I've always wanted to get to this year because a lot of people see this winner as one of the worst ones. Maybe not exactly top 10 but close to it. I need to see for myself if that is true or not and if anything else can overcome it. The nominees offer up a wide array of different films so that will be fun to watch and dive into.
1968 Best Picture
Oliver!
I haven't read my Oscar history book on this year yet, but I'll guess that this film won because of some hard campaigning or something. Watching this film, it doesn't feel like a winner and I know a lot of people consider this one of the worst winners in Academy history. Though in looking up articles about that subject, Oliver! doesn't typically make any of the top 10 worst lists. Anyway, my perception of Oliver! has always been that it's not that great of a winner and is an alright musical. I'm not sure about the winner part just quite yet, but I know it was an influential musical and has a lot of really well known, catchy songs. It also has some duds, too, but for the most part the musical side of the film is good. The sets are incredible at times and the musical numbers are huge and full of motion and life and energy. I enjoyed watching a lot of them frankly. As a film and story, it's not all that great to me. You should all know the story of Oliver Twist by now so no need for a recap. The kid who plays Oliver is pretty awful, though, and can't sustain the film. He's almost like a prop in the film that they didn't trust to sing (which is dubbed over, of course) and dance or act. I have no idea why they picked him but he makes the film worse. And yes, I know I'm being overly harsh on a child actor but you need the main character to at least be alive in your film. The supporting players are mostly pretty good. Fagin and the Artful Dodger are good and got nominated for their work. Bill and Nancy are memorable and I think that Shani Wallis (Nancy, obviously) deserved a nomination herself for her lovely performance. It certainly is a memorable film with lines and songs that have been often imitated. I don't think the film ever grabbed me as essential viewing, besides it being a Best Picture winner, and I'm kinda sad about that. I was hoping it would buck my expectations more than having some great musical numbers and supporting acting. The story trots along with a main character that is just there and the story seems inconsequential to the musical part. I am glad I finally saw it and could figure out what I thought about it and not what others thought. Hard to really hate on this one even if it's not a great Best Picture winner.
Funny Girl
I wasn't entirely sure what to expect from this film. I am not much of a Barbra Streisand fan at all, so I was worried it would be a film I hated because she can be a bit overbearing in her work. Well this is certainly a film that is all about Streisand and focused solely on her, but I actually enjoyed her performance. I enjoyed the film a little less but certainly didn't hate it. The film is about Fanny Brice, played by Streisand, and her rise to fame in theater and as an entertainer in the early 1900s. The film starts off with a really powerful song from Streisand about being the best singer ever and you really feel like it's coming directly from Babs herself. That song sucked me into her performance and I was excited to see where it would take me. The performance is great, but the film failed to continue on with that strong opening. The first part of the film moved quickly and then Streisand meets Omar Sharif's character and they begin a love affair (in real life, too). Sharif is very good in the role but the film sinks under the weight of the romance because it just drags on and on and really slows the film down and becomes pretty uninteresting. It's mostly due to Brice getting sad when Sharif's character leaves and that happening a couple of times. The film has a pretty good finish to it with Streisand belting out another great song and then melting into the black background. It's just the middle of the film where I lost interest. Maybe if the film didn't focus solely on Streisand and had some supporting characters there to, well, support the film. Apparently the stage version has a more robust supporting cast, so maybe that would have been better. But I do like Streisand's performance and there were some fantastic musical numbers and some interestingly shot scenes. This just falls into the story being a bit too long and not having that supporting cast to help in the slow parts. I was expecting that I might hate this film, but I'm certainly glad that wasn't the case. Not an all timer for me, but I see the appeal and why it made Streisand a star.
The Lion in Winter
If the opening credits with that indelible score don't hook you straight away, why are you even watching films? This is a fantastic film that features some incredible acting performances that will most likely be my winner for the year. That score is a classic and one of the most memorable of all time. It sets the stage for the intense, bombastic performances we get from everyone involved. Katharine Hepburn gives a winning performance and Peter O' Toole should have won his acting Oscar for this brilliant take on Henry II. You also get great performances from young Timothy Dalton and Anthony Hopkins and the other few actors in the film. Overall, the acting is what makes this film so good. The story is Henry II calls his sons and estranged Queen to a Christmas gathering to anoint his heir and then plotting and backstabbing and machinations abound. There's lots of intrigue and intense, lengthy back and forth discourse all done in a mostly British accent, Hepburn aside. It's a treat watching all these actors go toe to toe and flex on each other. The whole vibe of the film is this fervent, impassioned feeling as the film zips along with each twist and turn. The dialogue is wonderful to listen to and the set, while mostly drab, feels appropriate for the tone of the film. It never feels stuffy for a period piece and has this urgency that is fun to watch. It is really just a well made film with some titans of acting doing their thing. This one will be tough to beat this year.
Rachel, Rachel
This is a really interesting film. It was Paul Newman's first directorial effort and it stars his wife, Joanne Woodward. The story is part of what makes the film interesting in that we follow Woodward who is a middle aged schoolteacher spinster who lives with her widowed mother. School lets out for summer and Woodward thinks it will be another boring one at home but then a man comes back to town that she went to school with and he makes a pass at her. They eventually do hookup but she mistakes lust for love and then thinks she's pregnant but isn't. That spurs her to move to the other side of the country. That's the gist of the story and there is another little side element of her best friend kissing her after going to a religious revival meeting. Interesting story, but Newman's direction is what also adds to the film. There's a lot of flashy shots and camera angles that feel like Newman trying to flex his directing muscles but also push the boundaries a bit. It's also interesting in the way that they handle what the book it's based on can easily do and that's inner monologue and visions or thoughts. There are a lot of scenes where Woodward is walking or around or doing nothing really and there's a voice over of what she's thinking. That sometimes get interspersed with scenes of how she would like to react to a situation like a kid in her class being told to go talk to some principal guy and Woodward wanting to scoop him up and take him home with her. These moments are spliced into the scenes so it's kinda jarring in that it's hard at first to figure out what's going on. I liked how it was done and it made the film feel fresh. It was definitely flashy from Newman, though, but it does get some great work out of Woodward, too. Most of that is done in the first half of the film before it settles down into a more straightforward directing style. The film is a bit clunky, however. There are moments where you can see the camera bounce around, transitions between scenes feel stilted, and it just feels like a first time director. Without Woodward, this probably would have been a mess of a film. She anchors it and makes it less of a vanity project and more of a serious piece of film.
Romeo and Juliet
It's funny because I imagine a ton of people have seen this film because it gets shown in school and have no idea it was a Best Picture nominated film. It was just something they watched in high school after reading the play in English class. My memories of this film start with my 9th grade English teacher showing us this film and then in a panic trying to cover up Juliet's boobs when they were on screen. Did I mention Juliet was only 16 at time of shooting so she was underage and naked? So weird to think about! But aside from that, the film is such a great adaptation of the William Shakespeare play. In fact, I think it's the best classic adaptation even though I really enjoy Baz Luhrmann's contemporary version a lot. It was the first film to use actors close to the actual age of the main characters which makes a huge difference in how this film is perceived. The visuals are amazing for the film and having age appropriate characters makes you more invested in the story and makes it so much more believable. And they aren't just window dressing, the two leads are very charismatic and beautiful but also very good actors. They are what make the film worth watching as they bring life to all the familiar beats of the play. This was the last Shakespeare film to be nominated for Best Picture as of 2020 and it almost feels appropriate. The Kenneth Branagh films feel like they could have been the next to be nominated, but it shows that it takes a lot for a Shakespeare film to be nominated. I feel like this is the quintessential Romeo and Juliet film and nothing can surpass it. I like that it was nominated in this category and it won Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design. I dunno, it's just the last best Shakespeare adaptation that could have been nominated in Best Picture. Great cast and great directing all around for a classic adaptation.
This is one of those years I wanted to watch for a long time. Was Oliver! really a good choice or a bad choice as I've been lead to believe? It's a bad choice yes. The Lion in Winter is your clear and unequivocal winner. It's an amazing film and is far and away better than anything on this list. My second is easily Romeo and Juliet which is one of the best Shakespeare adaptations ever produced. It's one that still gets played in English classes and is so good beyond that reasoning. Rachel, Rachel is very interesting as a film. Paul Newman spiced it up as his debut directorial effort and the story and acting is pretty good. Oliver! comes in next because it does have some good songs and great sets and is more in the public arena than Funny Girl. I like Funny Girl, but it is a vehicle for Streisand and nothing more. This was very diverse and interesting field and I can't wait for 1967 because I know it is a pretty nuts lineup.
Oscar Winner: Oliver!
My Winner: The Lion in Winter
Romeo and Juliet
Rachel, Rachel
Oliver!
Funny Girl
No comments:
Post a Comment