This is one of the years I have looked forward to the most. It actually is probably the one I've wanted to finally get to see the most along with 1939. Just look at that lineup! There are four bonafide classics and a film (Bound for Glory) that I have avoided knowing anything about just to be able to go into it without any expectations other than it being a Best Picture nominee. I have no clue what it's about. Maybe something to do with sports if I remember from my initial perusing of BP nominees way back when, I dunno. I am hoping it lives up to being more than just a fifth wheel and becomes the other legit contender. I am pumped for this year because I have put off watching these just to have that fresh take for the project (I've seen the winner a million times, so there's that).
1976 Best Picture
Rocky
I think a lot of people forget that Rocky won a Best Picture award and probably don't even realize it was nominated. Most people just love the film without really thinking too much about it and that's what Rocky is: a film for the people. It's the true underdog story that is as old as time but also a very American story that people can easily relate to and empathize with Balboa himself. I have seen this film so many times through the years because it's always on some station as part of a marathon of all the films. And while Rocky is the original, I've always kinda liked the first two sequels a bit more. They ramp up the Rocky stuff, give us a more memorable villain, give us that iconic song and the scenes that you probably associate with the original. But I think if you were to view this film back in 1976 without any preconceived notions about Stallone or the franchise or any of that, you'd be left with an honest crowd pleaser. I think that's what so many people and voters latched onto with the film. The Oscar book I have says that there were a lot of older Hollywood folk who wished they would have wrote it or directed it or starred in it and that the film took them back to Capra-esque Hollywood and touched their nostalgia bone. It was hugely popular and a cultural phenomenon and it's easy to see why, even in this stacked group, people would gravitate to Rocky. Stallone's performance is pretty awesome and perfect for what Balboa needed to be. A big lug that we could root for and believe could actually take on a top boxer. There's a lot of fun moments in the film but my one big gripe is that the supporting characters aren't that great to me. I'm not a fan of Young or Meredith and Shire doesn't stretch much from the shy, sheltered love interest. The film is all about Stallone and without him, it doesn't reach the levels it does. Obviously, without Stallone the film doesn't get made, either. He wrote it in a couple days while almost dead broke and sold it with the caveat that he had to play the lead role. It's amazing that the film ever even got made but that's the power of the story Stallone tells and it really speaks as to why this won a Best Picture award because it resonated with so many people. I think if there was a re-vote for this year today, Rocky wouldn't win as there are a couple really strong films that are widely considered to be all-time classics and not just a feel good sports film.But I can't hate this choice because I do enjoy it and because it is a great work of art, just on a different level than the others.
All the President's Men
This is one of those films that I've put off watching for so long because I wanted my reaction to watching it for this project to be fresh and authentic from me. I could have watched this a ton of times and definitely wanted to because I had always heard great things about it. So after finally watching it all I have to say is wow. This is intelligent, passionate American film making at it's very best. When the film was almost over, I was getting antsy because I wanted to know how they were going to end things even though I obviously know that Nixon ended up implicated and resigning. But the strength of the film lies in making me forget that and buying into the investigative work and wondering how they were going to piece it together to get to the end result. This film is about the process and the journalistic work involved in uncovering a massive conspiracy by the Republican party to remain in power by any means necessary. It was fascinating. I wanted more. That's my gripe about this film is that it should have been over two and a half hours long unlike other films I've watched for this project. They should have expanded a bit more after Nixon was re-elected and showed the continued work but I must admit that everything up to that point was almost perfect. The acting across the board was phenomenal. I have no idea why Redford and/or Hoffman weren't nominated for Best Actor. This was unequivocally the best work I have ever seen from Hoffman (I say that knowing I still have his early stuff to watch) and he was tremendous. He reminded me so much of the work Mark Ruffalo did in Spotlight. The two films are so similar that I wish I had seen this film before watching Spotlight, so as to better appreciate what it brought to the investigative genre. The two films would make for an amazing marathon with The Post (which I will see very soon). The supporting work is also pretty great as I for once don't hate Jason Robards in this. Jack Warden, Hal Holbrook, and I liked Jane Alexander's two brief scenes. There's a ton of gorgeous shots from Gordon Willis and I read how the actual Woodward and Bernstein oversaw the script and the whole thing was doubly verified for authenticity so as not to verge into the overly dramatic. This is an amazing film. This is what I'm looking for when I started this project. I mean, this could become a new favorite film of mine! This is just tight, suspenseful, engaging, intelligent work by all involved and I recommend watching this film right now, especially given today's political climate and the inevitable downfall of asshole Trump. I'm still scratching my head as to how Redford and Hoffman didn't get nominated for this. Just strong work all around.
Bound for Glory
Okay, so this was definitely not a sports film in any capacity! I think I was just remembering Breaking Away because both start with B? At any rate, this film is about the early life of Woody Guthrie. Or at least that's what the film purports itself to be. When reading up on this film, I found out that nothing in this film is true at all except that Guthrie had a wife. Finding that out had me asking why was the film even made or, more realistically, why say it's about Woody Guthrie when it's not. If this was a fictitious folk singer, I think the film would have more impact. Knowing none of it is true makes me feel like I was lied to since I don't know anything about Guthrie other than he was a folk singer and sang the 'This Land Is Your Land' song. When I first started watching the film, I was wondering when anything was going to start happening. We follow Guthrie as a poor man in Oklahoma who eventually decides to leave his family and make the trip to California. Nothing happens for the first thirty minutes when he's in his small hometown and I thought, okay, maybe now it will start picking up. But no, even with him making the trip to California not much happens. Guthrie is played by David Carradine and he is basically a passive spectator of his own life. He doesn't do much even though things are going on around him. Like during the trip to California, Guthrie hitchhikes with many different people and gets stopped by police not wanting vagrants and workers to enter the state. Nothing happens as he just decides to just walk off in another direction. Or when a group of armed men pull all the rail jumpers off a train, nothing happens to Guthrie even though there is a little violence. He is just a passive force in the film for the first half. Eventually, once Guthrie is noticed for his singing while in a Hooverville, things pick up. Guthrie becomes involved in trying to start unions and in workers' rights and Guthrie gets more fame while being on a radio show. He has a romance with a local rich woman before admitting he's married and then his wife and kids come out once he has money. But again, none of this actually happened, so while it was nice that Guthrie stopped being passive as a character, what did it all matter? I did like Carradine's acting. I thought he was perfectly cast as the singer and as the slow Okie who kinda ambles through life. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention how much it apes The Grapes of Wrath with it's story. It's essentially a lighter version of the classic for most of the film until it decides it wants to be about the singer and his (fake) life. I think part of the reason it was well received is that it was one of the first uses, if not the very first, of the Steadicam. The film won Best Cinematography for that reason and I think maybe the film got a lot of eyeballs that way. It's definitely a let down, though, after watching the four other classics in this group.
Network
This film was daunting to finally sit down and watch. I put it off for awhile until I was ready because it has six total reviews. It got five total acting nominations which has, surprisingly enough, been done quite a few times in Oscar history, just not in the last couple decades. And it's one of two films to win three total acting awards (the other being A Streetcar Named Desire). Plus, it resulted in the first posthumous acting win ever at the Oscars. Lots of Oscar history happening with this one film so I wanted to make sure I was prepared to watch this with no distractions. You probably know this film from the Mad As Hell speech that you've seen countless times and I would say it's a good representation of what the film is all about. Billed as a satire, I'd say the film is a little more on the nose and shockingly prophetic than just mere satire. The film easily stands up to today's news and entertainment world, with a lot of what is talked about in the film coming true. Reality TV still rules the day, talking heads ranting and raving are more the norm, and there has been plenty of suicides and real killings shown live on TV than was ever needed. So the film is prophetic but how is the story? Well, there's a ton of yelling in the film. I think almost everyone gets a scene where they yell something dramatic. But the story of Howard Beale setting off a cultural touchstone of the public wanting to see violence and sex and evangelical style ranting and ravings is interesting. The network clamoring to at first get rid of him until they see what a ratings bonanza he is and then fully promoting his brand of truth is prescient and a hoot. The scenes with the network big wigs trying to figure things out one way or the other and eventually wanting to kill him off really make the film. The one part I really hate is the relationship between Dunaway and Holden as it seems too forced and mostly unnecessary. It leads to some nice individual character moments but can drag the film down at times, too. Now, the ending is pretty absurd and that's when the dark satire turns to outright farce with the assassination. I get what the film is going for but it would lead to so many questions since one of their own shows killed off another one of their stars. But the film does have some very good acting, as evidenced by it's five nominations there. It's crazy how relevant the story is even in today's world and it was made 40 plus years ago. This is a well made film that should definitely be viewed at least once.
Taxi Driver
Another wow! I can't imagine what it must have been like for this to drop back in 1976 because it feels like it's just in another world. It feels fresh and modern and very much like a Scorsese picture. Even though this came first, I see bits of After Hours, Bringing Out the Dead, and The King of Comedy in this film. Although, I guess it's more appropriate to say I see bits of this film in those other Scorsese flicks for different reasons. It's obvious that Scorsese was obsessed with his hometown of NYC but also fascinated by what happens after dark with lonely, awkward, obsessive men who drive the city streets and observe what goes on. There's a film school essay or thesis in there somewhere. But Taxi Driver is all about loneliness. And it's that interesting kind of loneliness where one bemoans their being alone yet wallows in their isolation and secretly enjoys it. We should all know who Travis Bickle is because of De Niro's iconic performance, but he's a Vietnam veteran dealing with an obvious mental illness who drives a taxi at night because he can't sleep and becomes obsessed with Cybill Shepard's campaign manager lady. When that goes south because Travis doesn't know how to interact with another human, it sets in motion the plot of him wanting to kill the Senator she campaigns for and is the impetus for him amassing an arsenal. In this time he also notices a young hooker and wants to save her and that also becomes another obsession of his. I almost feel like the story shouldn't work so well, but it does and Scorsese and De Niro are the big reasons why it does. The big shootout at the end, though very violent and bloody, works to make Travis a sympathetic figure even if he isn't deserving of our sympathy because he's so pathetic as a human being. It's really great work all around and the score is brilliant with the loud, harsh motif that doesn't have any strings in it. Just fits the film perfectly and I wish it was featured more. This is a classic for a reason and I'm actually surprised that the Academy chose this as a BP nominee because they always seem a little resistant to films that are really progressive and push the boundary at times. I mean, they didn't even nominate Scorsese in Best Director, so how does that make any sense? This is a great film that you shouldn't wait years to see.
Well, four outta five ain't bad. Bound for Glory was a big swing and a miss, but I'll forgive it because there were four other legit classics in this group. The Woody Guthrie film just kinda makes me mad that none of it was true because then what's the point in saying it's a film about Woody Guthrie? Bizarre. Could have stuck Marathon Man there and had a huge testosterone filled category. Which is interesting seeing as how 1977 was so focused on female fronted films. I wonder if that was a response to this year or just how things shook out? I was trying to figure out where to put Rocky. It was never going to be my winner and I had to weigh whether I wanted to see it more than say Network. But I remembered I actually like the sequels more than the original so down in fourth it goes. Network is scarily relevant to today's world and makes for an interesting watch knowing not much has changed in 40 plus years. I liked it but I also don't feel like this is a film I'll come back to a lot. If it was on TV, I might not stop to watch some it. It's a classic and it's very good but not one I'd like to revisit, at least right now. Taxi Driver is another Scorsese classic and one that again still feels super relevant to today's world of lonely losers shooting up places. I feel like this film lived up to the hype I've heard so much about and that means it's a strong film to me. All the President's Men, though, easily becomes a new favorite. It's very close to a perfect film and it's one that I want to watch again right now. Just an amazing overall piece of work from everyone involved. Can't say enough good things about it. Pretty good year overall that could have been slightly better but that's nitpicking a year where there are four legit classics. I'd take a year like this every day of the week.
Oscar Winner: Rocky
My Winner: All the President's Men
Taxi Driver
Network
Rocky
Bound for Glory
No comments:
Post a Comment