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.