A Man for All Seasons: 1966

As I watched A Man for All Seasons, I wondered why the film won the Academy Award for Best Picture. It's not that the film isn't good; the story of Sir Thomas More, a man who stood by his morals and ethics instead of openly supporting the creation of the Church of England and King Henry's divorce from his queen and marriage to Anne Boleyn, his mistress, is a story of integrity. More becomes a hero for honor and honesty in a time when lies ruled the court. He was honored by the Catholic Church in 1935 when he was canonized as a saint. The film shows how More was a good person, more concerned about others and about his faith than about saving himself. Besides the story, the acting is excellent. Paul Scofield is convincing as More, showing him to be a man who restrained his emotions and logically considers each situation. As the king rails in one scene, Scofield maintains character as More. In an earlier scene, Scofield portrays More's integrity and wisdom as More advises Richard to be a teacher, not a member of court:

Later, this exchange between Richard and More becomes significant in More's downfall in court. Richard becomes the embodiment of politics, always seeking a better situation through deceit, bribes, and deals.

What impressed me most is how Scofield maintains an even keel as More. Scofield captured More's steadfastness, and in doing so, Scofield makes the film better, possibly even making up for Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey: 

Welles is laughable at times in his role. His face grows redder and redder as his main scene with More, and it's difficult to know if that was intentional on Welles' part or if he was just overheating in his costume. The latter seems more likely.

I guess my question about why this film won an Oscar is more about how does this film reflect its time? The film was released in 1966, only three years after the assassination of President Kennedy, a man people greatly respected and honored. But it seems a stretch to say that More and Kennedy are similar. More seems more saintly than Kennedy, who had some scandals in his past (although those may have come out much later). Perhaps at the time, this film was what America needed, a film about being honest and true to one's own beliefs and faith.

The Sound of Music: 1965

I want to revise the song "My Favorite Things" and add The Sound of Music to the list of things. No film is better suited to make people feel good. Unlike many other years, in 1966 the Academy awarded the Best Picture Oscar to a film that has had a lasting impact on our culture. Fifty years after the nuns sang about a problem named Maria and a governess fell in love with a navy captain and a nation dealt with the impending Nazi invasion, The Sound of Music still captures our hearts.

Before I rewatched The Sound of Music, I watched ABC's 20/20 special about the film. Diane Sawyer interviewed both Julie Andrews, who played Maria, and Christopher Plummer, who played Captain Von Trapp. The actors shared some of the stories of certain scenes, including the gazebo scene where Maria and the captain finally reveal how much they love each other:

For anyone who is a true Sound of Music fan, you should watch the special if you haven't already. Just be prepared: after seeing the special, you'll want to watch The Sound of Music.

I think what struck me about this viewing of the film is how carefully the impending Nazi occupation is woven into the storyline. I had forgotten how the Von Trapp's butler is secretly a Nazi supporter, and there are comments during the party scene that reflect growing tension in Austria. Captain Von Trapp is devoted to his country, and this is apparent throughout the film, but the Nazi presence is definitely there. During previous viewings, I focused more on the love story and the relationship between Maria and the children than I did on the political atmosphere. This film has so much to offer viewers, which is why it's still popular today. You see this beautiful family dynamic, where Maria becomes a mother to the children before Captain Von Trapp realizes his love for her. One of the best scenes of Maria as a mother is when she tells Captain Von Trapp what he needs to do for his children. Maria is soaking wet after the boat she and the children are in capsizes. The captain yells at her, angry that his children were out playing, and Maria lets him have it, forcefully explaining that all his children want is his love. It's incredible to watch. Her love for these seven motherless children is honest and strong. She is devoted to them, and soon becomes devoted to their father. Their love story is so sweet.

I could go on and on about the plot, but it's worth mentioning that film also won the Oscars for Best Director (Robert Wise) and Best Editing. The opening scene alone captured the editing award with Maria spinning on top of a mountain, singing "The Hills Are Alive." But other scenes are also incredibly well done. For instance, in the scene where Maria and the captain dance, the editing shows the couple falling in love and how the Baroness reacts: 

Here the shots switch from long shots to show the couple's flawless dancing to medium and close up shots to show their emotions. The Baroness's expression clearly shows that she sees what is happening and it's inserted at a key moment...long enough after the couple has been dancing to make their love apparent yet with enough time to let them dance longer before Maria claims she no longer knows the steps. It's subtle but incredibly effective editing.

What really makes me love The Sound of Music most of all is the memories it evokes for me. My mom and I have seen two different productions, including one that starred Marie Osmond as Maria. It's a special experience watching this story that she loves with her. My other memories of the film are connected to a boy I used to baby-sit when I was in high school and college. He was two and a half and completely obsessed with Maria and the children. His parents had two VHS copies of the film, and when we watched it, he would only want to watch the parts with Maria and/or the children. If they were not on screen, he would say, "Anne, where is Maria? Where are the children?" I would say they were in the house or somewhere else, and he would reply, "I want Maria. I want to see the children," emphasizing the words Maria and children. It was so sweet because he was completely focused on them whenever they were on screen. I think this last for at least six months, if not longer. It was adorable. And now this little boy is in college. I don't know if The Sound of Music is still one of his favorites, but it's definitely one of mine because of him and my mom.

Lawrence of Arabia: 1962

I finally caught up and filled in the gaps in my blog by watching Lawrence of Arabia, the 1962 film that won Best Picture, and it was no small accomplishment...the film is 217 minutes not including the intro and intermission music. The story was interesting: Lawrence is a soldier in the British Army during World War I. He is stationed in Arabia, where the Arabs and British are fighting the Turks. For some unclear reason, Lawrence is fascinated by Arabia. At times it seems like his desire to help the Arabs is to give them freedom and to help them create their own nation. But most of the time it seems like Lawrence helps the Arabs because they idolize him. Lawrence thrives on this attention, becoming drunk on the power it gives, but this power causes him to become arrogant, causing his downfall.

Having an engaging story makes the film easier to watch since the length of the film is overwhelming. And at times, unnecessary. The director David Lean was clearly a fan of the extreme long shot as a means to set the tone. The desert is a brutal, cruel, yet beautiful landscape, and its contrasts support Lawrence's internal conflict. He knows that blood must be shed yet he cannot bear to watch. Later, he seems bloodthirsty. While I appreciate the director's intentions with the desert shots, there are definitely more used than necessary. Perhaps Lean wanted us to feel like we were on Lawrence's journey with him, under the unrelenting sun and blistering heat and dealing with the fighting Arab tribes.

Lawrence in the desert

I think what made me like the arrogant Lawrence is when he defends the Arabs to the British officers. There is clear prejudice; the British see the Arabs as dirty, barbarous people (something Lawrence actually says to one of the Arabs before he becomes one of them). Lawrence becomes an advocate for the Arabs, wanting them to have the freedom to govern themselves, but he knows that the British Army is acting in the interest of the British Empire, which wants Arabia as part of its empire. In the interactions between the British and the Arabs, the British look down upon the Arabs. In one scene, Lawrence arrives with his servant, a boy he rescued, and when they enter the officers' bar, the other officers want the boy kicked out because he's an Arab. Lawrence defends the boy:

Lawrence's defense of Farraj shows Lawrence's decency. Yes, he may be full of himself, but he does seem to actually care.

I can't say I'd watch this film again; once is enough for sure. But surprisingly, I actually enjoyed the film. The story was interesting, and the characters were thoughtful. I could do without the long desert shots, but that's really my only complaint.

Tom Jones: 1963

Tom Jones is a bad boy with a good heart. Based on Henry Fielding's novel of the same title, the film Tom Jones shows us that any man should be forgiven for his behavior as long as he has good intentions and as long as he has true love. I'm not sure I agree with this part as although Tom is charming and kind he's a complete player and I doubt he's going to change his ways after marrying his true love.

The storyline is fairly simplistic: Tom grows up, falls in love, behaves badly, embarrasses family, leaves home, and returns to their favor after some truth is revealed. There wasn't anything about the story or the characters that I found really interesting. Some of them are stereotypical: the drunken aristocrat, the servants, the uptight cousin, etc. Lacking originality in story and character makes Tom Jones a surprising pick for Best Picture, so I began to think about other reasons why the film was selected...and I'm still thinking, two weeks after watching the film. I'm at a loss.

My main problem with Tom Jones is that it doesn't seem to have aged well. The cinematography seems dated. To transition from one scene to the next and to add comic effect, the director used a spotlight transition where as the screen went black, there was a circle that zoomed and focused in on one character's face who was either the troublemaker of the scene or the one who would have a smirk. It came across as cheesy instead of funny, but perhaps when the film was first released, this was seen as clever. Another characteristic of the film was the use of montages and extended non-speaking scenes where we see Tom fall in love or flirtation. In one scene, Tom and Mrs. Waters share a meal, and to build sexual tension, the director cuts from Tom to Mrs. Waters repeatedly as they eat. The characters begin to eat the food more suggestively, wordlessly communicating their desire. It comes across as ridiculous, which initially may have added to the comedy of the film, but it didn't have that effect for me.

In the end, Tom Jones was a disappointment. I didn't find it humorous...I didn't even find it somewhat interesting.

My Fair Lady: 1964

I watched My Fair Lady once, but since I was in high school and thought I knew everything but really didn't, I don't think I appreciated the film the way I should have. I remember liking the music, but I don't think I paid much attention to Eliza's situation after she has been transformed into a "proper lady." After Professor Higgins teaches Eliza how to dress, behave, and speak, she no longer fits into her old life as a flower girl, selling small bouquets of flowers on the streets of London. Yet she doesn't feel as if she belongs in high class society either. Eliza becomes homeless in a sense, as she has no place in society to belong. And the worst of it is that Professor Higgins doesn't understand her problem nor does he seem to care. He's far too busy gloating over his success at changing her while Eliza is beginning to realize that she didn't need to be changed in the first place...all she needed was someone to treat her with some respect, with some kindness. Eliza's story, then, becomes a commentary on social classes and early 20th century London: the lower classes shouldn't change who they are, the higher classes should change their perception.

As far as the cinematography, the film has some interesting transitions. When Eliza's father is about to enter the scene and a new day has started, the director has the extras enter the scene in small groups, take their places, and freeze. After several groups have entered and the scene seems full, the groups remain frozen for just a moment, and then, as if a switch has been flipped, the scene comes to life. Similarly, for the horse race scene, the director starts the scene with everyone frozen in place:

Of all the films I've watched thus far, I don't remember any of them using this technique to change scenes. The director only uses it a few times, but it's effective for showing the differences between the two social classes. The first transition with working class people shows individuals starting work for the day; that scene has them entering and freezing whereas the race scene all the upper class people are already in place, as if they don't have the same urgency to get to work. It's subtle in how the two transitions differ, but the transitions themselves really stand out in the film.

As for the music, it seems like My Fair Lady had more songs than West Side Story but the songs were much shorter. In that way, My Fair Lady makes me think of a typical musical: characters break into song whenever and wherever and just as easily stop singing  when they've expressed whatever they wanted to express in song. So for someone who doesn't care for musicals, this one would probably be more difficult to sit through than others.

West Side Story: 1961

The first time I saw West Side Story I was a freshman in high school. My English class had just finished studying and putting on our own production of Romeo and Juliet, so our teacher decided to show us West Side Story as a modern adaptation of Shakespeare's story. I remember preferring West Side Story solely because Maria is so much stronger than Juliet, but other than that, I don't remember much about my opinion of the film.

I watched the film again during grad school and analyzed the use of light and dark in various scenes as part of a comparison paper for my film class. Watching the film that time I realized just how closely the directors, Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise, used the imagery in the play in the film. Unfortunately, I have never had a chance to see a live production of the musical, which is how the creators intended the story to be seen, so I don't know how closely what Robbins and Wise did mirrors the Broadway production.

During this viewing, the blatant prejudice on the part of the police stood out to me the most. That may be due to what's currently happening in our country, with Ferguson and other stories of police prejudice. In West Side Story, Detective Schrank outright says that he hates the Puerto Ricans and wants them gone. He even offers to help the Jets in their fight against the Sharks. His prejudice reflects what was happening in New York at that time, how immigrants were hated and blamed for problems, which unfortunately happens today in our country. The song "America" best captures this sentiment (and is one of my favorites from the musical):

I'd like to say that our society has improved since 1961, that the Civil Rights Movement made a substantial difference in how people are treated, but I'm not sure that's the case. It seems like every step we take forward in equal rights, we have people who fight this progress and pass laws at the local level (like Indiana's religious freedom law) that actually allow people to mistreat those who are different from them. If only we could learn from stories like Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story that hate is not the answer; hate will only bring us down and ruin our lives.

The Apartment: 1960

Jack Lemmon stars in The Apartment, the story of a regular guy working for an insurance company in an entry-level position who rises through the ranks by providing his apartment to philandering executives looking for a cozy place to take their lovers. Based on this premise, I had reservations about this film. It's basically a story of people using each other, but Lemmon's portrayal of CC Baxter makes the character so endearing. He's just a regular guy who found himself in a difficult position: either allow these executives use of his apartment or lose his job. Yes, he does have several promotions as a result of letting them use his apartment, but there's always the underlying threat of termination. And Baxter is a "yes man"; if the boss asks for something, Baxter is sure to do it.

The film does seem like a surprising pick for Best Picture because it doesn't seem as serious as previous ones and doesn't seem to do anything unique for the film style, but perhaps the film was selected because of the content being so controversial for the time period. The free love '60s hadn't started, and the '50s were a time of the "perfect" family...maybe that's why this film was so fitting for the time. It shows that marriages were not perfect, and successful married men had hidden affairs, claiming they needed these affairs for their happiness. Baxter, though, is a romantic. He doesn't approve of what these men are doing (even though letting them use his apartment enables them), and for himself, he wants to find love. When he does find love, Baxter unfortunately picks a woman who is involved in one of these affairs. Initially, Fran, played by Shirley MacLaine (who I hadn't seen in a role early in her career), seems sassy and independent, but she is easily manipulated by one of these married men all in the name of love. I felt sorry for Fran. She really believes that the men she loves will love her back, and she doesn't realize that Baxter is a good guy deep down. It's her story and how she becomes connected with Baxter that engaged me in this film. The first 30 minutes or so I wasn't sure I wanted to keep watching, but once Baxter met Fran and their friendship began, I had to watch to find out if these two would end up together. I won't spoil that for you...you'll have to watch to find out if they do.

The Apartment is worth watching if only to see Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine together.

Gigi: 1958

Sometimes I think it might be a good idea to preview a film before watching, and in the case of Gigi, I would have known that I was going to watch a musical starring French actress Leslie Caron, who I know from Father Goose. While I really enjoy musicals, I like to know ahead of time if I'm going to watch one. Musicals, for me, require a different viewing mindset.

Gigi is basically a romance, set in Paris, that follows the life of Gigi as she matures from a silly school girl into a charming young woman, according to what her aunt deems as charming. The film explores what love really means. In the case of Gigi's aunt, love is shown through jewels from admirers, not through marriage. Gigi, however, seems more interested in true love. The difficulties she faces, though, is Parisian society in 1900 and being in love with a man (Gaston) who prefers lovers over having a wife.

The shocking part of Gigi was the discussion of suicide. Gaston learns that his lover is cheating on him, and he confronts her lover and ends the relationship. As a result of the public embarrassment, the woman kills herself, and Gaston is actually praised by his uncle for his first suicide. It was really appalling, and the only redeeming aspect is that Gaston does seem to feel some guilt over the suicide. His uncle advises him to remain in the public and move on as usual, and while Gaston does as his uncle says, he is reluctant and eventually stops the whirlwind partying. Gaston is a character who is easy to dislike; he is rich and arrogant and doesn't treat women with respect, except for Gigi because she's so different than the others. It's only through his relationship with Gigi and the kindness he shows her mother that he becomes a decent man.

I should mention some of the songs in the film. Two in particular are quite well known. The film opens with "Thank Heaven for Little Girls", sung by the uncle:

The uncle also acts as the narrator throughout the film, telling the audience Gigi's story and interacting with his nephew Gaston.

The other well-known song is "I Remember It Well", performed by the uncle and Gigi's mother:

In this song, the uncle's character is definitely revealed. He is a thoughtless man who uses his charm to woo women. At one time, Gigi's mother fell for his charm, but she realizes what he is like and leaves him. Although Gigi seems like a strong woman at times in the film, it seems that her strength is the result of her mother's strength, which is more subtle. Her mother is a realist; she knows that because they are not wealthy, Gigi will not have as many options in life. She also knows that Gigi dating Gaston is going to be fully covered in the society pages (think paparazzi) and that dating Gaston may mean that Gigi will have fewer options after the relationship ends. Her mother's acknowledgment and sharing of this information with Gigi makes the mother strong because Gigi sees that she has a choice, even if that choice means less money for them.

Overall, Gigi was surprising to me. As a musical, the songs were flirty and upbeat, but the actual storyline had dark moments. This contrast made the film more realistic, as life has ups and downs and love is not easy.

Ben-Hur: 1959

There's something about ancient Rome that bores me. Of all of Shakespeare's plays, Julius Caesar is the most boring to me. Seeing Roman ruins in England was somewhat interesting but hot enough to hold my attention for long. So starting Ben-Hur, I was bored within the first 30 minutes. Actually, the film is currently running right now on my TV as I write this post. This is the moment when I really wish my library had had Gigi, the 1958 winner, on the shelf when I went in today to get my next film. Instead, I thought I'd skip ahead to 1959 and get this one over with.

I think the most intimidating part of this film for me right now is the run time: 211 minutes. I keep thinking about how much longer I have to watch this. I'm checking the clock more often than I ever checked it in high school chemistry class.

That being said, I don't necessarily think Ben-Hur is a bad film. When I searched Ben-Hur on IMDB, I found out that a new one is in production to be released in 2016. Considering the rising popularity of Biblical stories, it makes sense that a remake is underway. I wonder if it will be as long and as epic as this one.

The film starts with the question of loyalty. Judah (Charlton Heston) must decide if he should be loyal to his people, the Jewish living under Roman rule, or his boyhood friend Messala, a Roman soldier. Judah sides with his people, clearly being the virtuous and noble one, while Messala views this as a betrayal, and at the first opportunity to punish Judah, Messala does, sending him to a prison camp falsely accused of attacking the governor. Overall, the film seems to be more about Jesus, as the opening scene was the story of the birth of Jesus, but Jesus is not an essential character. Instead, perhaps the film is more about faith, keeping faith alive in the most dire of situations. At least, that's what I'm getting at this point (although the whole Judah as slave reminds me of the opening scene in Les Miserables:

Les Miserables

Ben-Hur Rowing Scene

I have to be honest...I'm not sure I'll be able to finish this one. For one, it's just not interesting to me at all. For another, I keep thinking the Roman's helmets have brooms on them, which is really distracting.

Ben-Hur (Heston) with Roman commander

UPDATE: I finished the film (I'll admit to skipping some scenes...watching only parts and then moving on to the next chapter on the DVD). Judah's story is interesting, but to put it simply, it didn't need to be nearly four hours long. His story could be told in a few hours.

Birdman: 2015

What was the Academy thinking this year? An egotistical, self-fulfilling film about an actor whose career is washed up is really the Best Picture of 2015? I'll admit...I didn't see that many new films this past year, but everything I saw was definitely better than Birdman, including the Best Picture nominee The Grand Budapest Hotel (which is clever and hilarious and has an excellent cast).  Watching Birdman made me question the entire purpose of my blog; am I really watching the best picture for each year? Or should I instead watch all the other nominees and avoid the winner?

My main issue with Birdman was the story. Yes, getting old sucks and realizing that maybe you're not as important as you thought you were is difficult to accept, but this is life. Riggan Thompson (Michael Keaton) faces this reality in Birdman, and it's ugly. What's worse is he never fully realizes what is important in life, that the people he should matter to are the people who actually matter, like his family and friends. Instead, he's so focused on regaining his career that he loses sight of what matters. And this is the story of his life. It's all about his career. I can handle a story like this but only when there is some sort of realization at the end. Yes, there is some, albeit brief and undeveloped, but in contrast to the rest of the film, it's insufficient. Instead, Thompson comes off as pathetic and whiny. I don't really care that the world doesn't take you seriously as an actor. Get over it.

As the film wallows in this "woe is me" mood, it continues on a downward spiral when it explores the Hollywood versus Broadway cliche. Thompson is Hollywood, that makes him incapable of doing Broadway well. The conflict grows in the film as a "real" Broadway star, Mike Shiner (Ed Norton), is hired in the play that Thompson adapted from a Raymond Carver novel, directed, and, naturally, stars in. What I want to know is why is this conflict still used in films today? It's a complete cliche, overused and discussed far too much. Broadway, in this film, comes across as snobby. Maybe that's why the Academy picked Birdman; they wanted to stick it to Broadway.

I will say that the way Birdman was filmed was interesting; the director hardly used any cuts. The scenes would be one long take, and the camera would move from room to room as characters moved, even up and down staircases. The fluidity created by these shots suggested that life moves on without giving us a chance to stop and change things, which is why Thompson struggles. As interesting as this cinematography was, it wasn't enough for me to enjoy the film as a whole. I needed a story and characters that I wanted to spend two hours with.

Really, what I want to know is what makes a Best Picture? Should it be a film that changes the way we see films, like Boyhood? Should it be a film that captures the feeling of the world or nation for that year? Should it be a film that is enjoyable, that actually had box office revenues that covered the cost of the film? Or should it be something that makes the Academy feel better about their own lives? That last question seems to be how Birdman was selected, and if that's the future of the Academy Awards, then maybe it's time for me to stop watching the ceremony and thinking that the Academy actually hast taste in films.

The Bridge on the River Kwai: 1957

Starting The Bridge on the River Kwai, I thought I had seen it before, but as the film progressed, I realized I had confused this film with another World War II POW film. I expected to watch the story of a group of men working together to escape the prison camp, and instead, the film was more about the psychological effects of war and how principles are not always the best way to live one's life. One must use principles in addition to common sense and a desire to survive.

Alec Guinness stars as Colonel Nicholson, a by-the-book British officer who refuses to give in to Colonel Saito, the brutal commander in charge of the prison camp.

Colonel Nicholson with Colonel Saito

Despite threats and punishments, Nicholson remains firmly rooted in his principles. He will not allow Saito to break the Geneva Convention. He will not let his men slack on the job, even if their job helps the enemy. At the end of the film, however, Nicholson does seem to realize that blindly following his principles is not the way he should have been. Watching Nicholson at times can be frustrating because he seems so stubborn, yet he is logical in what he says. Often, though, I found myself siding with the medical officer, Major Clipton.

The film includes one escape, which is early on in the story. Of the three men, one survives, the American soldier Shears, who fits the role of the unwilling soldier. Shears didn't want to go into the war in the first place, and having spent months in a prison camp, he's moved further away from being a soldier in a unit to someone who looks out for himself. In ways, he is the voice of reason, explaining to Nicholson that without the hope of escape, what do the men have to live for? Shears is despicable throughout most of the story, but he does redeem himself at the end. He provides an interesting contrast, as the British soldiers and officers seem dedicated and noble while Shears, representing the Americans, seems frustrated that he's even a part of the war, perhaps reflecting some Americans' unwillingness to enter the war until America was attacked.

Although long, The Bridge on the River Kwai moves quickly, and while I had planned to split the viewing into two nights, I found myself completely hooked. I knew what was going to happen, but I didn't know exactly how the story would get there or the outcome of the characters. The film doesn't disappoint.

Around the World in 80 Days: 1956

It's been several weeks since I watched Around the World in 80 Days, and although I may not remember every detail, I enjoyed the film as a whole. It's the entertaining story of Jules Verne's character Phileas Fogg and his quest to travel around the world in 80 days (hence the title). Fogg makes a wager with other men at his affluent British club, and at the time the story is set, the quest seems nearly impossible. Fogg certainly has difficulties along the way with transportation, including incomplete train lines, missing ship departures, and operating a hot air balloon. As the film progresses, I found myself wanting Fogg to make it, even though there is a suggestion that he may be guilty of robbing a bank in England. At no point does the story really make Fogg a bad guy. He even goes so far as to save an Indian princess from a sacrificial death, and he treats his servant Passpartout with kindness.

Phileas Fogg with his loyal servant Passpartout and Princess Aouda

The faults with the film result primarily because of the time period in which it was made. The Indian princess is played by Shirley MacLaine, who is definitely not Indian, and this obviously white actress made her portrayal seem campy at times and offensive at others. She doesn't even look remotely ethnic, and there didn't seem to be much of an attempt to change that. Another fault was the clear master-servant relationship between Fogg and Passpartout. While yes, Fogg is kind to Passpartout and even cares about his loyal servant, Passpartout is treated with disrespect by other characters and becomes a caricature at points, emphasizing how not British he is.

Despite these faults, the film overall is enjoyable. In many cases, it appears that the film was shot on location (one exception being San Francisco where it's a poorly constructed sound stage), so the cinematography takes you along their journey. This does result in some longer shots to showcase the setting which add to the already long film (175 minutes), but considering how much money and time was spent to set up on these locations, I can't say that I blame the filmmakers all that much. The story itself is interesting; I found myself wondering why it mattered so much to Fogg to prove to these stuffy old men that he could in fact circle the globe in 80 days. But it set up this clear contrast between the old and new way, and since Verne set the story in 1872, a time when the old ways of life were giving way to the new, it makes sense to have a story that showcases how technology is rapidly changing the world. For modern audiences, of course, it does require us to forget about just how quickly one person today could circle the globe and how easy all our technology would make this trip. 

Movie Trailer

Marty: 1955

I didn't expect to find such an endearing, heartwarming character or story after watching the last five or six films that earned Best Picture. Marty is a pleasant surprise. I found myself actually becoming lost in the story, as opposed to checking the time and wondering how much longer I would have to spend watching the film. I think what made Marty enjoyable for me is that it is the story of an underdog, but it's also a story of a love and family and how sometimes our friends and family don't truly understand us.

Marty (played by Ernest Borgnine, who won Best Actor for this role) is a butcher living in the Bronx with his Italian mother. All his siblings are married, and since Marty is the oldest, all his customers (women) constantly ask why he isn't married. The opening scene shows just how frustrating this is for Marty. A few scenes later, Marty's own mother gives him a hard time about not being married, and Marty finally loses it:

Marty with his mother

I couldn't help but feel sympathy for Marty. He's an all-around nice guy, but he can't seem to find a girl. And he's pretty much given up because he's tired of being turned down. Yet the very same night he has this argument with his mother, he meets Clara (Betsy Blair), a sweet girl who has also faced the same heartache as Marty.

Clara and Marty

Perhaps the main reason Marty's story is so appealing is its universality. Who hasn't been let down in love? Who hasn't faced some sort of disappointment? Who hasn't had to deal with family issues? Marty's story reminds us that we shouldn't give up.

Within the film, there is another storyline, albeit small, that focuses on Marty's mother and her sister. Marty's sister lives with her son and daughter-in-law, and this living arrangement simply isn't working. The mother-in-law and daughter-in-law cannot share the same house or kitchen. In this storyline, the screenwriter explores the dilemma of the older mother in the 1950s. As empty-nesters and widows, they have no one to take care of, and unlike today's retired women, they have no hobbies. They know how to and want to cook and clean. Their lives were about their children and husbands, and now that they are alone, they have nothing. Hearing their stories and fears makes me grateful to live in a time when there is life after children. Today, mothers are still mothers, but they embrace their roles as grandmothers and have so many opportunities to be involved in their communities and to simply enjoy life. This storyline reminded me of an interview I heard recently with Ethan Hawke, who starred in Boyhood. When asked about the film and growing older, Hawke explained that growing old shouldn't be feared. All that is happening is we are moving into different stages of our lives, just as we did in childhood, and what we really fear is the change that comes with those stages. His comment resonated with me because I can already look back and see times in my life where I had to move into a new stage and despite the excitement I had I was also scared and wanted to stay where I was. These mothers are in that situation themselves. They are not ready for this new stage in life, and unfortunately, their society doesn't present many options to them.

Marty is absolutely worth seeing, especially if you need a reminder that there are genuine people in the world and that good things do come to those who wait.

On the Waterfront: 1954

Marlon Brando won an Oscar as Best Actor in On the Waterfront, and after seeing the film, it's really no surprise to me. Brando was so completely convincing as Terry, a dockworker who, due to a difficult childhood, has connected with the mob yet feels at odds with his decisions in life. Terry's conscience almost becomes another character in the film he struggles with what he has done in the past and what he should do in the future.

Typically, I'm not a fan of mob movies. I'm not looking forward to venturing into the 1970s on this blog and watching The Godfather, again, or then having to watch The Godfather 2. I get that these films appeal to audiences and create interesting conflicts for filmmakers, but it's just not a genre that interests me. On the Waterfront becomes less about the mob, though, and more about doing what is right even when it's difficult. Terry knows what is right, but his entire life he has looked out only for himself. And it's kind of understandable. Terry was an orphan and lived in a children's home (which he says wasn't much of a home), so to simply survive, he's had to look out for his own best interests. Terry hasn't even been that successful in life. Most of the characters call him a bum, and as far as his role in the local mob, he has little power. He simply does what they tell him to do for a little cash. It doesn't make what he does okay, but it does put him on the border. He's not exactly part of the mob but he's also not a regular dockworker. As a result, he becomes isolated because neither group fully accepts him. In a way, Terry is a sympathetic character despite his selfishness.

One pleasant surprise in On the Waterfront was the chance to hear the original "I coulda been a contender" line:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBiewQrpBBA

Terry is speaking to his brother about a fight he had to throw. I had heard the line quoted many times, but I didn't know the context of the original or the power with which Brando delivered it. The line has become a cliche, but in the original, the line seems so genuine and real. It conveys Terry's disappointments in life and how much he wants his brother to understand what he's given up.

On the Waterfront does have a romantic storyline as well, with Edie (Eva Marie Saint) as Terry's love interest. Their romance faces multiple obstacles and functions primarily to heighten the drama as opposed to providing some hope in a dark world.

Terry with Edie

Although On the Waterfront was worth watching to see Brando's performance and a well-written story in which justice prevails, it's not a film I'll revisit. Most of the film is dark, and while the ending is hopeful, I don't think I need to see it again.

From Here to Eternity: 1953

From Here to Eternity is set in 1941 Hawaii, months before the Pearl Harbor attack, and follows the lives of three soldiers as they deal with the grueling aspects of military power abuse. Prewitt (Montgomery Clift) transfers to the G Unit Regiment after losing his place as top bugler in his old unit to someone with less talent but better connections. At first, the commanding officer Holmes is excited to have Prewitt as Prewitt is a middle-weight boxing champion and Holmes wants to win the boxing championship this year, but when Prewitt clearly and repeatedly states that he will not fight, his life becomes miserable, filled with extra duties and abuse from higher ranking members of the unit. Holmes supports this abuse as he hopes it will break Prewitt. Holmes, as well as other characters, expose the ugly side of the Army, one where higher ranking men use their power against subordinates. I couldn't help be feel sorry for Prewitt; he has good reasons for not wanting to fight and no one in power really seems to care. The ones who do care are unable to help him. Yet Prewitt doesn't want sympathy. No matter what disgusting duty he's given or what punishment he faces (such as trekking up and down a mountain with an extra heavy pack), Prewitt does each without breaking. He's completely stoic, facing each challenge with determination. Only towards the end of the film do we see him start to crumble, and the circumstances have become more than any one person could handle.

In addition to Prewitt's story, From Here to Eternity also follows the life of Sergeant Warden (Burt Lancaster), second in command and Holmes' right-hand man. Warden despises Holmes and cares more about the men in their unit than Holmes does, and in his position, Warden is able to influence Holmes at times for lesser, more reasonable punishments. But Warden's story is more about falling in love with the commander's wife, Karen (Deborah Kerr). We learn early in the film that the commander is unfaithful to his wife and really only stays married because officers should have wives. Any love that was present between the commander and his wife is definitely gone and has been for awhile. Karen and Warden's relationship includes an iconic scene from film, often replicated in humorous ways:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W6AGM-LxGY

Warden and Karen's relationship at times seems melodramatic, but Kerr is so elegant throughout the entire film that it's easily forgiven. She moves with such grace, which makes her cheating husband seem so much more despicable. When Karen shares the history of her marriage with Warden, Kerr's portrayal of a heartbroken, devastated woman is powerful in that at the end, the character still seems strong. Kerr makes her more of a fighter than a delicate flower that must be nurtured. 

Although Prewitt and Warden's stories dominate the film, there is a third character who plays an essential part in capturing the audience's emotions and depicting the brutality of military stockades. Private Maggio (Frank Sinatra) is a goofball who seems to be in the Army because he couldn't find anything else to do. He's often stuck with the more mundane duties, and he's the first one to befriend Prewitt, even defending Prewitt when the bullying begins. Maggio's quick temper and desire for good times quickly lead to his downfall, though, and this likable character faces perhaps the most brutal treatment in the film. Sinatra's charm fits the character perfectly, but I must admit I'm glad the role was small. Maggio was a little over the top as a character, and as a comic relief, he's helpful at times but too much would have detracted from the film as a whole.

Sinatra as Maggio with Lorraine (Donna Reed)

Source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/frank-sinatra/images/5928480/title/frank-sinatra-donna-reed-from-here-eternity-photo

The film ends with Pearl Harbor and the start of WWII. Of course, that means there is no happy ending for these characters. But the film isn't so much about the ending for these characters but what they face along the way. It's the lives they lead until Pearl Harbor that are more important than what their future holds. From the beginning, the audience knows, more or less, how the story is going to end because of history. Unlike other war films that have won Best Picture up to this point, From Here to Eternity captures the time just before the war, when war seemed possible yet still so far away. The soldiers are more carefree in this film, focused on getting weekend passes and meeting girls than surviving. In that sense, From Here to Eternity becomes Best Picture worthy because it's just so different.