I have seen none of these, though I have seen some of Fatal Attraction and know the story, just haven't seen the whole thing. Anyway, these all seem like pretty interesting choices and I'm especially interested in the winner because it's talked about so little, even in the online Oscar crowd. Let's see how they all stack up!
1987 Best Picture
The Last Emperor
This was a film that I'd been looking forward to watching for some time now. I would consider it one of the least well known recent Best Picture winners and probably one of the least watched. It's exactly what it's name is about: the last emperor of China. I think it's a really well done film that looks beautiful which shouldn't be hard given the Chinese locations and being the first Western production to actually film at the Forbidden City. But the story is what was most fascinating to me. That will vary person to person depending on what you know about Chinese history and if you care, but I didn't know anything about the subject of Pu Yi, the last emperor of China. This tells his life story in an engaging way, showing him at a communist re-education prison and flashing back to moments in his life based off things going on at the prison. We see his coronation as Emperor at 3 years old and everything else that followed in his life. I was hooked simply because this was something I had very little knowledge about and was interested to know what all had happened in his tumultuous life. The beginning might not be the most exciting stuff but then Peter O' Toole comes into the picture as a tutor for the young Emperor and the story becomes more exciting as he grows older and isn't just a young kid annoying the court people. O' Toole is fine and sort of helps bridge the early years to the later ones and then we get to the adult life of the Emperor and get to see what I think is a great performance from John Lone. It would have been great if the Academy could have rewarded him with a Best Actor nomination instead of say Robin Williams but that's the Academy for you, no love for any Asian actors. This film also seems to hearken back to the films of a few decades earlier and has a timeless quality to it while still feeling modern. I thought it was a pretty fascinating film and it felt like an Oscar film. I liked how it used Asian actors to play everything which sounds dumb but you can never put it past Hollywood to add in white characters to draw an audience. At least O' Toole had a reason to be in the film and didn't overpower the story. Anyway, is the film a little too long? I'd say a tad bit, yes. It can be slightly boring at times but I feel it powers through those scenes and keeps you paying attention to what is a pretty compelling story overall. This feels like an Oscar throwback and I'm not sure anything else could have won this year except for maybe Broadcast News if the Academy went more modern. I like the choice and I'm glad it was nominated so I could have a chance to watch what is an overlooked film nowadays.
Broadcast News
There are a couple things that stood out while watching this film. First was that this film is so dense. By that I mean I watched it for a little over 30 minutes one night before going to bed and thought I had watched an hour because there was so much going on, so many different scenes. It wasn't a bad thing because I was totally engaged and interested in the story but there was a lot going on for what seems like a simple enough story. Second thing is that because it felt so dense, it was like a sitcom or TV show in that way, which really made sense to me. I could see this being a TV show easily. And because it has that feel, the characters all feel like they've been on screen for a lot longer than we have been watching. Like we were plopped down in the middle of their lives instead of having a self contained story within the film. If that makes any sense. The characters all feel natural to the story and comfortable with each other and themselves. That's why I found most of the film so entertaining. The performances are top notch and engrossing. The story is engaging and interesting about a newsroom and a new reporter/anchor comes on board and Holly Hunter likes him and William Hurt likes her back and Albert Brooks likes Hunter and they are all competitive with their work and each other. That's a terrible description but just watch it because it's a good film. The reason I said I liked most of the film is because the ending is just dumb to me. Hurt and Hunter are going away together for a vacation after the newsroom made layoffs and everyone is dispersing and then Hunter, the producer, finds a tape where Hurt added in some tears in reaction to a story he was doing. It's played up as this huge moment where she gets really angry and decides not to go with him spouting off about ethics and feeling betrayed and all that. All I could think of was who the fuck cares? I didn't see why it was such a big deal, especially because he didn't do it maliciously. He just thought that was something he could do. It was an absurd thing to ballistic over and I just didn't buy it's emotional power. The scene just left me scratching my head as to why it would matter and why the film chose to end on such a stupid idea. There's a tacked on ending of the gang a few years later but it doesn't matter. So that ending really made me bump the whole the film down because until that point I was loving it. I don't think I'm being irrational either. That whole part just felt too contrived. Other than that I really enjoyed the film. It's smart and adult and highly entertaining from a human standpoint. I was worried it might feel too 80s but it was still relevant for today which lends it a timeless quality. This would have been a pretty good Best Picture winner.
Fatal Attraction
This film is kind of messed up and I love it for that. It's definitely very 80s, which I have already said I like. This made the second most money in 1987 which is insane to think about in this time of superhero films and sequels. A sexual thriller was one of the biggest films of 1987, let that sink in. In all honesty, it's a good film! I enjoyed the hell out of it. Michael Douglas is great in his role, Glenn Close is terrifying and memorable as the crazy woman who makes Douglas' life miserable, and Anne Archer is a pretty decent supporting wife. The tension in the film ratchets up increasingly once the film gets to the end and though you may not like the ending, it's very satisfying for me. I get that it can be very unsatisfying for others, though. I read that the original ending was that Close killed herself and framed Douglas for it which seems even more diabolical and would have been the ultimate power move by Close's character although a lot less cathartic for the audience. As a guy, it has me wondering what I would do in that situation. Would I try and kill her? Would I tell my wife immediately? What would I do? It makes me think about scenarios I know I'll never be in but tells me about it's staying power. The leads do carry the film because you've got to feel somewhat sympathetic for Douglas and feel Close is super sexy (though I went off on how I find her unattractive in this) and the family is an innocent victim. It's also quite the companion piece to Wall Street, which Douglas was filming at the same time and is pretty insane to think about. But link the two and I feel like you get the late 80s in a nutshell. They do feel like the behind the scenes extension of each other even if Douglas is a lawyer in this one. The film is ultimately about survival and it comments on that in a unique way. It's fun to watch Douglas squirm his way through scenes where his wife might find out and see the relief and pain and apprehension when he finally tells his wife. For what seems like such a silly, simple film there's a lot to digest with this one. I really like it's inclusion in Best Picture for those reasons.
Hope and Glory
Here is a film that you've never heard of, have no idea what it's about, and one that satisfies the British film slot for the category. So with it ticking all of those boxes I was a bit worried this was going to be awful. I really shouldn't think that way since the British film slot always seems to be at the very least entertaining. This film is about the homefront during World War II. It shadows one family as they deal with the war, but it's done in a very light style even when things could be played in a very dark, dramatic way. It makes the war seem like a minor inconvenience for the family and the town which I'm not sure how to feel about. There's no doubt the war was a bigger deal than the film makes it appear to this family/town. They deal with a loved one volunteering to fight, they were going to send the kids to the country but the mother has a change of heart at the last second, they deal with air raid bombings, they deal with a burned down house. There's a lot of tough things going on and the film kinda glosses over everything. When a girl in the neighborhood's house is bombed and her mother is killed, the kids treat it like a curiosity, pestering the girl asking if her mother really died and then telling other kids who don't believe her. I think it's supposed to treat the situations as if viewing them through a kid's perspective but it doesn't totally work for me. The film also gets really bogged down towards the end when the family goes to the country to stay with relatives after their house burns down. It's just not as interesting away from the city because the family itself is mostly boring. There is a crazy old grandpa who keeps it from being a total bore but the end is where the film crashes and burns. The film is just way too light for the subject which I get is the point but it needed to make up for that in other areas and it doesn't. Cinematography and music are blah, there's no known actors, the story is too light. Maybe this really appealed to the older Academy crowd because it reminds them of their past but I'm not sure it really belongs in Best Picture.
Moonstruck
As I've said in the other reviews for this film, I was totally expecting a very broad, loud, ethnic family film filled with stereotypes and maybe lots of yelling. But this is kind of a subtle, or at least gentle, film about family and love. Cher is a widow who gets engaged to Danny Aiello who goes to Sicily to care for his dying mother. He wants Cher to reach out to his brother (Nicolas Cage) to come to their wedding. Well, Cher and Cage become involved in a very hot, spicy, animalistic way as Aiello comes home because his mother rebounded. This all sounds very serious and like a glum drama but the film itself is a comedy that is decently funny at times. I won't go so far as to say hilarious or one of the best comedies of all time/last 20-30 years like a lot of reviews of the time said. I think that's where the gentle/subtle nature comes into play where it could easily ratchet things up for cheap laughs but doesn't. I do think that Cage is brilliant. His character IS hilarious and has this overdramatic way of speaking that wouldn't work if it was anyone else. His character is really into the opera and I think that's where some of the theatrics of his demeanor come from and it's fitting and very funny. The film has a little bit to say about not settling with someone but being with the person you truly love. Instead of the safe, boring mate in Aiello, Cher is with the fiery, bombastic Cage who loves her passionately instead of mundanely. Like when we see Olympia Dukakis' character almost instantly click with a guy in a restaurant and they hit it off, but she demures when walked home because she's a dutiful, loyal wife. Her husband (Vincent Gardenia) is cheating on her and steps out late and is basically a slimeball, yet she stays loyal and though you can see the love they've fostered over the years, it's nothing compared to the brief scene in the restaurant. At least, that's my take on the film's message. It also focuses on the moon holding influence over lovers which is a neat little idea and plot device. The acting is mostly pretty good and if you like Dean Martin music, this film is for you. All in all, it's a nice little film that I enjoyed, just not sure it's a Best Picture winner for me.
A lot of people consider this a boring year for Best Picture, but I'm not sure I really agree with that sentiment. I think people just don't really know/watch/care about The Last Emperor but I feel like it fits being an Oscar winner to a T. It's what they like, easily. I liked it, too. It just feels right being a winner. Broadcast News is really good minus the ending I had issues with, though I know others probably find the ending just fine. It's pretty great besides that and would have made a decent 80s winner. Fatal Attraction is an interesting choice for this category and I like it being included. It feels out of the box which is refreshing. Moonstruck seems like a very safe choice for the Academy but I do appreciate its inclusion. It is a sweet film and has heart and I like that, just not enough for a win. Hope and Glory is the one film I'd rather be left off this list. I just didn't really enjoy what it was about even if it is showing the homefront from a kid's perspective. Maybe I'm biased but I feel it's too slight to a tough time and it makes everyone look like they don't give a crap that a war is going on. I don't like that sentiment and the film was kinda boring anyway, so easy choice to replace it with anything else (Full Metal Jacket, Raising Arizona, The Princess Diaries, anything!). Not a bad group as some might lead you to believe, just not much drama when it came to Oscar night when The Last Emperor went 9 for 9 without any acting noms. I am super pumped for 1986, though, my birth year!
Oscar Winner: The Last Emperor
My Winner: The Last Emperor
Broadcast News
Fatal Attraction
Moonstruck
Hope and Glory
No comments:
Post a Comment