Some really interesting choices here. Why was this winner chosen over the others? I have always asked myself that when looking over the years. This one always stuck out as strange, so at least I can hopefully figure out why now.
1963 Best Picture
Tom Jones
It's not unusual to think of the other Tom Jones when you see this film. Shit joke aside, that Tom Jones got his stage name from this film, so fun fact there. This film, though, always made me wonder why it was nominated. I knew going in it was a bit of a controversial winner, but wanted to experience it for myself. It had five acting nominees, three in Best Supporting Actress alone, which is incredible! For some reason this film captured the zeitgeist and exploded. Funny thing is the director, Tony Richardson, kinda hated his own film. Felt is was an unfinished project that could have been worked on more and legit cringed when anyone would tell him they loved the film. It does seem as if the original novel would be better suited for a mini series, which has been done before. Point being that the director felt there was more to be done. Anyway, the film starts off crazy with not just the story, but the camera work itself. We are introduced to Albert Finney and the craziness starts off with fun camera angles and just an overall wild feel to the film. It levels off and becomes a more straightforward story about Tom Jones and his dalliances instead of some experimental early 60s film. There are lots of great performances and the story becomes much more normal. I'm assuming that this film hit differently in the early 1960s which is why it had such an effect on Hollywood and the box office. The source is a bawdy tale that does push the envelope a bit here, but backs off mostly. I'm wondering if this win is due to those voting for something that felt more modern which the film totally did, even though it was set in the 1750s. I dunno, it just feels like that fun film to vote for and what was it about again? Would love to see the ballot for this one.
America, America
This is probably one of the most forgotten Best Picture nominees that could be considered a masterpiece for the director. The film is actually based on a book director Elia Kazan wrote about the story of how his uncle journeyed to America. This is a deeply personal film and story for Kazan and it shows in the nearly three hour film. He even provides narration at the beginning and end of the film, so no shock when he said this was his favorite film of his. Now is this his all time great masterpiece to others? No, but I feel like you could still describe this film as such for Kazan, but he had some absolute bangers in his career, many of which we get to watch. The film is straightforward enough as we follow Stavros who is Greek by heritage but Turkish by birth. We follow his journey from the Armenian massacres, to a rough journey to Constantinople, to the ups and downs of trying to get to America. It's better to watch it for yourself to see what all happens, but it's a lot for a young man and will definitely hold your interest. I was so into what was going on that I got mad that Stavros would rather go to America than stay with the young girl he finds himself betrothed to, which is really just for money. But she was perfect and absolutely devoted to him that talking to the screen saying he was a fool to give her up. And that really drives home the message that some would do anything for a chance at the American dream and it puts into perspective Kazan's view on his adopted country and how a lot of people feel as immigrants. A really well done film that should definitely be watched at some point.
Cleopatra
I think anyone that is even a little bit of a film fan or loves old movies or knows about Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton and Rex Harrison knows about Cleopatra. I would say most people know it's super long at over four hours and was super expensive for it's time and almost killed the studio system. It's considered one of the biggest box office bombs, yet still was nominated here probably because the studio campaigned hard to try and earn their money back, oh and it was the biggest grossing film of the year. Go figure. It also has some stunning visuals with the large sets, thousands of extras, bright colors splashed everywhere, and an epic sense of watching something important. Except it isn't. It is too long. The director initially wanted to make two three hour films but Fox made him cut down the six hours to three and some change before it went up over four. I think I watched the special version that is over four hours long, but it still goes on too long and a lot of scenes feel inconsequential. At times it is downright boring. The battle scenes are rather tame and muted, like they were tacked on as an afterthought. None of the acting really stands out except for Roddy McDowell as Octavian. Even Fox had to come out and apologize for putting him in Lead category for a nomination when he was clearly Supporting and stood a good chance of a nomination in that category instead. This is a huge film that should feel more grand and epic than it does and you can really see the studio meddling with the film and all the issues and setbacks suffered that takes a toll on the final outcome. I did want to grab onto something in the film to really champion or just love the film overall, and aside from McDowell, there's nothing to grab onto other than the big, bright sets. This is more like watching a piece of film history in the purely historical sense rather than watching because it's a great piece of film making. Probably worth the watch to say you have seen it but you're not missing out if you decide not to watch it.
How The West Was Won
This is an awesome all around film. I was thinking this may just be a shoot em up cowboy western, but it's so much more than that. This three hour film is basically a history of, well, how America expanded West. It covers most of the 1800s and has an impressive cast list that includes seven Oscar winners and ten other nominees. It's a stack lineup with the big names being James Stewart, John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Debbie Reynolds, Gregory Peck and a whole lot more. The film is also split up into a few different segments that each had their own director and four different cinematographers, which is pretty impressive. You had The Rivers, The Plains, The Outlaws, The Civil War, and The Railroad. There were quite a few different stunning actions pieces including a tense river rapids scene, a harrowing buffalo stampede, and some wonderful train action. The film honestly has it all and feels like a genuine history lesson that does leave a lot of negative issues out but does actually briefly touch on some which seems about on par for the early 60s. They have some sex and violence and show a guy getting shot in the stomach where blood comes out his back, wasn't expecting that. There's some great laughs and some really oh shit moments where you can't believe they actually tried that stunt on screen. I'd say the weakest part of the film was the Gregory Peck and Debbie Reynolds part where they just don't really have any chemistry and feels tacked on for other reasons and to try and spice up The Plains crossing I guess. But the rest of the acting is fantastic. The film looks amazing in Cinerama. This was the second and final film shot with that camera which had three lenses and sort of was a precursor to widescreen format. The directors and actor hated it, but it makes for a gorgeous film and seeing some of those shots of the western scenery are breathtaking. I absolutely recommend watching this film because it will make you want to learn everything you can about the West and watch a lot of old timey Westerns. Just a marvelous film through and through.
Lilies of the Field
I have always wondered what this film was besides being what gave Sidney Poitier his historic Best Actor win. It always seemed to me like it was a big cultural film about race and in some ways it is. But in reality, it is just a very simple story about strangers coming together to help out on a singular goal. It's a short hour and half film and we see Poitier stop because his car is overheating and get convinced to stay and help a group of nuns. You could also say that a black man gets conned by white nuns to do their work for them without paying him. That's the pessimistic view of the film, but not entirely inaccurate. Poitier is fine in the role but doesn't really do any heavy lifting in his performance. The whole tone of the film is very hopeful and positive, if slight. The racial part of Poitier being black does come up a couple times, but it doesn't outweigh the story itself and is handled well without dwelling on him being black. Having just watched it, the film doesn't seem to have a lasting impression for me. Maybe I was expecting it feel more important than it just being a simple story about a man helping a group of nuns build a chapel. The performances are fine, the look of the film was fine, the story itself is fine. It might be on me for expecting a bit more than it was, but it is a good film. Another review I read said that the film lacked any heat, which I would agree with. There's a lack of any tension to make this film a bit more compelling than just a good people come together and do a thing. I'd say watch it for yourself and see if you connect with more than I did.
Oscar Winner: Tom Jones
My Winner: How The West Was Won
America, America
Tom Jones
Lilies of the Field
Cleopatra
No comments:
Post a Comment