1954: The Year that Coulda Been a Contender

I'm going to go ahead and assume this was another one of those years where the winner was so obvious that they nominated some other movies by some kind of arbitrary selection process. Like names in a hat. Or headless chickens on a giant selection wheel. One of those. Certainly no other options. Actually, this blog is a landmark for two reasons. One is that my Internet-moronic self has figured out how to add links (which means I have to go back and add links to like 8 million entries now). And also because I'm going to get all faux-feminist on everybody. I usually chalk things up to "oh you know, it was a different time" whenever there's a borderline racist/sexist scene in these movies. But even I have my breaking points. Excited yet?

I wish I could've segued right into the movie I was talking about, but the alphabet demands I instead start with The Caine Mutiny. This reverse-reminded me of Mister Roberts actually. In fact, I think I was doing my 1955 write-up which included Mister Roberts when I was watching The Caine Mutiny, which is just way confusing. MR is a "heart-warming comedy" about a Navy dude that stands up to his oppressive commander and then gets relocated and killed. TCM is a drama about a Navy dude who stands up to his questionably oppressive commander, takes him to Naval court, loses, and probably gets kicked out. I mean...they're not even kind of different. It's like comparing two Steven Seagal sequels. I would definitely say that TCM is the better of the two, because it at least tries to be serious. But it's also worse in the sense that the commander wasn't really that crazy. He was played by Bogart for one thing, so you already like him more than everybody else. In addition, it made it seem like the guy going after him was just really paranoid. Which would be fine if they addressed that he was paranoid. Instead, we're asked to sympathize with his journey to oust a man who only "might be a little crazy" and then have the Naval court basically tell him he didn't have a case. Well that's a realistic outcome. But what's the point of the movie then? It's well-acted but still a bit too long. People are always telling me how short movies back then were. Where are they? Maybe the arbitrary nomination requirement was "anything over two hours." There's definitely a lot of star power in the movie, but to be honest...that didn't mean as much back then. And it certainly didn't mean as much in the 40s, 30s, and so on. The reason being that a lot of these actors just worked for film companies and starred in whatever they were told to star in. Plus, movies filmed in like two weeks or something crazy. So big time actors were in a lot of stuff. So did Bogart do a much better job in this role than a lot of other people would've? Certainly. Does that mean it's a great movie? Not really. It's a "solid" movie though. I'll say that.

A movie I wish I'd paid more attention to is The Country Girl. From the title, does it sound like something that is A) something I'd enjoy or B) something that requires my full attention? Nope! And its plot description doesn't make it sound too interesting either. As it turned out, the film is actually pretty interesting. It's about an alcoholic actor who is washed up and gets a role that might be a chance to get his career back on track. So why does it have the title it does? I'm not sure because I missed the title drop, if there was one. I do know that it refers to Grace Kelly's character, who is a sort of living MacGuffin. I was thinking about making "MacGuffin" a link to explain what it is, but that would be too easy. Can't go explaining all of my references. Now allow me to explain my reference: a MacGuffin is something that drives the plot without really being super important within it. So basically, every James Bond villain plot ever. Why did the bad guy go to Venice? So that Bond could have a nifty Venice chase scene! So in this movie Grace Kelly is both the most important and least important person. She kind of falls for this other actor who's not an alcoholic (which is a plus). But in the end she decides to stick with the schmo because we all know that when alcoholics quit drinking it's for realsies and they never relapse right? It was a good movie up until that BS ending. And it also had what I thought was a fantastic line: "they all start out as Juliets and end up Lady Macbeths." I want to put that on a t-shirt and make millions by selling it to nice guys in college who aren't "edgy" enough for the lehdays. It will further damage their dating chances but they will love it. Anyway, this film caused a big upset when Grace Kelly won Best Actress. There's a whole story online about how Judy Garland was expected to win and all of the drama surrounding it. I haven't seen her movie, but since Grace Kelly essentially mopes around for an hour and forty while Bing Crosby and William Holden act around her, I'd say the uproar was appropriate. So yeah it's an interesting film that's kind of like a slightly different The Lost Weekend, which I will review in 9 blog years. Not much new ground broken, but certainly better than the Rom-Dram I was expecting it to be.

And herein lies the sexism, with Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. Holy. Freaking. Crap. Let me begin by saying that the Eddie Cantor song "The Dumber They Are" is one of my favorite songs because it's so terrible and misogynistic that it's hilarious to me. Because I have a dark sense of humor. My favorite episode of Seinfeld is the one where Jerry steals the marble rye from an old lady. He's stealing bread from an old lady! That's possibly a felony! And he's doing it to help George with his future in-laws! Genius. Dark and genius. But this movie is just messed up. Granted, it's a goofy musical of the 50s. So it's not meant to be really serious. But this is like if Michael Bay directed a 50s musical. All of the dance sequences are SO over-the-top and the plot elements are really messed up but they're treated casually. Just like Michael Bay movies. Basically, this dude legit rides into town (he's a mountain man, no hyperbole) and takes a woman. Not woos a woman. Not sings a love ballad to a woman with implied wooing. He freaking TAKES her. Like in Taken. He would be the taker that Liam Neeson is voice-pwning over the phone. Then his six brothers get jealous and they ALL TAKE MORE WOMEN. Let me explain this again. All seven main characters take seven women from town, Viking style, and make them their wives. And they sing about it! And then the guys in town are mad because these women they had intended on wooing have been kidnapped. We're supposed to view the angry townspeople as villains, even though they're trying to save kidnapped women from crazed mountain men. It's probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life. If I was making a movie making fun of movies like this, I would make this movie. I don't want to be mistaken for someone who is socially conscious and who cares about if people are offended, but this is offensive. Seriously. On the bright side, it might have single-handedly started the Women's Rights Movement. It would not surprise me.

A movie that's at least less offensive, even if it's not much better, is Three Coins in the Fountain. I may or may not have been playing Ocarina of Time on my 3DS about halfway through this movie. I'd like to tell you that I missed something by only half paying attention. But I didn't. And I checked the detailed TCM description to be sure. It's about three women who throw coins in a fountain (yes the metaphor is personified right from the getgo, I am also nauseated) wishing for love. It's in Italy anyway, so the scenery is nice. Oh sorry, I started talking about the scenery before I finished explaining the plot: all three of them find love. Spoilers! Forgot to warn about that. Of course, as the Netflix description says: "it happens in unexpected ways!" Well, it happened at all. Which isn't unexpected. Know what would've been cool? A harsh-ish study in fate where only two of their coins landed heads up or something and those two ended up finding love but the third did not. Did she fail to find love because that's what fate had in store for her or did she fail because she instigated a self-fulfilling prophecy? Interesting right? Lots better than this drivel. Even the opening song (sung beautifully by Sinatra, easily the only highlight) sort of implies that not everyone gets a happy ending. Then everyone does! Like 50s Rom-Com Shyamalan. It's not because I want everything to be depressing (although that's part of it), it's that I hate when movies essentially announce their intentions to you and then deliver. Or worse: announce a vaguely interesting intention and then don't do that. Actually, announcing your intentions and delivering can be fine. As long as that's not the whole point of the movie. But there's no B story here and no real suspense or surprise. Even my dad questioned its nomination and he loves old movies. So while it's true that I might be too cynical and biting to enjoy the movie at all, I think many can agree that this is a questionable choice for a nominee.

Which makes it differ from this year's absolutely deserving winner: On the Waterfront. Even today this plays as a fairly intense movie. Not because of the visible violence but for the violent themes within the film. Right from the beginning there's an undertone of suspense. We see Brando delivering a pigeon to a man, knowingly leading him to the roof and unknowingly leading him to his demise. The love interest in the movie is that dead man's sister. So you're like 10 minutes into the movie and the main character is dating the sister of the guy he indirectly killed. That's. Awesome. I should've known from Leonard Bernstein's music score that things were about to get hairy (just as I thought the music was a bit much, a dude up and gets thrown off a roof). The man was killed for coming forward to testify against the mob of sorts that had sprouted among the waterfront unions. Brando plays a man who used to be a prize fighter, until he threw a fight to help his brother out. This is revealed in the famous "contender" scene in the back of the car. Some say it was mostly ad-libbed. Some say the opposite. I say: who cares? It's a great scene! It relies heavily upon one of my favorite themes throughout fiction: the idea that someone could end up somewhere they're not supposed to be. That perhaps their destiny was one place, until a series of events knocked them off-course. Which is why my favorite line in the new Star Trek movie was "James Kirk was a great man, but that was another life." Can Kirk still be a great man even though his life didn't turn out the way it was supposed to? The answer there is yes. And in this movie Brando's character, Terry Malloy, ends up becoming far more important to society than he could have ever been as a fighter. So maybe he was right where he was supposed to be after all. The film is teeming with great actors and is directed by Elia Kazan, one of the all-time best directors. And I'd say it's probably his best work. Lit-trally everyone should watch this movie. It's powerful without being sappy and thought-provoking without being overly complex. It also doesn't overstay its welcome at a cool hour and forty-eight minutes. Just pointing that out.

Well that's it for 1954, not the most memorable year but I had the winner memorized years ago because it's one of my favorites. The fact that it was the winner, not the whole movie. That would be crazy. It feels good to be back, but I'm glad I took some time off. It was nice to watch a bunch of stuff that I didn't have to dissect to death. But now my batteries are re-charged and my war on the Academy continues. I don't know how good or bad 1953 is. All I know for now is it will include Romans killing Jesus, Romans killing Caesar, and Romans making out or something.

Quick Rant: A Non-Farewell to Arms and a Shakespeare Shout-Out

Well I've been on sabbatical for about a month from my journey backwards through The Oscars. Because sociological time travel can take its toll on you. I had watched so many movies from the 50s in close succession that I was coming dangerously close to calling women "doll" and then sharing my cigarette with them whilst ordering around my portrayed-in-a-borderline-racist-way elderly black female maid. Either that or I was taking a few weeks to re-watch all of Fringe, The Vampire Diaries, and Parks and Recreation. You decide. Either way, I'm back now (in black, in the saddle, and in the day). So today I am resuming my quest to watch every Best Picture nominee in history. And lambast them as needed. I'll also throw in some "quick rants" like this one that will deal with things that are very philisophically interesting as pertaining to media. Or that will talk about TV shows with cool explosions. Hopefully both. So keep an eye out tomorrow for my 1954 post, which I promise will contain enough pop culture references and hyperbolic insults to society (both modern and 50s era) that you'll hardly know I'm talking about movies you've never heard about.

I'd also like to take a second to direct you toward a guest piece that I wrote for some friends of mine who put on a great Shakespeare show in New York. They're called The Tempest Ladies and they basically achieve the impossible by putting on a Shakespeare show that I felt like sitting through. Don't be suspicious because of how optimistic I sound in the write-up, it really is me. I do enjoy things on occasion. So give the post and the accompanying trailer a look and check them out if you're in NYC. I'm looking at you, 58 page views from Russia who probably vacation here as Soviet spies on occasion! So anyway, here's the link: http://oneproducerinthecity.typepad.com/one_producer_in_the_city/2011/09/awesome-person-thursday-the-tempest-ladies.html

I hope you enjoy, and I will see you back here tomorrow (all 3 and counting of you!) for some 50s craziness.