda in the closet at one point and when he shows up, a little bit of Yoda's Theme plays. That's freaking awesome. Anyway, in case you don't know, the movie's about an adorable alien dude who is found by a lonely little kid and the kid helps him contact his home world so that he can be rescued. It has all of that potentially-cheesy plotlines about the alien helping the kid cope with his loneliness, and how all of this ties in to the kid growing up and moving on with his problems and such. This just goes to show you that the cheesiest of material can be absolutely outstanding when done correctly. The movie also features Drew Barrymore's first role, or first major role anyway. It's still her best role since she's usually just annoying now and though attractive, not attractive enough to make up for how annoying she is. I'm being a bit hard on her, I usually like her in most things. What's wrong with me today? Any more of this nonsense and I'll have to change my title to "The Understanding Critic" and that's not even alliterative! Okay, let's have a bottom line: if you haven't seen this movie there's something wrong with you. So fix that. It's wonderful. And if it had come out against anything other than a sure thing, it might've had a shot.
Now on to what was apparently a movie so controversial that it was only re-released to the public in 2006: Missing. Make no mistake, it's not that exciting. At least the first forty minutes aren't. And it wasn't controversial due to nudity or violence, so that's also boring. Because then at least you can say, "oh man! I can't believe they got away with that in 19xx!" It was controversial because it put forth some ideas about government cover-ups in the name of capitalism and yadda yadda. Boy there's an original idea. Some people who are suspicious of the government and think capitalism is bad. Man, they're so brave to be making a movie about that. Especially since there was never an entire decade of music, movies, and TV devoted to that. I'm just in awe. Well let's hit some merits before I go on a diatribe: well-written, and well-acted by Jack Lemmon. Sissy Spacek is a little annoying, but she's usually annoying to me. She does a good job too, but the accent gets me down. Anyway, the movie is about a journalist who goes missing during a right-wing regime takeover in Chile in the 70s. And the journalist's dad comes down to try to help find him. Prediction: by the end of the movie his political tune will be changing and he'll be branding a figurative peace symbol into his forehead. When the movie finishes, I'll put a sentence at the end of this paragraph confirming or denying. Let me take this opportunity to make a non-political political statement. I'd be the first one to tell you that the government is sketchy sometimes, but without every bit of information they have I can't say with absolute certainty that I wouldn't make the same decision. In addition: sometimes they don't have all the information or they have bad information, just like anybody. So I'm not sure what goes down in this movie, but it'll probably be one of those things. And who knows how many claims are legit anyway? One thing I do know is that if the government actually wanted to take over everything, who exactly would stop them? I'm thinking nobody, unless the Avengers have been biding their time and pretending to be fictional. Oh look! 24 minutes left in the movie and Jack Lemmon is starting to show signs of sounding like his son, whose politics he initially opposed. Nailed it!
Now here's a movie I thought would be silly, and it was. But I still liked it: Tootsie. It's a comedy, but I rarely laughed out loud during it. I still quite enjoyed it though, for whatever reason. Largely due to Dustin Hoffman's charming performance as Michael Dorsey: an actor who can't get a role as a man, so he dresses as a woman. The decision does seem a bit abrupt since it goes right from his agent telling him he doesn't have a hope of getting a job in that town, and the next second he's walking down the street as a girl. Although I suppose it's better to just cut to the chase instead of wasting a scene on some ridiculous scene that gives him the idea (like on House when he sees ice melting or something and thus figures out the ailment. It's only charming when it's episodic). I also kind of recognized with the guy, because he was pouring his heart and soul into every audition and everybody told him he wasn't good enough. So what did he do? He took it to the extreme, and that's what you need to do sometimes. Just like how I'd like to change my name to "Squatting Frog" so that people will think I'm Native American and I can get a job interview. Outcome 1: they're too embarrassed to ask how much of it is in my blood and I'm good to go. Outcome 2: they're not too embarrassed and I tell them I have none of the blood in me, but that I'm making a statement because I feel for the plight of the tribes of old. They'll love that. It's an ingenius plan really. Anyway, the movie takes the usual turn wherein he falls in love with his female co-worker on his soap opera but of course he can't reveal this without losing his job and so on and so forth. It's fairly predictable, but still charming. And I totally bought Hoffman as a woman, although not an attractive one. He reminded me of Alice from The Brady Bunch. So it was mildly ridiculous when several men were after her, I mean him...see even I made that mistake! When they were after him it was mildly ridiculous but at the same time I guess the men weren't too dashing themselves so it sort of makes sense. I could've done without the "Go Tootsie Go!" song that showed up at points, but that's really my only problem with the movie. It didn't reek of the decade as much as I thought it would. It even turned out to be quite touching at times, so it's a nice little movie. Not a winner, to be sure. But I suppose it's nice to see a movie of its type get some recognition every now and again anyway.
On the complete opposite end of the spectrum from the other good movies from this year is The Verdict. Cynical Domenic loves this movie, so that's refreshing. All of this being positive and talking about charming movies almost thawed my heart of ice, that's no good! Next thing you know I'll start caring about things and it'll be like that time that the Brain could've taken over the world but decided not to because Pinky made him feel all happy inside. Ah well, perhaps it's time to leave the curmudgeon behind, it's not like it's helped me out a whole lot. So we'll give this "being nice" thing a shot for a bit anyway. But only after we talk about this movie, which is awesome. It's about an ambulance-chaser (for those of you not in the know, that means a lawyer who's only interested in making money by finding wronged clients with easy cases. AKA most lawyers). Well this particular lawyer, played by Paul Newman in a largely overlooked and still outstanding performance, is on another one of these cases. He's an alcoholic and he's pretty much got no soul at the beginning of the movie. Gradually, he begins to fight for the case for "the right reasons" instead of just his own selfish purposes. But this isn't played in quite the way you might expect. He's frightened at this prospect. After all, it's a bit of a catch-22. He only stays with the case because he cares but he might only be able to win the case if he doesn't care. If you start caring, you start screwing up. The film wisely blends elements of character study and courtroom drama to create a really well-done piece of work. And (spoiler alert!) at the end of the movie they never tell you what the verdict is, you just see the phone ringing and him picking it up. I loved that, because it really wasn't relevant. What was relevant was whether or not he was capable of redemption. And the fact that he actually cared about the verdict beyond his own payment. Or did he? And if he did, will he stay that way? Only good movies cause you to ask questions. Well, that's not true. Bad movies cause you to ask: "why did that guy do that? Why did they make this movie? Why did I get suckered into watching this nonsense?" So I'll say that only good movies make you ask good questions.
This year's well-deserving winner doesn't raise or cause many questions but it tells a great story about as well as it could've been told. The movie is Gandhi, and it's a highly impressive piece of work. It's kind of a classically done film: herds of extras, relatively simple story drawn out and done wonderfully, great music score, etc. Ben Kingsley looks freakishly like the title man, and I mean freakishly. Apparently some locals thought he was the ghost of Gandhi, walking around. When I originally watched the film I was bothered that it didn't include some of his sketchier early days, but now I just don't care and I think it would've bogged down the film. Okay seriously, is someone slipping me pills? Because we're rapidly approaching that scene where the Grinch saves Christmas and whatnot. Much like a lot of other great movies, I really don't have a lot to say about this one. Career-making performance from Kingsley that rightly got the award. Incredibly well-directed by Richard Attenborough who also rightly got the award. You know the story, a man in India used peaceful protest to gain independence from Britain for his country. Isn't that the same Britain that occasionally gets on America's case for being oppressive and sketchy? And when does this movie take place? The 20th century you say? Yeah, there are few countries on the planet that have any business telling any other countries that they're being oppressive and sketchy, and Britain has no right whatsoever. Normally, I like to look at both sides of historical things. Especially when it's in a movie. But Britain was just straight up a bunch of douches in India, and they're lucky that it took a peaceful protest to get them out of there instead of a bunch of fighting (which also took place and is portrayed well within the movie). I feel like movies of this caliber should just get a whole separate set of awards. Because nobody has a shot against them. I know it's a long movie, but more people should really take an afternoon or a Saturday morning and watch a lot of these films. Because they're often the best that filmmaking has to offer, and exemplify the very qualities of humanity and the arts that should be recorded and remembered. Running time isn't automatically good though. Pearl Harbor sucks.
Even in 1982 you can't hide from me Michael Bay. Well, I hope you enjoyed this unusually positive (by comparison) entry in the escapade. Maybe these past weeks of sitting around the house have humbled me slightly. Maybe now that I'm writing a hilarious autobiography with some sort of narrative makes me happy because it gives me a purpose. Or maybe the viewers of the Truman-esque TV show that is my life got sick of my negativity and pumped laughing gas into the house. That's probably it. Well I can't say what state my mind will be in for the next entry, but it will contain commies, old people, and FREAKING INDIANA JONES! That's right, Indiana Jones. Pretty much the last iconic and awesome hero to brave the Academy's doorstep, should be awesome.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
1983: The Year that The Chick Flick was Invented and Beat a Movie About Legitimate Accomplishments
I just find it hilarious that a movie about real-life American ingenuity and heroism was beaten out by a movie that exists only to make women cry. Think about that for a second. Inherently a movie that mostly exists to make people cry should be bad right? You would think so. I mean, if I said: "hey I've got this onion, want me to slice it in your face so that you'll cry?" you wouldn't want that! But if I said, "hey want to pay some money to sit for two hours and cry because producers have mortgages too?" that is apparently very appealing. Maybe not when you look at it in those terms, but few do. Actually, only one seems to do that (a clue: it's me). Ordinarily I'd be more upset but this was kind of a "meh" year for movies anyway. I think the scope of the film I mentioned in my title should have warranted a win, but in other years it wouldn't have deserved the award. So now that I've told you we're in for a schlockfest of mediocrity today, won't you join me?
First up we've got a movie that, contrary to what I said in my 1984 post, is one my mother thought I'd like and I actually didn't: The Big Chill. You realize of course that once I said I liked all of her recommendations it automatically had to be disproven ASAP right? Once I put something in print, the universe compensates to make me look stupid. Luckily, that means it takes the whole of space/time to do so. Take that cosmos! Funny I should mention the cosmos, as this movie couldn't be any less significant with its themes in the grand scheme of the cosmos. Actually, that's not true. The fact that they took the time to point out the themes is what is a waste of time. The theme is the whole "getting older, realizing things have changed, yadda yadda." This is literally THE most relevant theme to humankind in many ways, at least in modern society. That also makes it the least relevant when it comes to films. Because I'm still young and I don't need a movie to tell me that becoming an adult is painful on occasion, especially when reflecting on the way things used to be when you were a teenager. Now, if you're going to make a movie about that, make it funny! Make the audience laugh at those things that bother them so deeply. Instead, this film plays like the precursor to movies like Hot Tub Time Machine (easily the most random movie I've ever mentioned on the blog). It deals with the exact same things, but it's also ridiculous and funny. It basically says, "sure the 80s were great but they were also stupid." Whereas this movie says, "boy the 60s was a crazy time. Yeah, so...umm, crazy times. Let's reminisce some more." Of course, if they made it funnier then it wouldn't have gotten nominated. Or maybe it was supposed to be funny and failed miserably. Don't know, don't really care. I will say that the soundtrack is pretty awesome as it's basically the equivalent of a nostalgia playlist. Lots of great songs from the sixties, some from the fifties I think, so at least I enjoyed listening to them. Did the song choices serve any purpose other than to represent a time period? No, and that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine since I prefer song choice to hold more meaning but it actually works here. And it saved me from total boredom so that's nice. Anyway, maybe in 1983 they were trying to pick up viewers of the awards show and nominated some movies people heard of and not necessarily good ones. Let's hope that was the case.
This next one I had never heard of but it features two really incredible performances: The Dresser. This is entirely an acting movie and as such, functions very similarly to a stage play. Maybe it was based on one, I don't feel like checking (I'm lazy with my Wikipedia-ing today). Either way, it's appropriate that it functions this way because it centers around an aging Shakespearean actor and his dresser. His title is "dresser" but he bathes the man, helps him with his lines, and does basically everything for him all hours of the day and every day of the week. Albert Finney (in a performance that should have netted the Oscar) plays the actor and Tom Courtenay plays the dresser (never heard of him, he probably dropped into a depression after neither he nor Albert won the award). I'd like to think that they canceled each other out for the Oscar, because they both did such an incredible job. There was some year back in the 30s or something (which I'll probably get to on the blog sometime this decade) where they had two dudes share an Oscar. Bring it back! Not every year obviously, but sometimes you have special circumstances. In this movie, neither actor carries the show more than the other but their relationship drives the entire film. Finney is past his prime and can barely remember from day to day which show he's doing, let alone his lines. He is completely dependent on his dresser, but near the end of the film we're left with the question of whether he realized this or not. And if he didn't, was it because he was old and crazy or because he was a self-involved jerk? Either way, we're left with two men who have essentially wasted their lives on the theater. Finney was going to be married once but he chose the theater instead, and we can't really tell whether that bothers him or not. Certain scenes would suggest it does. The film leaves this ambiguous as well as his feelings toward the dresser. That's what makes the film so powerful. Because it doesn't matter what the answer is, the fact that there is any question at all is what creates the tragedy. To have to wonder whether or not you've made the right decisions with your life is something we all struggle with. Oh, wait...is that what The Big Chill was trying to do? Too bad it failed. Because this movie has great acting and is well-done. I normally don't go for movies of this scope to be the winner, because it's solely an acting movie and not a directing/screenwriting one. But if we're going solely on enjoyment and overall quality, this was the best of the nominees for me.
Easily in second place is The Right Stuff. Since I've already talked about two movies that are my favorite before getting to the winner, you can just feel that rant coming can't you? Because the winner is pretty terrible. But anyway, this movie is essentially three hours chronicling the saga of space travel from the time of breaking the sound barrier to the manned missions of the early sixties. Now, I've frequently referred to NASA as "a money toilet" and if you've been reading my blog since the beginning, you know how I feel about Pluto's demotion as a planet. And in case you want to get Freudian, yes I do recognize with Pluto's plight since its historical journey can be described as a decades-long "carrot and stick" approach and I have also frequently referred to the universe's treatment of my life as a "carrot and stick" approach. Just thought I'd share that since it may serve to justify my rant. And the reason I say all of that is because I need to justify crapping on NASA while praising a movie about its mission and also while being a person who has seen all 726 episodes of Star Trek (including the terrible animated series). Okay then, let's journey out of my psyche and into the final frontier. This movie exemplifies some themes that I find fascinating as pertaining to many issues, not just space travel. In the beginning of the movie, it has this real "down home American hero" feel to it because the guy breaking the sound barrier was just this ordinary guy from a small town, and it shows it from that small town perspective. Over the course of the film (which I'm happy to say, earns its length) it gradually becomes more of a "bread and circuses" type thing. It's not about human achievement anymore, although it certainly is to some, it's instead about beating the Russians or making for a great TV show. The character of Alan Shore on Boston Legal once referred to all news as "infotainment" and I can't tell you how perfect I think that statement is. This was the era when things were rapidly becoming less about what was actually happening and more about what entertained people. I've personally said on many occasions that the 1960 debate between Kennedy and Nixon was the death of sanity in America, because people came away from it favoring Kennedy not because of how many things they agreed with that he stood for, but because he came off better on TV. Once that happened, that was it for us. And it's the same with anything, why was the moon landing so monumental? Not because it happened but because it was on TV. A man being launched into space and circling the Earth a bunch of times (as we see in the movie) was pretty freaking impressive too, but I doubt many people remember where they were when they first heard about it. Anyway, every aspect of this movie is pretty well-done. Not overly well-done, but very solid. The music is good, good script, you name it. It has too much story to tell to get personal with the characters and thus stops itself from becoming a real classic, but they achieve what they wanted to achieve and they did it very well.
The last movie before the "winner" is one I actually happen to be still watching: Tender Mercies. Not because it's as terrible as those period pieces I blogged during, but because of time constraints. I'm almost done with the 1982 movies and I don't want to fall behind. And yes now I've let time constraints influence art just like those TV producers I hate, but there you go. Let me be clear, this movie isn't period piece bad but it's not very good either. And Robert Duvall stole an Oscar right out of Albert Finney's pocket which is totally not cool. Not that I blame him of course. And he does a fine job in this movie, mind you there's still 20 minutes left. But if you're actually reading that sentence then he didn't have a Mo'nique moment a la Precious which completely changes the game in the final scenes. But this movie pretty much feels like the greatest Hallmark movie of all time (if that can be dream't of in your philosophy). It takes place in the West in a small town, and stars one big star and some ansillary people, and pre-diabeetus Wilford Brimley is in it. What about that doesn't scream "Hallmark movie?" And Duvall's character is a recovering alcoholic country singer who finds redemption in his relationship with a widow? That's like every Hallmark movie put together. Or maybe, every Hallmark movie ever is a complete or partial ripoff of this movie. So basically, this film is either the equivalent of or opposite of Avatar because it either holds the record for ripping off or being ripped off. And yes I just found a way to insult James Cameron amidst a 1983 character study about hillbillies. I've got skills. This is a great example of a movie that does what it sets out to do, I just don't know why anyone cares enough to do it. It has to be based on a real person, either famous or not. And (this just in) he has about two lines of dialogue that I thought were heartfelt and interesting near the end, not enough but not bad. Anyway, if you like Robert Duvall I recommend it. Because at least it's only like an hour and a half, so it's tenderly merciful in that way. Get it? I just used the title of the movie to make a pun! They should hire me to write for Family Guy.
Right then, let us now discuss a winner that's very strange because it's not good and it sits exactly between two outstanding winners in 82 and 84. The movie is Terms of Endearment and if you like it because you're into that sort of thing, fine. If you like it because you think it's an achievement in filmmaking, then we can't be friends. In fact, we must be enemies. I would literally team up with William Hurt and James Cameron and all of my other nemeses to take down whoever decided this movie was worthy of Best Picture. Now, I've complained about winners and nominees before. But at my absolute extreme, and feel free to check, I've never said that a winner is a bad movie. That might be a lie, I might've said that in 87, but that was hyperbole! I've only said a given movie is not deserving of the award, but I've never said it's bad. This movie is bad. It's actually a bad movie. My Pop Culture teachers in high school once described a clever ploy people use in movies of little kids being involved in scenes to give the audience an emotional hook. And my Creative Writing teacher (great scribe that she is) always said that if you kill everybody in the end then it usually means you don't know how to end it. Well this movie doesn't kill everybody, but it's still dumb. It's pretty much like, "let's have a tumultuous relationship between a mother and a daughter, then give the daughter cancer so that the mother can pretend like they didn't dislike each other all these years, then the daughter dies so that the grandson can look like a jerk by mentioning that his mother didn't care about him." What a bunch of crap! Shirley MacLaine won the Oscar for what should've been called, "Best Shrill Old Shrew of an Actress." I will say that she and Debra Winger allegedly hated each other in real life, and so that helps with the scenes where they hate each other. But the only reason a character gets cancer like this in a movie is to provide an emotional hook. Instead of crying, everybody should be saying: "that's why you should've been nicer to her when she wasn't dying!" It should be upsetting and annoying, not emotional. And then Jack Nicholson is stuck in there, for an entertaining superfluous character in the movie. I'd complain, but his scenes were the only good ones. And then after Winger dies, her son says: "you know, mom never came to my baseball games." He then gets smacked by MacLaine (his grandmother) so hard that he falls down and rolls. She then reprimands him for talking ill of his mother, even though she spent the whole movie talking ill of his mother. And is it the kid's fault he was neglected? We're supposed to get mad at a kid because he wasn't loved enough? What a bunch of crap. I will agree with one thing people say about the movie, stuff like this does happen in real life. Bad stuff happens for literally no reason. Well films are supposed to make more of an artistic statement than that. It takes no talent to portray something everyone already knows (and we're dovetailing back to The Big Chill, very Seinfeldian). This is the type of movie that a bunch of women go to see and cry during, and like I said: that's fine if that's what you're into. I like to go watch Stallone violently kill terrorists and mercenaries. But I'd be the first one to complain if one of those movies got nominated for anything other than Sound Editing. I guess I've made my point.
Fear not, 1982 has some better stuff. Great winner, good performances. You'll be happy you sat through all this nonsense. I have one left to watch and then I'll put it up. Thankfully we're nearing the end of the 80s, as there are some movies in the 70s I've been looking to check out for a while and this will be the perfect excuse. But before we get too far ahead, next year will include aliens, crossdressers, and revolutionaries. That's more variety than the rest of the 80s combined so far.
First up we've got a movie that, contrary to what I said in my 1984 post, is one my mother thought I'd like and I actually didn't: The Big Chill. You realize of course that once I said I liked all of her recommendations it automatically had to be disproven ASAP right? Once I put something in print, the universe compensates to make me look stupid. Luckily, that means it takes the whole of space/time to do so. Take that cosmos! Funny I should mention the cosmos, as this movie couldn't be any less significant with its themes in the grand scheme of the cosmos. Actually, that's not true. The fact that they took the time to point out the themes is what is a waste of time. The theme is the whole "getting older, realizing things have changed, yadda yadda." This is literally THE most relevant theme to humankind in many ways, at least in modern society. That also makes it the least relevant when it comes to films. Because I'm still young and I don't need a movie to tell me that becoming an adult is painful on occasion, especially when reflecting on the way things used to be when you were a teenager. Now, if you're going to make a movie about that, make it funny! Make the audience laugh at those things that bother them so deeply. Instead, this film plays like the precursor to movies like Hot Tub Time Machine (easily the most random movie I've ever mentioned on the blog). It deals with the exact same things, but it's also ridiculous and funny. It basically says, "sure the 80s were great but they were also stupid." Whereas this movie says, "boy the 60s was a crazy time. Yeah, so...umm, crazy times. Let's reminisce some more." Of course, if they made it funnier then it wouldn't have gotten nominated. Or maybe it was supposed to be funny and failed miserably. Don't know, don't really care. I will say that the soundtrack is pretty awesome as it's basically the equivalent of a nostalgia playlist. Lots of great songs from the sixties, some from the fifties I think, so at least I enjoyed listening to them. Did the song choices serve any purpose other than to represent a time period? No, and that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine since I prefer song choice to hold more meaning but it actually works here. And it saved me from total boredom so that's nice. Anyway, maybe in 1983 they were trying to pick up viewers of the awards show and nominated some movies people heard of and not necessarily good ones. Let's hope that was the case.
This next one I had never heard of but it features two really incredible performances: The Dresser. This is entirely an acting movie and as such, functions very similarly to a stage play. Maybe it was based on one, I don't feel like checking (I'm lazy with my Wikipedia-ing today). Either way, it's appropriate that it functions this way because it centers around an aging Shakespearean actor and his dresser. His title is "dresser" but he bathes the man, helps him with his lines, and does basically everything for him all hours of the day and every day of the week. Albert Finney (in a performance that should have netted the Oscar) plays the actor and Tom Courtenay plays the dresser (never heard of him, he probably dropped into a depression after neither he nor Albert won the award). I'd like to think that they canceled each other out for the Oscar, because they both did such an incredible job. There was some year back in the 30s or something (which I'll probably get to on the blog sometime this decade) where they had two dudes share an Oscar. Bring it back! Not every year obviously, but sometimes you have special circumstances. In this movie, neither actor carries the show more than the other but their relationship drives the entire film. Finney is past his prime and can barely remember from day to day which show he's doing, let alone his lines. He is completely dependent on his dresser, but near the end of the film we're left with the question of whether he realized this or not. And if he didn't, was it because he was old and crazy or because he was a self-involved jerk? Either way, we're left with two men who have essentially wasted their lives on the theater. Finney was going to be married once but he chose the theater instead, and we can't really tell whether that bothers him or not. Certain scenes would suggest it does. The film leaves this ambiguous as well as his feelings toward the dresser. That's what makes the film so powerful. Because it doesn't matter what the answer is, the fact that there is any question at all is what creates the tragedy. To have to wonder whether or not you've made the right decisions with your life is something we all struggle with. Oh, wait...is that what The Big Chill was trying to do? Too bad it failed. Because this movie has great acting and is well-done. I normally don't go for movies of this scope to be the winner, because it's solely an acting movie and not a directing/screenwriting one. But if we're going solely on enjoyment and overall quality, this was the best of the nominees for me.
Easily in second place is The Right Stuff. Since I've already talked about two movies that are my favorite before getting to the winner, you can just feel that rant coming can't you? Because the winner is pretty terrible. But anyway, this movie is essentially three hours chronicling the saga of space travel from the time of breaking the sound barrier to the manned missions of the early sixties. Now, I've frequently referred to NASA as "a money toilet" and if you've been reading my blog since the beginning, you know how I feel about Pluto's demotion as a planet. And in case you want to get Freudian, yes I do recognize with Pluto's plight since its historical journey can be described as a decades-long "carrot and stick" approach and I have also frequently referred to the universe's treatment of my life as a "carrot and stick" approach. Just thought I'd share that since it may serve to justify my rant. And the reason I say all of that is because I need to justify crapping on NASA while praising a movie about its mission and also while being a person who has seen all 726 episodes of Star Trek (including the terrible animated series). Okay then, let's journey out of my psyche and into the final frontier. This movie exemplifies some themes that I find fascinating as pertaining to many issues, not just space travel. In the beginning of the movie, it has this real "down home American hero" feel to it because the guy breaking the sound barrier was just this ordinary guy from a small town, and it shows it from that small town perspective. Over the course of the film (which I'm happy to say, earns its length) it gradually becomes more of a "bread and circuses" type thing. It's not about human achievement anymore, although it certainly is to some, it's instead about beating the Russians or making for a great TV show. The character of Alan Shore on Boston Legal once referred to all news as "infotainment" and I can't tell you how perfect I think that statement is. This was the era when things were rapidly becoming less about what was actually happening and more about what entertained people. I've personally said on many occasions that the 1960 debate between Kennedy and Nixon was the death of sanity in America, because people came away from it favoring Kennedy not because of how many things they agreed with that he stood for, but because he came off better on TV. Once that happened, that was it for us. And it's the same with anything, why was the moon landing so monumental? Not because it happened but because it was on TV. A man being launched into space and circling the Earth a bunch of times (as we see in the movie) was pretty freaking impressive too, but I doubt many people remember where they were when they first heard about it. Anyway, every aspect of this movie is pretty well-done. Not overly well-done, but very solid. The music is good, good script, you name it. It has too much story to tell to get personal with the characters and thus stops itself from becoming a real classic, but they achieve what they wanted to achieve and they did it very well.
The last movie before the "winner" is one I actually happen to be still watching: Tender Mercies. Not because it's as terrible as those period pieces I blogged during, but because of time constraints. I'm almost done with the 1982 movies and I don't want to fall behind. And yes now I've let time constraints influence art just like those TV producers I hate, but there you go. Let me be clear, this movie isn't period piece bad but it's not very good either. And Robert Duvall stole an Oscar right out of Albert Finney's pocket which is totally not cool. Not that I blame him of course. And he does a fine job in this movie, mind you there's still 20 minutes left. But if you're actually reading that sentence then he didn't have a Mo'nique moment a la Precious which completely changes the game in the final scenes. But this movie pretty much feels like the greatest Hallmark movie of all time (if that can be dream't of in your philosophy). It takes place in the West in a small town, and stars one big star and some ansillary people, and pre-diabeetus Wilford Brimley is in it. What about that doesn't scream "Hallmark movie?" And Duvall's character is a recovering alcoholic country singer who finds redemption in his relationship with a widow? That's like every Hallmark movie put together. Or maybe, every Hallmark movie ever is a complete or partial ripoff of this movie. So basically, this film is either the equivalent of or opposite of Avatar because it either holds the record for ripping off or being ripped off. And yes I just found a way to insult James Cameron amidst a 1983 character study about hillbillies. I've got skills. This is a great example of a movie that does what it sets out to do, I just don't know why anyone cares enough to do it. It has to be based on a real person, either famous or not. And (this just in) he has about two lines of dialogue that I thought were heartfelt and interesting near the end, not enough but not bad. Anyway, if you like Robert Duvall I recommend it. Because at least it's only like an hour and a half, so it's tenderly merciful in that way. Get it? I just used the title of the movie to make a pun! They should hire me to write for Family Guy.
Right then, let us now discuss a winner that's very strange because it's not good and it sits exactly between two outstanding winners in 82 and 84. The movie is Terms of Endearment and if you like it because you're into that sort of thing, fine. If you like it because you think it's an achievement in filmmaking, then we can't be friends. In fact, we must be enemies. I would literally team up with William Hurt and James Cameron and all of my other nemeses to take down whoever decided this movie was worthy of Best Picture. Now, I've complained about winners and nominees before. But at my absolute extreme, and feel free to check, I've never said that a winner is a bad movie. That might be a lie, I might've said that in 87, but that was hyperbole! I've only said a given movie is not deserving of the award, but I've never said it's bad. This movie is bad. It's actually a bad movie. My Pop Culture teachers in high school once described a clever ploy people use in movies of little kids being involved in scenes to give the audience an emotional hook. And my Creative Writing teacher (great scribe that she is) always said that if you kill everybody in the end then it usually means you don't know how to end it. Well this movie doesn't kill everybody, but it's still dumb. It's pretty much like, "let's have a tumultuous relationship between a mother and a daughter, then give the daughter cancer so that the mother can pretend like they didn't dislike each other all these years, then the daughter dies so that the grandson can look like a jerk by mentioning that his mother didn't care about him." What a bunch of crap! Shirley MacLaine won the Oscar for what should've been called, "Best Shrill Old Shrew of an Actress." I will say that she and Debra Winger allegedly hated each other in real life, and so that helps with the scenes where they hate each other. But the only reason a character gets cancer like this in a movie is to provide an emotional hook. Instead of crying, everybody should be saying: "that's why you should've been nicer to her when she wasn't dying!" It should be upsetting and annoying, not emotional. And then Jack Nicholson is stuck in there, for an entertaining superfluous character in the movie. I'd complain, but his scenes were the only good ones. And then after Winger dies, her son says: "you know, mom never came to my baseball games." He then gets smacked by MacLaine (his grandmother) so hard that he falls down and rolls. She then reprimands him for talking ill of his mother, even though she spent the whole movie talking ill of his mother. And is it the kid's fault he was neglected? We're supposed to get mad at a kid because he wasn't loved enough? What a bunch of crap. I will agree with one thing people say about the movie, stuff like this does happen in real life. Bad stuff happens for literally no reason. Well films are supposed to make more of an artistic statement than that. It takes no talent to portray something everyone already knows (and we're dovetailing back to The Big Chill, very Seinfeldian). This is the type of movie that a bunch of women go to see and cry during, and like I said: that's fine if that's what you're into. I like to go watch Stallone violently kill terrorists and mercenaries. But I'd be the first one to complain if one of those movies got nominated for anything other than Sound Editing. I guess I've made my point.
Fear not, 1982 has some better stuff. Great winner, good performances. You'll be happy you sat through all this nonsense. I have one left to watch and then I'll put it up. Thankfully we're nearing the end of the 80s, as there are some movies in the 70s I've been looking to check out for a while and this will be the perfect excuse. But before we get too far ahead, next year will include aliens, crossdressers, and revolutionaries. That's more variety than the rest of the 80s combined so far.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
1984: The Year that Alphabetization was My Friend and Mozart Killed Creativity
I really had to reach for the title of this post. Allow me to explain: the movie that won in 1984 was so freaking good that I think they either A) picked the other nominees out of a hat or (more likely) B) chose the four movies of the year that addressed the touchiest social issues. Why did I even separate that into an A and a B? That didn't even deserve the separation and snide hint at the answer. Because it's quite obviously the touchy one. It all worked out pretty well though, because these nominees are legitimately in the exact order of how good they are. I couldn't have planned it better myself, looks like this whole alphabetizing thing is finally paying off. And this is only my...25th post on the Oscars? Wow that's daunting...
Anyway, we start off with yet another Vietnam-era film: The Killing Fields. I say -era because it actually takes place in Cambodia and it's based on a true story and yadda yadda. After a while, one has to ask how many true stories need to be made into movies before people just start reading USA Today. Because if all anyone is going to do is offer a realistic portrayal of things that we've already seen portrayed realistically in slightly different circumstances, I might as well be journeying into National Geographic's heart of darkness. Not to say that the movie is bad exactly, but it has a few fatal flaws. One of the big ones being that it is scored by a synthesizer. And I know I sound like an uppity ponderous bore by saying that, but believe me it makes a difference. I'm not sure how subtle the differences are between various wines, nor do I care in the slightest, but a chimp could tell the difference between music done by a synthesizer and real music. At least, when it's this obvious. Nowadays synthesizers can sound like anything, to the point that Lost was pretty much the last TV show to use a full orchestra (and it showed). But back in 1984, synthesizers were on par with Roger Moore's concurrent efforts as James Bond. That is to say, really bad. So when I'm watching a scene that would've been stirring (and was) in movies like Platoon, instead it all feels like a TV movie with a bigger budget than most. And when the main character is played by Sam Waterston, the whole thing feels like the failed pilot of Law and Order: Cambodia. He does a good job, and he's a good overall actor, but I kept waiting for him to offer a plea bargain to get the prisoners back before giving a long-winded closing. Ah yes, I neglected to mention: the true story is about some journalists who risked their lives to bring the stories of the killing fields in Cambodia to public attention, including a hostage crisis that eventually ensued. It's a heroic story, no doubt about it. And I was certainly moved during the scene where Pran (Sammy's interpreter, also an Oscar-winning role) is reunited with his family. Overall though, the movie doesn't really break any new territory, which is probably why I hadn't heard of it before.
A movie I'd only heard of in passing, and I think in a class, (I say hesitantly, as that all seems so far away now) is A Passage to India. Basically, this is the precursor to Out of Africa. Except it's India instead of Africa, and they're going into it instead of coming out of it. Both movies go on WAY too long for the amount of story that they actually cover and both are entirely overrated. This one not as much, since it didn't win Best Picture (or much of anything really). But still, when I was reading up on it after I watched it today, I saw several write-ups from the time (from legit critics mind you) hailing it as "(director) David Lean's best work." Umm...ever heard of a little movie called Lawrence of Arabia? Which, incidentally, Steven Spielberg called the greatest movie of all time. I wouldn't go that far, but you won't see how far I will go until I get to 1962 (I have strange sentences in my blogs). Anyway, this is by no means his best work. It's not a bad movie, but it doesn't have any of the beautiful scenery that his other films have, or that 1985's winner had (despite its other shortcomings). It's basically an excuse for the British to once again flagellate themselves on screen over all the bad stuff they did. Well you know what? The only thing worse than being imperial douches for hundreds of years is reminding us all about it every time Oscar season rolls around. At least this actually shows things from the point of view of India, so we get that story instead of a bunch of British people going: "remember that time when we ruled the world? Good times." The story actually ends up being fairly tragic when one of the main characters in the movie, an Indian man named Aziz, is wrongfully accused of attempting to rape one of the British women. She ends up taking back all of her claims in court and he is freed, but he essentially rids himself of all things British and doesn't reconcile with her until years later. This was far and away the most interesting part of the story but it didn't really get going until 2 hours in! I wanted more of the bitter Aziz being forced to reconsider his views on life and his relationship with the British. Instead all we get is a bunch of setup, which is fine but when you take it too far then that doesn't work too well. In addition, I either wasn't paying enough attention or they didn't explain enough about why the girl said it was Aziz. These days, either could be true. I also read that most of Alec Guinness' scenes were cut. Who cuts freaking Obi-Wan Kenobi out of a movie? Mr. Lean had clearly lost his touch. Thankfully the composer, Maurice Jarre, lost none of his touch. And although his score isn't nearly as good as his iconic ones of the 60s it's still pretty great and adds a lot to the film. Overall, I wasn't exactly bored during the movie but I wasn't too impressed by it either.
A mercifully shorter film, and a pretty good one, is Places in the Heart. It's what my dad would call a "slice of life" movie. I know this because he told me: "that's what I like to call a 'slice of life' movie." It's mostly remembered for Sally Field's (in?)famously remembered, "you like me! You really, really like me!" speech. Although apparently that's a misquote and she actually said something that didn't quite resemble what a 3rd grade tuba player who won a talent show might say. Interestingly, I thought Danny Glover carried the movie a bit more than she did. She reminded me of a younger version of Miss Daisy, which is apropos since Miss Daisy is essentially the grown up version of women from that area of the country from that time period...but anyway, it takes place during the "dust bowl" era of the Great Depression. This was also done in the book, "The Grapes of Wrath" which is a book I despise enough to rant about somewhat briefly. Question: why is it that the mentally retarded brother in that book was the only one smart enough to suggest they make camp by the river so they could have water and fish to eat? Question: why did a legion of shotgun-wielding rednecks get pushed around by a few yuppies with an orange plantation? Question: why did I spend 3 straight days reading this book? That one I can answer: because it was assigned for summer reading and I procrastinate like a man with a death wish. End of rant. The woman in this movie actually does attempt to hold onto her cotton farm instead of going off West where, "there might be some work, maybe kinda." I say "cotton farm" and not "cotton plantation" because she enlists Danny Glover to help her pick the cotton and that raises some hairy issues...in fact, I'm shocked this movie wasn't criticized. Because even though he's a paid worker, it's still an old white lady getting a black dude to pick cotton for her (just saying). I wouldn't complain about it personally, because their friendship is developed really well and the KKK pop up and get scared off by John Malkovich and a theme of integration runs heavily through the movie without being too blatant. I'm just saying I'm shocked other people didn't complain (they probably did, but unless Wikipedia lists it under "controversy" I have no knowledge of its existence). I will say that this is one of those movies that has a far better ending than perhaps the movie deserved, but it's certainly put together well and enjoyable. I did want Danny Glover to set out picking the cotton and say: "I'm getting too old for this s**t" but they would have had to not only break the 4th wall but also the laws of space/time since Lethal Weapon came out 3 years later. Ah well.
This next one really surprised me with its quality: A Soldier's Story. I say it surprised me because the only time I heard of it before I knew I had to watch it on the escapade was from this guy who thinks that the government is tracking us with our iPods. I'd be the first one to tell you not to trust a lot of government stuff, but I doubt Uncle Sam cares that most of John Williams' canon is on my iPod and that I'm listening to it as I blog about blogging about how Uncle Sam doesn't care. Anyway, despite it being recommended to me by a man who probably thinks Abe Lincoln was a cyborg sent by the Russians, this is a pretty great movie. It features a young Denzel Washington who (unlike freaking Tom Cruise) is just as good whenever you watch him. The man was absurdly talented in 1984 and he still is. He has a fairly minor role in the film, but he steals the show. It centers around a WWII regiment comprised only of black men, and the murder of one of their commanding officers, who also happens to be black. It's told mostly in flashback, and raises interesting social questions without sacrificing story or character. It's based on a stage play, which told me from the beginning it was going to be an acting-driven piece. I've watched this fail miserably a few times in the past months, but this worked really well. And it's only about 100 minutes, a perfect running time! It doesn't waste time or leave you wanting more of certain aspects, it knows exactly what it is and it runs with it. It also doesn't have an "80s feel" to it, which is really good because I detest when something reeks of a decade. I shouldn't be able to tell when a movie was made when I'm watching it. Of course, effects can always be dated and actors I know are always younger, but I mean that the style should exemplify the story and not the decade. This movie does pretty much everything right, and it's easily the second best of the year.
But that still makes it a far cry behind Amadeus. It's been a long time since I watched a movie that good. It's one of my mom's favorite movies of all time, and usually when that happens it's a good movie (actually every time, not to suck up to mom or anything). But whereas I thought that maybe it was only good because it features the music of Mozart, it is an outstanding character study that is well-done on every feasible level. From Tom Hulce's incredibly annoying (and outstanding) portrayal of Mozart to F. Murray Abraham's astoundingly good (and Oscar winning) portrayal of Salieri, this film goes on for 3 hours but every second is incredible. The movie is told from Salieri's point of view, and it shows how he detests Mozart and spends a lifetime trying to best him. Simple plot, delivered brilliantly. Contrary to what I thought going in, Salieri doesn't think Mozart is a bad composer. Nor does he think he is better than Mozart. He knows precisely how good he is, and that's why he hates him. Salieri spent his entire life following the rules of God and the rules of man. Mozart is a drunkard who chases women and laughs like a hyena. And yet God blessed Mozart and not Salieri. This aspect of the movie turns it into an epic telling of the oldest dilemma in the book: "why him? What was it that was so wrong with me?" And yes I stole that line from one of my favorite scenes on Lost, but it fits. Whether it's Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, or Superman and Lex Luthor (not a joke): there's always one guy who gets the birthright and the other guy is a schmuck (and it doesn't always turn out how it should). This movie examines the incredibly depressing idea that no matter what Salieri did, he would never be better than Mozart. My favorite scene in the film is when he discovers some of Mozart's sheet music, and he notices that it's the only copy and there are no notes. He wrote it in his mind and then committed it to paper as though it had always existed. Abraham acts the scene entirely with his eyes (though words were spoken I'm sure) and it shows us his life's dilemma in a single moment. That was what made his performance so good: it was understated. You could tell he was holding in a range of emotions, because they leaked out at times. You could feel the emotions coming from him, he didn't have to spell it out. I'm going to go ahead and say that it was probably one of the best performances I've ever seen, not even hyperbolizing. I could go on and on about the film, but I'll finish by saying that its musical score is excellent (obviously, it's Mozart) and it actually deserved all 8 of its Oscars. This was the year that the Academy knew what it was doing, and it caused me to take a two week break from the other movies so I could see them for their own merit, instead of comparing them to this one and watching them fail miserably.
In case you were wondering, I said in my title that Mozart killed creativity because no other movie had a shot at winning and the Academy thus nominated some fairly boring stuff. Good things, but not particularly interesting overall. That's okay, because my experience while watching Amadeus has made the escapade worthwhile (except for the British whining). Let's hope we can carry all that positive energy into 1983 (probably not). I guess we'll see what the year brings us, all I know now is it'll bring 3 hours of people in space that have neither phasers nor blasters (sounds stupid), Joker and Penguin in a movie about pet names, and the return of my one-time nemesis and now reluctant-friend: William Hurt.
Anyway, we start off with yet another Vietnam-era film: The Killing Fields. I say -era because it actually takes place in Cambodia and it's based on a true story and yadda yadda. After a while, one has to ask how many true stories need to be made into movies before people just start reading USA Today. Because if all anyone is going to do is offer a realistic portrayal of things that we've already seen portrayed realistically in slightly different circumstances, I might as well be journeying into National Geographic's heart of darkness. Not to say that the movie is bad exactly, but it has a few fatal flaws. One of the big ones being that it is scored by a synthesizer. And I know I sound like an uppity ponderous bore by saying that, but believe me it makes a difference. I'm not sure how subtle the differences are between various wines, nor do I care in the slightest, but a chimp could tell the difference between music done by a synthesizer and real music. At least, when it's this obvious. Nowadays synthesizers can sound like anything, to the point that Lost was pretty much the last TV show to use a full orchestra (and it showed). But back in 1984, synthesizers were on par with Roger Moore's concurrent efforts as James Bond. That is to say, really bad. So when I'm watching a scene that would've been stirring (and was) in movies like Platoon, instead it all feels like a TV movie with a bigger budget than most. And when the main character is played by Sam Waterston, the whole thing feels like the failed pilot of Law and Order: Cambodia. He does a good job, and he's a good overall actor, but I kept waiting for him to offer a plea bargain to get the prisoners back before giving a long-winded closing. Ah yes, I neglected to mention: the true story is about some journalists who risked their lives to bring the stories of the killing fields in Cambodia to public attention, including a hostage crisis that eventually ensued. It's a heroic story, no doubt about it. And I was certainly moved during the scene where Pran (Sammy's interpreter, also an Oscar-winning role) is reunited with his family. Overall though, the movie doesn't really break any new territory, which is probably why I hadn't heard of it before.
A movie I'd only heard of in passing, and I think in a class, (I say hesitantly, as that all seems so far away now) is A Passage to India. Basically, this is the precursor to Out of Africa. Except it's India instead of Africa, and they're going into it instead of coming out of it. Both movies go on WAY too long for the amount of story that they actually cover and both are entirely overrated. This one not as much, since it didn't win Best Picture (or much of anything really). But still, when I was reading up on it after I watched it today, I saw several write-ups from the time (from legit critics mind you) hailing it as "(director) David Lean's best work." Umm...ever heard of a little movie called Lawrence of Arabia? Which, incidentally, Steven Spielberg called the greatest movie of all time. I wouldn't go that far, but you won't see how far I will go until I get to 1962 (I have strange sentences in my blogs). Anyway, this is by no means his best work. It's not a bad movie, but it doesn't have any of the beautiful scenery that his other films have, or that 1985's winner had (despite its other shortcomings). It's basically an excuse for the British to once again flagellate themselves on screen over all the bad stuff they did. Well you know what? The only thing worse than being imperial douches for hundreds of years is reminding us all about it every time Oscar season rolls around. At least this actually shows things from the point of view of India, so we get that story instead of a bunch of British people going: "remember that time when we ruled the world? Good times." The story actually ends up being fairly tragic when one of the main characters in the movie, an Indian man named Aziz, is wrongfully accused of attempting to rape one of the British women. She ends up taking back all of her claims in court and he is freed, but he essentially rids himself of all things British and doesn't reconcile with her until years later. This was far and away the most interesting part of the story but it didn't really get going until 2 hours in! I wanted more of the bitter Aziz being forced to reconsider his views on life and his relationship with the British. Instead all we get is a bunch of setup, which is fine but when you take it too far then that doesn't work too well. In addition, I either wasn't paying enough attention or they didn't explain enough about why the girl said it was Aziz. These days, either could be true. I also read that most of Alec Guinness' scenes were cut. Who cuts freaking Obi-Wan Kenobi out of a movie? Mr. Lean had clearly lost his touch. Thankfully the composer, Maurice Jarre, lost none of his touch. And although his score isn't nearly as good as his iconic ones of the 60s it's still pretty great and adds a lot to the film. Overall, I wasn't exactly bored during the movie but I wasn't too impressed by it either.
A mercifully shorter film, and a pretty good one, is Places in the Heart. It's what my dad would call a "slice of life" movie. I know this because he told me: "that's what I like to call a 'slice of life' movie." It's mostly remembered for Sally Field's (in?)famously remembered, "you like me! You really, really like me!" speech. Although apparently that's a misquote and she actually said something that didn't quite resemble what a 3rd grade tuba player who won a talent show might say. Interestingly, I thought Danny Glover carried the movie a bit more than she did. She reminded me of a younger version of Miss Daisy, which is apropos since Miss Daisy is essentially the grown up version of women from that area of the country from that time period...but anyway, it takes place during the "dust bowl" era of the Great Depression. This was also done in the book, "The Grapes of Wrath" which is a book I despise enough to rant about somewhat briefly. Question: why is it that the mentally retarded brother in that book was the only one smart enough to suggest they make camp by the river so they could have water and fish to eat? Question: why did a legion of shotgun-wielding rednecks get pushed around by a few yuppies with an orange plantation? Question: why did I spend 3 straight days reading this book? That one I can answer: because it was assigned for summer reading and I procrastinate like a man with a death wish. End of rant. The woman in this movie actually does attempt to hold onto her cotton farm instead of going off West where, "there might be some work, maybe kinda." I say "cotton farm" and not "cotton plantation" because she enlists Danny Glover to help her pick the cotton and that raises some hairy issues...in fact, I'm shocked this movie wasn't criticized. Because even though he's a paid worker, it's still an old white lady getting a black dude to pick cotton for her (just saying). I wouldn't complain about it personally, because their friendship is developed really well and the KKK pop up and get scared off by John Malkovich and a theme of integration runs heavily through the movie without being too blatant. I'm just saying I'm shocked other people didn't complain (they probably did, but unless Wikipedia lists it under "controversy" I have no knowledge of its existence). I will say that this is one of those movies that has a far better ending than perhaps the movie deserved, but it's certainly put together well and enjoyable. I did want Danny Glover to set out picking the cotton and say: "I'm getting too old for this s**t" but they would have had to not only break the 4th wall but also the laws of space/time since Lethal Weapon came out 3 years later. Ah well.
This next one really surprised me with its quality: A Soldier's Story. I say it surprised me because the only time I heard of it before I knew I had to watch it on the escapade was from this guy who thinks that the government is tracking us with our iPods. I'd be the first one to tell you not to trust a lot of government stuff, but I doubt Uncle Sam cares that most of John Williams' canon is on my iPod and that I'm listening to it as I blog about blogging about how Uncle Sam doesn't care. Anyway, despite it being recommended to me by a man who probably thinks Abe Lincoln was a cyborg sent by the Russians, this is a pretty great movie. It features a young Denzel Washington who (unlike freaking Tom Cruise) is just as good whenever you watch him. The man was absurdly talented in 1984 and he still is. He has a fairly minor role in the film, but he steals the show. It centers around a WWII regiment comprised only of black men, and the murder of one of their commanding officers, who also happens to be black. It's told mostly in flashback, and raises interesting social questions without sacrificing story or character. It's based on a stage play, which told me from the beginning it was going to be an acting-driven piece. I've watched this fail miserably a few times in the past months, but this worked really well. And it's only about 100 minutes, a perfect running time! It doesn't waste time or leave you wanting more of certain aspects, it knows exactly what it is and it runs with it. It also doesn't have an "80s feel" to it, which is really good because I detest when something reeks of a decade. I shouldn't be able to tell when a movie was made when I'm watching it. Of course, effects can always be dated and actors I know are always younger, but I mean that the style should exemplify the story and not the decade. This movie does pretty much everything right, and it's easily the second best of the year.
But that still makes it a far cry behind Amadeus. It's been a long time since I watched a movie that good. It's one of my mom's favorite movies of all time, and usually when that happens it's a good movie (actually every time, not to suck up to mom or anything). But whereas I thought that maybe it was only good because it features the music of Mozart, it is an outstanding character study that is well-done on every feasible level. From Tom Hulce's incredibly annoying (and outstanding) portrayal of Mozart to F. Murray Abraham's astoundingly good (and Oscar winning) portrayal of Salieri, this film goes on for 3 hours but every second is incredible. The movie is told from Salieri's point of view, and it shows how he detests Mozart and spends a lifetime trying to best him. Simple plot, delivered brilliantly. Contrary to what I thought going in, Salieri doesn't think Mozart is a bad composer. Nor does he think he is better than Mozart. He knows precisely how good he is, and that's why he hates him. Salieri spent his entire life following the rules of God and the rules of man. Mozart is a drunkard who chases women and laughs like a hyena. And yet God blessed Mozart and not Salieri. This aspect of the movie turns it into an epic telling of the oldest dilemma in the book: "why him? What was it that was so wrong with me?" And yes I stole that line from one of my favorite scenes on Lost, but it fits. Whether it's Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, or Superman and Lex Luthor (not a joke): there's always one guy who gets the birthright and the other guy is a schmuck (and it doesn't always turn out how it should). This movie examines the incredibly depressing idea that no matter what Salieri did, he would never be better than Mozart. My favorite scene in the film is when he discovers some of Mozart's sheet music, and he notices that it's the only copy and there are no notes. He wrote it in his mind and then committed it to paper as though it had always existed. Abraham acts the scene entirely with his eyes (though words were spoken I'm sure) and it shows us his life's dilemma in a single moment. That was what made his performance so good: it was understated. You could tell he was holding in a range of emotions, because they leaked out at times. You could feel the emotions coming from him, he didn't have to spell it out. I'm going to go ahead and say that it was probably one of the best performances I've ever seen, not even hyperbolizing. I could go on and on about the film, but I'll finish by saying that its musical score is excellent (obviously, it's Mozart) and it actually deserved all 8 of its Oscars. This was the year that the Academy knew what it was doing, and it caused me to take a two week break from the other movies so I could see them for their own merit, instead of comparing them to this one and watching them fail miserably.
In case you were wondering, I said in my title that Mozart killed creativity because no other movie had a shot at winning and the Academy thus nominated some fairly boring stuff. Good things, but not particularly interesting overall. That's okay, because my experience while watching Amadeus has made the escapade worthwhile (except for the British whining). Let's hope we can carry all that positive energy into 1983 (probably not). I guess we'll see what the year brings us, all I know now is it'll bring 3 hours of people in space that have neither phasers nor blasters (sounds stupid), Joker and Penguin in a movie about pet names, and the return of my one-time nemesis and now reluctant-friend: William Hurt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)