Not much to say other than I'm so glad to be in the 80s finally. It's a huge deal to me because I feel like I'm actually starting to make a dent in this project and it feels good. I've only seen Field of Dreams and I'm glad to finally watch some of these that are always brought up in Oscar discussions so I can have an informed opinion.
1989 Best Picture
Driving Miss Daisy
I was eager to finally watch this film as I had never seen it before. I certainly knew a ton about it and especially knew that it was a controversial choice in hindsight. And I totally agree with it being a controversial choice. This is a bad Best Picture choice. It's pathetic really. I like my Best Picture winners to be either great films, which this one is not, or to have a really strong message/story that makes you understand why it was chosen. Driving Miss Daisy is forgettable pap. If it had never won Best Picture, would we ever talk about it again? I don't think we would except to talk about it in regards to glossing over the racial issue. Though it pretends to be a film that treats the racial issue with enough respect, it's a bad look all around. Tandy gets a black man hired to be her driver and the two have issues at first until she warms up to him and becomes a little more racially aware, though he's still her driver. It's too pithy about race and Freeman as the aw shuck, yessum black man is a bad look. Sure, it's probably a survival tool for him in that era but that's not something the Academy should be rewarding time and again. White old lady eventually comes around to the idea that blacks are people too after talking with one extensively and then ending up in a retirement home. If this was just a nominee I might not be talking about it so harshly but I don't like it's message and the fact that it actually won BP! I'm sorry but I'm someone that feels race should not be dealt with so cavalierly, it's something we are still dealing with in 2016 and to act like this little episode fixed anything because a white old lady made a black friend is absurd. Though this is a feel good, pleasant enough film I need something more from this. It's a short hour and a half and that's not enough to have a say on its subject matter. It's too brief and knowing the other choices in the category are far better hurts to see this as the winner. I dunno, it's just a bad choice all around by the Academy. I've been really negative but it at least has a memorable score by none other than Hans Zimmer of all people and looks pretty good, all things considered. Just don't understand all the love it received. Does anyone ever get bored and decide to rewatch this film? I didn't think so.
Born on the Fourth of July
If you didn't know, this is a war film by Oliver Stone. The second in his Vietnam trilogy, actually. If you can name or have heard of the third one, well kudos to you film buff because not even I knew what it was (Heaven and Earth). I think with war films I have a greater understanding of how effective they are having served in two wars myself. I feel like I'm able to gauge the realism of the subject even if it's about the Vietnam War simply because I've been around it. I can and have called out the realism for some Iraq/Afghanistan war films because I lived it. When it comes to Vietnam, it's how realistic is the actual combat or military interactions and whatnot. This film gets a lot of things right, which is to be expected with Oliver Stone helming it. I really think this is a strong film, though nowhere near as close to Platoon. This film seems too Hollywood and on the nose about things but still hits hard especially when it comes to the soldiers themselves. Tom Cruise is pretty fantastic as the main character, having to show a lot of emotional range even if it's not super nuanced. We follow this idealistic kid who had a romantic notion about war from his upbringing and America's whitewashing of anything bad to do with WWII. This noble ideal of war is far from the truth and Cruise's character learns that the hard way. He's an all-American kid who excels at wrestling and has a good home life. He volunteers to fight the good fight and goes over there and realizes that killing women and children isn't very ideal. He kills a member of his unit on accident and has to live with the guilt before also getting paralyzed from a bullet. Cruise remains upbeat and positive even when in the dilapidated VA Health system that probably is exaggerated for effect because I can't imagine those guys being in such squalor. He has setbacks that prevent him from walking and then returns home a crippled 'hero.' He's still idealistic about winning the war and being pro-America but then realizes that people look at him differently and don't support him and even outright hate him. This is proved over and over again that America doesn't care about him and that the government sucks because he was this expendable tool for a bullshit purpose. I think the film is strong in its message that we need to take care of our veterans and not just discard them as lesser beings. There is great synergy between when Cruise was a squad leader and there was mass confusion that lead to a village getting shot up and he couldn't command his guys to when, at the end, he has the attention of the protesters and is barking out orders on how to get exposure at the Convention. It shows just how much Cruise has to grow his character and how much the attitudes of the audience have to change. The progression of an individual from wide-eyed idealist to jaded protester is quite something to watch. I wasn't sure if this film was just going to be a rehash of Platoon for Stone or if it would be a lame ass Hollywood vehicle for Cruise or what exactly, but it turned out to be a compelling look at how a man can become disillusioned with his country while still loving it. This might hit a little more for me given my military ties but I don't see it's nominations as a fluke and think it's mostly well deserved. It is for sure a bit heavy handed but I guess it depends on what side of the film you fall down on if you can tolerate it.
Dead Poets Society
You have probably seen this film before and if you haven't, you actually have. By that I mean, you've probably seen parodies or allusions to it in other films or, more to my point, have seen other inspirational teacher films, which is what this is. Robin Williams is an eccentric teacher with non traditional ways of teaching in order to connect with the kids and mold them into being individuals and thinking outside the box. It's really pretty standard stuff. You know all the beats of the film already before you even see it. The administration and older teachers get upset that Williams isn't teaching the curriculum and is doing his own thing. The kids are wary at first but then warm up to it and inevitably defend him in the end. The kids have their own issues that get solved because of the inspiration from Williams. Only real wrinkle is there is a death among the kids which sort of hastens the administration getting rid of Williams. The film is entertaining and full of iconic moments like the kids standing on their desk at the end and the whole 'yawp' thing. The kids are the real stars of the film and honestly the main draw. You'll recognize a bunch of them like a young Ethan Hawke and a really good Robert Sean Leonard (who you know from House). I found myself more interested in their day to day dealings rather than the whole inspirational teacher thing. The idea of the Dead Poets Society club is pretty interesting and wish the film would have focused on that and expanded on it. I would say that this is taking the feel good movie spot for the category but then you've got Driving Miss Daisy, Field of Dreams, and hell, even My Left Foot (though not really). So I don't really think this film belongs on this list, no matter how entertaining you find it to be. This spot could have gone to the terrific Do the Right Thing. Carpe diem, though.
Field of Dreams
I bet you get the quote wrong. It's "If you build it, HE will come," not They. I swear there was some commercial that said they will come which is always what I remembered it as. One minor issue is that Shoeless Joe Jackson throws right and bats left, yet Ray Liotta did the opposite of that. Historical accuracy be damned, right? I guess that doesn't really matter in the long run. This film really does feel like an odd choice for Best Picture, though. I get that it's pretty entertaining and tugs at the heartstrings and makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about baseball and remembering the past but really? The film is way too convenient in moving the plot along. It's one coincidence after another and I understand suspension of disbelief for a film like this but it never even tries to explain itself. Like when Costner's character figures out he needs to go visit the writer, Terence Mann, he says I don't know why, it just feels like that's who I should go see. It's very random. Costner's wife is pretty annoying in the film but most of the other characters are pretty good. James Earl Jones, Timothy Busfield, Ray Liotta, and especially Burt Lancaster (which I'm surprised they didn't nominate him in Supporting since that would have been such an Academy thing to do) are good in their roles and at least keep the film worth watching. I also feel like if you don't really enjoy baseball this film is going to fall really flat, so it seems like it's very niche instead of having broad appeal. I like Field of Dreams, don't get me wrong, but it's a weird little film that always surprises me when I remember it was nominated for Best Picture. I think this film just hits a lot of the old Academy members' sweet spots with the older actors, baseball, family togetherness, and it's even got a very liberal slant. This is just one of those feel good films that always seems to sneak in over more deserving and critically acclaimed films like Do the Right Thing, which I'll say for like the tenth time already.
My Left Foot
This should be the measuring stick of disabled person films. I say that because the film doesn't treat DDL's Christy Brown as this untouchable, miracle, perfect guy. It doesn't manipulate the audience into feeling a certain way for the character or his predicament. It presents it all as is and let's us see that Christy is not a perfect person. He's just like any of us with all the flaws and issues that go along with being human. I hate to compare it to The Theory of Everything since they are very different films in subject but I use it as an example of one film manipulating the audience in how to feel with a treacly performance of the leading character that doesn't quite get to the heart of the man. It's like opposite sides of the same coin and I much prefer the My Left Foot side. I was a bit worried when this film was about 50 minutes in and we hadn't really seen much of Christy's adult life, knowing that he was an accomplished painter and writer. The beginning breezed along and was still interesting seeing how Christy was brought up and discovered to be pretty smart, just physically disabled. Also, the kid that plays the younger Christy is almost as good as DDL is and really helps bridge the transition from younger to older perfectly. Without a great performance from him, DDL's part may not have been as good in a small way. Speaking of DDL, his performance is brilliant and along with Brenda Fricker, make this film an absolute must watch. The film itself is a bit short, only about an hour and 43 minutes and at the end I was wanting a bit more about Christy. This could have easily been 2 hours long and not lost anything. I wanted to know a lot more about Christy's adult life but I understood what the director was aiming for. This film is a pleasant little watch that peers into the life of an interesting individual without telling us how to feel about him and let's us make our own decisions about the man. Not sure where it will land in this group quite yet, but it is a strong film nonetheless.
I'm honestly a little underwhelmed with this year. Actually, I'm a lotta underwhelmed. I don't like the winner really at all. I was very open to it going in especially since I've heard a lot of people enjoy it or love it but think it a weak winner. I don't know what the hell there is to love about it. It seems like such a backward movie for 1989, given Do the Right Thing came out this year, also. And yes, that film should be on this list and wouldn't be a bad winner. It's a bad look for the Academy. Then you have two sorta feel good films, or at least crowd pleasers, that don't really seem like they belong in Dead Poets Society and Field of Dreams. Maybe one of them, but not both, since you've also got Driving Miss Daisy filling that quota. Neither are amazing and wouldn't make good winners, they just have the fact that a lot of people love them going for it. Born on the Fourth of July is a more heavy handed film, but I enjoyed it for what it is. Not sure it really needed to win Best Picture, though. That leaves My Left Foot as my winner. It has an incredible performance (really two) and the film itself left me wanting more of Christy. A little more and it would have been a slamdunk winner, but it's still really good.
Oscar Winner: Driving Miss Daisy
My Winner: My Left Foot
Born on the Fourth of July
Field of Dreams
Dead Poets Society
Driving Miss Daisy
No comments:
Post a Comment