This is actually a crazy year when you look at the films versus nominations. There are only 10 (TEN!) films that I have to watch for 5 total categories and 25 total nominations. There are only 2 films with just 1 nomination each. The rest of the films have multiple nominations. And there are 3 films that hit the Big 5 (Picture, Actor, Actress, Director, Screenplay) in this year - Reds, On Golden Pond, and Atlantic City. Reds even was nominated in all 5 categories that I review here. I doubt this happens all that often in Oscar history. I've seen just one for this whole year so it will be fun to watch them all.
1981 Best Picture
Chariots of Fire
Chariots of Fire is not as lame or dumb or bad or whatever as you have possibly been led to believe it is. Probably what you know about this film is that it's a running movie and that it has an iconic and distinctive score. A score that you would recognize in a second even if you've never seen this film. It's honestly transcended the original source and become it's own thing. But score aside, this film is actually quite strong. That's what struck me after seeing it for the time knowing many people hate on this as a winner. It's about a group of runners, focusing mainly on a devout Scottish Christian and a Jewish kid, who compete against each other before going to the 1924 Olympics in Paris. It's more than just a running film and it's more than just a Christian versus Jewish runner film. It's more about them as people how the Jewish guy, Harold Abrahams, was proud to run for Great Britain because his dad came from Europe and allowed him to go to Cambridge and be a great citizen. The Scottish guy, Eric Liddell, had already been a national hero in rugby but found he was even better at running. His thing was that he refused to run on the Sabbath because of how devout he was which made him change from the 100m to the 400m race. But he was steadfast in adhering to his principles even when the Prince of Wales and other important people sat him down and asked him to reconsider. He stuck to his beliefs and that's a nice thing to see. The races themselves are actually very compelling for running as the film makes the tension and intrigue a main focus. You can easily guess the outcomes for some of the races but watching how they get there is what makes the film great. It turns what could and should be a boring subject into something that is highly compelling and intensely interesting. My argument is that it's more than just the beach running scene with the iconic music playing. There is an actual film behind it which is the reason it was nominated for Best Picture and won. I would say don't dismiss this film based on what you've heard and watch it for yourself and judge it.
Atlantic City
This film is never talked about anymore to the point that I didn't even know what it's legacy or reputation was. A lot of these films come up time and again when reading and talking about the Oscars with others but not a thing for Atlantic City. Really all I knew about it was that it was Susan Sarandon's first Oscar nomination and Burt Lancaster's last nomination. Feelings about the film seem to be all over the place. Some people hate it and don't like the leads or the story and some people rave that it's an underrated classic and deserves to be seen by more people. After watching it, I'm firmly in the latter camp. Lancaster gives a tremendous performance that I wasn't expecting and Sarandon shows why she would become an Oscar darling in the following years. The film is also a Louis Malle film, which has the French auteurs fingerprints all over it. It looks great, for one, and also has interesting camera movements and scene composition. I contrast it with another prestige film of the year in Absence of Malice and how dull and boring and uninspiring it made Miami of all places look. It was a pedestrian film but Atlantic City had vibrancy just through the direction alone. Add in a compelling that story that could easily fit back in the 40s or 50s but still feels very modern and you've got a great film. I like that the story focuses on Lancaster's character and uses the nefarious underworld of Atlantic City as more of a subplot. The film feels more personal that way and Lancaster blows me away with his performance. The film is about what you think a film titled Atlantic City would be about. An older bit player wannabe gangster type in Lancaster gets involved with Sarandon after her estranged husband pops back into her life and is killed because of drugs. Lancaster sees it as a way to reclaim his glory days, whatever that really was/is we don't know, and to protect Sarandon who he likes. I'm really glad the Academy chose it for the category because I feel like it definitely belongs and I didn't miss out on being able to watch it. I highly recommend watching this film and hope it's an underrated gem for you, too.
On Golden Pond
This film isn't quite as awful as I had expected. Now, let me temper that with I don't believe this is really Best Picture worthy but is at least entertaining. The film did make a lot of money coming in at number 2 in the box office race for the year and starred two veteran acting giants in Katharine Hepburn and Henry Fonda. Those factors together were bound to get the Academy to vote for it in a bunch of categories, which they did. It's a simple story of an older couple who live on a lake in a cabin and their daughter comes to visit with her new fiancee and his son. They leave the boy and Henry Fonda and the kid bond and fish and all that sappy stuff. That's really all the film is about so it's not a heavy hitter at all. It does have good acting from the leads, though I don't believe Hepburn was worthy of a win. Jane Fonda doesn't really add much to the film with her role, either. If not for the two leads, this film would have probably been a very good Hallmark Channel type of film. Henry Fonda makes the film way better than it really is because he is so hysterical as the grumpy old man even though the film has that saccharine sort of look and feel to it. I don't mind the overall product but it just isn't something I'd nominate or vote for. I actually see it's importance of being a Best Picture film starred by two older actors and I see that as a plus. Can't really hate on the film too much when I do like parts of it. I don't really know what else to say about it!
Raiders of the Lost Ark
I'm on record saying I love when films like these get nominated for Best Picture. It's entertaining with a decent story and good acting and it made a ton of money at the box office. There is never ending debate even in today's world about Oscar needing to represent the everyman by including more mainstream, Hollywood blockbuster type films and not just indie, foreign, Oscar bait, rarely seen type of films. That's the perception of the Oscars for most people, though the Academy routinely includes a big, popular moneymaker all the time. Recent examples are Avatar, Mad Max, Toy Story 3, and even Hidden Figures this past year. Critics of the process and the show seem to want stuff that doesn't quite make you think Oscar like the Marvel films or Fast and the Furious or whatever big popcorn flick that's out. The films should have some artistic merit to them and not just big explosions and all that. Raiders fits that mold of being entertaining and a quality film with a great performance at the heart of it, which I think is one of those things that separates the other films mentioned. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones and he whisks us away on his adventures because he is a great actor. There are so many iconic moments and memorable scenes that the film stays with you for all time. The tarantulas on the back scene at the very beginning still haunts me, but everyone can pick out a scene that they love (or hate). Karen Allen is good in her role (also enjoyed her in the underrated Starman) and the supporting characters themselves are memorable. It's just a great movie that everyone loves and is infinitely rewatchable. Did Raiders deserve to be the Best Picture of the year? Nah, I don't think so. It's still really campy and cheesy and full of cringey moments. But it lives on 35 plus years later seeing as how no one remembers Atlantic City or watches Reds or On Golden Pond and only know Chariots of Fire because of the music and running. That's quite an achievement. Anyway, you should all know what this movie is about and should have seen it already so you know whether it should be on a Best Picture list or not.
Reds
Taking on this film felt daunting. I knew it had nominees in every category I write about for a total of 5, which is the most I've had to write for one film in probably over a decade. And I knew that the film was a long epic about the rise of communism in America and was unsure how that could really be exciting or engaging. But that's why I watch the films - to see for myself why they were nominated. Reds is Warren Beatty's magnum opus. He directed (and won an Oscar for it), produced, wrote, and starred in this film which he continued to do with his films in the future. But this is obviously his labor of love, a film that is actually more of a love story using the communist angle as more of a backdrop. I was surprised because I really thought it was going to be this action focused epic that dealt with uprisings and revolutions and lots of grand scenes but that isn't the case at all. It's a very personal, almost insular epic that focuses more on the relationship of Beatty's John Reed and Diane Keaton's Louise Bryant. It actually works for me and is fantastically paced. I never really felt bored even though this is over 3 hours long as it moves along at a brisk pace and rotates it's characters and settings in and out with efficiency. The film follows Keaton as a married woman who sees Beatty speak in Portland and then she is energized to join the movement and ends up in NYC to crash at Beatty's place and a tumultuous love affair begins. Keaton herself becomes a writer for the growing movement and asserts herself right alongside Beatty as he helps lead the charge for communism to take root in the US. That's the first half of the film and it succeeds for me because so much is going on and it introduces all these characters and builds towards something that is compelling. I know that sounds vague but the first half is really engaging and the Beatty/Keaton relationship twists and turns and keeps you interested while all the other communism related stuff goes on behind them. I do feel like the second half of the film kinda slows everything down and almost becomes stagnant though it still moves along well. This is when Beatty heads to Russia and gets sick and Keaton tries to find him over there and things just focus on the two more specifically. The ending is actually somewhat touching but lets the scene speak for itself. It's an all around really great effort by Beatty in everything he did even if the acting is too much like Beatty instead of John Reed. I was expecting a long bore of a film about a subject that I honestly don't care about but Beatty made it compelling and added more than just pure history to the story. There's even these real life talking head transitions of old people talking about the time period and the characters like Band of Brothers does (or Up in the Air, to use an Oscar reference). It's innovative even though it's confusing some of the time as they contradict each other or just don't make sense, but anyway it's an interesting way to transition scenes. But would I watch it again? Probably not on purpose because while it is interesting and compelling and has good acting and sets, it doesn't leave me wanting more or feeling like I watched a can't miss classic.
Kind of a weird year to be honest. When you look at this year what sticks out and what do you remember. Most people would say Raiders and then depending on how old or how into movies they are On Golden Pond and Chariots of Fire. But really the Indiana Jones film is the most memorable and most people probably don't even realize it was nominated for Best Picture. So we are left with a bunch of films that no one really talks about in today's world anymore. On Golden Pond is my 5th choice because it is like Hallmark movie with great actors. It's actually not bad but not Oscar worthy, either. And then I don't really know how to rank them. Obviously I'd rather watch Raiders over any of the others but can I rank it all that high? It's good fun but I prefer Temple of Doom more. I recognize Reds as a pretty good epic that was interesting and didn't feel overly long but I'm in no rush to watch it again. I liked Atlantic City a lot because of the acting and the story felt old but fresh at the same time and the directing was excellent. But I think I'll side with the Academy here because Chariots of Fire just has that prestige Best Picture Oscar feel to it and it's quite good. I may over time decide I prefer Atlantic City but I feel the winner is correct for now. I didn't hate any of the films which is always nice and I found a gem in Atlantic City which is awesome, too. Not a bad year overall. One more year in the 80s and then I can finally hit the 70s!
Oscar Winner: Chariots of Fire
My Winner: Chariots of Fire
Atlantic City
Reds
Raiders of the Lost Ark
On Golden Pond
No comments:
Post a Comment