I am pumped to be getting closer and closer to the 60's which, even though it's been a long process, still felt like I would never reach this far back at times. This year brings 3 films I have already seen along with one I know absolutely nothing about and a foreign film from a brilliant director that I'm sure will be depressing and slow. I am interested to see how the category stacks up with such a diverse group of nominees so elt's get to it.
1973 Best Picture
The Sting
I have always enjoyed The Sting even before I knew it was a Best Picture winner. Probably from being a big fan of Robert Redford and Paul Newman movies (together and separately). So when I was watching it again for the blog just a couple days after Green Book won Best Picture, I wondered what kind of reaction I would have had back in 1973. I feel like I would have enjoyed it just as much as I do now, but I wondered if I would have disliked it because it was the popular choice? It too was going up against a highly regarded and reviewed foreign film, a popular genre film that captured the public consciousness, a film that made everyone nostalgic and kicked off the teen movies as we know them today, and a film about a likable British lady. Maybe I'm making parallels where there aren't any and I'm stretching, but it made sense to me after watching both so close together. The Academy likes to pretend it's progressive and open but they always go back to the safe picks. That doesn't make this winner a bad film by any means. It's such a fun film to watch that I get sucked into it every time I happen to catch it on TV. It's about a drifter in Redford who unknowingly steals from a money man for the mob and they come after him and his older, black partner. The partner is killed and so Redford goes to Newman (an old friend of his deceased partner) to try and get back at the big mob guy. Then we see all the lead up and preparation for the revenge, with the last part being known as the sting for the big payoff. The beginning is almost a little dark and has a different feel since a dude gets killed, but the film quickly recovers and becomes this fun romp as we see the duo of Redford and Newman set up these elaborate schemes to trick the mob boss into wasting a ton of money. The film is very stylish, hearkening back to the 30s with some of the film tricks like the sideways scene transition wipes and the use of an adapted Henry Mancini score (though that's more before the 30s, but it sounds good). And then there's the Saturday Evening Post-like title cards that say The Set-Up, The Hook, and The Tale. There's a few more, but they are like chapters to the film that describe part of the con man process and adds a cool little flourish to an already really cool film. Obviously the acting of both Newman and Redford (nominated) gives even more style to the film. Newman shows off some comedic chops while also playing a hardass betting house owner. Redford acts as the true Hollywood everyman and gives a very Redford performance. They make the film enjoying to watch as does the supporting cast. It's just a well made film that is a ton of fun to watch and you understand why it was a huge hit that won 7 Oscars. I think it still holds up as a good winner, too. Maybe not groundbreaking or important, but definitely damn entertaining and sometimes that's what is going to win Best Picture.
American Graffiti
I think a lot of people forget or don't even realize that this is a George Lucas film. Yes, before Star Wars, Lucas did other things like write and direct another Best Picture film. I remember watching this a long time ago when I was doing my run through the AFI Top 100 Films list and loved it. I felt nostalgia for a time I wasn't even alive. And I think that's exactly why this film was so well received and landed six Oscar noms. It allowed those old, white Academy guys to fondly remember a time they were a part of. It was only about 10 years prior, but it feels like another time. Incredibly, the studio sat on this film for over 6 months because they thought it was trash and didn't know how to market it or what to do with it. Eventually they released it and it took off in popularity. It's also a little revolutionary in that Lucas wanted to use a ton of songs from the era as the score, essentially, and that just wasn't really done back then. Now it's more than commonplace but was unheard of at the time. And the cast that seems full of names, was in reality a bunch of nobodies. Harrison Ford, Ron Howard (before Happy Days, not completely a nobody with his child acting), and Richard Dreyfuss all star in this along with some other faces and names you might recognize. This film also set off the high school film genre, though I don't really want to use genre. But it made the whole last days of high school theme something to really bank on. It's crazy how influential this film actually is and you can compare it to Star Wars almost in that regard. Lucas sure knew what he was doing. It's fun to watch as we hang out with these kids over one night in their small town before Howard and Dreyfuss are to leave for college. Simple story with lots of plot threads hanging off of it makes for an entertaining couple of hours. Some say it's too nostalgic that it simplifies a time period to being cliche. Others praised it for being more like real life in stead of hot rods playing chicken or slick haired gangs having knife fights or whatever. I definitely think it offers an idealized version of the early 60s but it also stays true to what Lucas experienced growing up. I think that's what makes people latch onto the film and enjoy the ride, I know I did. Negative points, though, for not including the women in the post ending scenes. Bizarre and really chauvinistic choice to not even bother to mention them by Lucas.
Cries and Whispers
Ah, an Ingmar Bergman film. If you know anything about his films, you know they are going to be gorgeously shot with some intense acting with a story that will be depressing and sad. Brighter minds than me have written countless articles and critiques about Bergman's work and what their deeper meanings are all about. I won't pretend to understand his films on an Academic level, I just know that they are well made and influential but not really my style. This film is about three sisters, one of whom is dying. The other two sisters are cold and emotionally distant with the dying sister and each other. We see flashbacks of one sister cheating on her husband with the dying sister's doctor. The other sister has a flashback of herself mutilating her genitals to keep her husband away from her. They all have these horrible relationship issues that prevent each one from becoming close to the others. The dying sister remembers how their mother favored the sister that cheated and felt unloved from that. There are a lot of deeper meanings that can be derived from the sisters' relationships as well as the very close relationship of the maid in the film to the dying sister. The sister ends up dying and the other two sisters eventually see an apparition of her and react in different ways to her presence. The ending seems to be the two sisters going back to life as normal for them while their husbands act indifferently or even annoyed by having been there. Like I said, a lot to unpack from the film and you can interpret it in different ways. The film is one of those great films from a master director who was at the top of his craft. The cinematography rightfully won an Oscar and just seeing the color palette of reds and whites is enough to understand why. It is wonderfully shot with many expertly framed pictures that look like they could be old paintings come to life. Even if the depressing nature of Bergman's films turn you off, all of his films are some of the best looking things in the medium. I'm glad to have watched the film, but it's one of those that I don't find eager to return to and watch again any time soon.
The Exorcist
Widely considered to be the greatest horror film of all time, it easily earns that distinction. It's also really great to see the Academy reward a genre film, even if it is rooted in the personal human element of a drama. I think that's why the film succeeds so much because yes, it is a horror film, but it eschews the normal tendencies of that genre to create something more powerful and longer lasting in effect. A lot of people consider this to be really scary, but I don't find the film to be very scary at all. It's more unnerving that someone could become possessed, whether you actually believe in it or not. The film also has a lot to say about personal faith and it easily starts a good discourse on believing or not believing. The great performance from Jason Miller is where we see that inner turmoil of the soul. He is doubting more and more especially with his mother dying. But we also see his faith in the process of the exorcism since he has to believe in the words he is saying. I like that just a horror picture can have a deeper meaning to it and give us a lot to think about other than how gross the green vomit was or how fucked up Linda Blair's possession was when she crab walks down the stairs or her head spins around. The thing that also stuck out to me while watching this film again is that it still feels timely and even though it's like 47 years old still feels relevant and like it was made only recently. The effects still stand up, the story and acting are great, some of the shots in the film are timeless, and it's just an overall great film film, not just a great horror film. I think it is better served because it was treated like a normal film and not just a vehicle to shock the viewer and be as grotesque as possible. Plus, it was one of the first films about possession and exorcisms, so it got to create the tropes that other films would ape in the future. This is still a great film and a great choice by the Academy.
A Touch of Class
When I was watching this for Glenda Jackson's Best Actress win, I totally forgot that this was also nominated for Best Picture. I didn't realize until after that it was nominated and it made me scratch my head a bit. The other four films I completely understand their inclusion. But this is the clear fifth place winner because the film itself isn't all that amazing. The story is about a married American guy living in London who does insurance stuff. He meet cutes Jackson a couple times and the two hit it off and quickly have tea and plan to hook up. Then it becomes a sort of comedy of errors as something always happens when they try to finally do the deed and end up not doing and the sizzle dies out. So they plan a trip to Spain, but then the guy's family surprises him because they were out of town and then they get included in the trip to Spain but at the last minute don't go. But then he meets a business friend so the trip is more how can they finally get together stuff. You see what the film is like. Jackson is pretty great at being the witty, acerbic British lady with her comebacks and responses. The guy is kind of a bumbling, horny American who doesn't seem to give any shits about his family. Which is where my distaste for the film comes from. He treats his family like crap and we are given no reason to understand why he'd rather fly off to Spain with Jackson while his family is back other than he's just really horny and an awful person. And Jackson seemingly has no problem with this as she is newly divorced, but that seems opposite as to the kind of strong, independent woman that she is. I can't see her being okay with being a mistress and knowing he's figuring out ways to hide it all from his family. It's an icky feeling that the film seems to not really care about addressing. The rest of the film is the two going through their own ups and downs as a couple while life tries to interject. They realize they have feelings for each other yet that is not really addressed in a rushed ending that isn't very satisfying. She calls him out on just being piece of meat for him and that's when they realize they care more about each other than just as objects to use. But then the film is almost over and they just kinda go on their own ways. It doesn't feel like a Best Picture film to me. It does feel very of the times and maybe it just reached audiences that year or something, I don't know. I do know that besides Jackson's performance, I don't really care for this one at all.
Not a bad year at all! I feel like A Touch of Class is the outlier that does not belong in this group and we would have been better served with something else taking it's place. The only reason to see it is for Glenda Jackson's performance and even then that's only because she won. The rest of the films feel like they belong, though. Maybe Cries and Whispers is more of a nod to Ingmar Bergman and obviously isn't his best film, but I feel like it's something to watch at least once and was the Academy finally paying homage to him. Worth diving in to his filmography and the Academy gives us a couple chances of doing that. I'm sure some people will find me putting American Graffiti ahead of Bergman blasphemous, but I honestly would rather watch American nostalgia over Scandinavian guilt and depression any day. It's a fun film that is way more influential than people give it credit for or even realize. All those high school films that came after are because of this film. And it ushered in actual songs as soundtracks for films which seems crazy to think about that it wasn't really done before. The Sting gets runner up simply because I feel The Exorcist is a better longer lasting film. The Sting is the feel good movie that is fun to watch the con man process play out and has some great actors in it and it's just fun. Simply fun to watch. But it feels like a winner that is good but not great even if it's super enjoyable to watch. The Exorcist feels like a winner that would be ranked up in the top of all the Oscar winners for Best Picture. It still stands up even today and is such a classic film that it makes sense to make it my winner. All in all a decent year.
Oscar Winner: The Sting
My Winner: The Exorcist
The Sting
American Graffiti
Cries and Whispers
A Touch of Class
No comments:
Post a Comment