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.