Chariots of Fire: 1981

Sometimes when I watch these best pictures, I learn where iconic images, sayings, and scenes are from. This was the case with Chariots of Fire's opening scene of the British Olympians running on the beach:

Besides seeing the origination of that particular scene and music (the music is all original in Chariots of Fire), I didn't find the rest of the film all that interesting. It's the true story of two men who were runners for Great Britain for the 1924 Olympic Games in Paris. One of them, Eric Liddell, is a Scotsman who grew up in China as a missionary, where he plans to return after his running career. Liddell runs because he believes God gave him this gift and he should use it. Prior to the Olympics, Liddell would preach after his races. As his father points out, he proves that Christians can be physically strong. The other man is Harold Abrahams who is running to known more for his accomplishments than his religion. Abrahams is Jewish and has had to deal with anti-Semitism. Running is his way to prove that he matters.

Unfortunately, Abrahams' quest in this film comes across as less important when compared to Liddell's quest. As the film progressed, that became more and more apparent, and it troubled me. II'm not sure how true that is to history, but in telling this story, it seems like more could have been done to make the men both have noble reasons. Abrahams went on to hold a roll in British athletics, and Liddell did become a missionary (who died during WWII when China was occupied).

My other problem with this film is not much was done with the film elements, other than score, to enhance the story. While the story could have been exciting, it seemed flat. I wasn't interested in seeing how things turned out. I knew they must have done well because why else would there be a movie about these men, but typically sports movies play up the drama enough through editing that it becomes more a question of can they do it. That isn't present in Chariots of Fire. To be fair, though, it came after two movies I really enjoyed, ones that made me think and had excellent acting. The acting here was fine, but nothing like what I have just watched.

Ordinary People: 1980

For the first time in awhile, I was able to watch all of a movie (in this case, Ordinary People) from start to finish in one sitting, and there's something to be said for that experience. Initially, the film didn't grab my attention; it's subtle in the opening half hour or so. I kept looking at the clock, wondering when the film would pick up. But then as I followed Conrad (Timothy Hutton) on his journey towards healing and witnessed his transformation, I found myself invested in the film. It's really Conrad who made me want to watch the movie. The other characters, his parents and friends, are complex and interesting, but the film seems to be telling Conrad's story more than his family's story.

Ordinary People is based on a novel with the same title by Judith Guest, and I read the book years ago. I remember little of the book (just that it was about a family who loses one son in a boating accident and they are still grieving this loss but in different ways). The film includes this family history, but it starts with Conrad being home after being hospitalized for four months for a suicide attempt. Although there are some stigmas around mental illnesses today, at the time the movie is set (late 1970s), mental illnesses were viewed in a more severe way. People didn't talk about them, and they didn't want to admit that they or their family was seeking help for them. This belief is most apparent with the mother Beth (played by Mary Tyler Moore in a shockingly different role than her TV character, which is how I knew her) confronts her husband for telling a woman at a party that Conrad is seeing a psychiatrist. Beth is upset with her husband Cal (played by Donald Sutherland) because she believes that this information is private. It's not surprising considering how Beth seems to act as if nothing is wrong with Conrad. If anything, she's angry with Conrad for not being okay. The breakfast scene early in the movie establishes her anger and frustration. Beth shoving the french toast down the garbage disposal is so harsh. Because of Cal's presence and proper etiquette, she can't take out her anger on Conrad so she unleashes it on this french toast. This scene set the tone for the rest of film, and it's no wonder that Conrad thinks his mom hates him.

Watching Conrad as he copes with his depression and deals with his grief and anger is the best part of this film. The director Robert Redford uses close ups on Conrad's face throughout the film to illustrate early on how much pain Conrad is in and later how much more relaxed Conrad has become because of meeting with his psychiatrist and learning to feel emotion. Hutton is subtle in his portrayal of Conrad. The entire film he feels so real as a person, and it hurts to see him suffer. When he confronts his mom, you want to see her show love for him. When he goes on a date with Jeannine, you feel that awkwardness that he's aware of and doesn't know how to stop.

It's so interesting to me that Ordinary People won best picture the year after Kramer vs Kramer because the films seem different but are quite similar. Not only do they both deal with family, but they also present father-son relationships that develop and change over time. The mothers are absent in ways in both films. It makes me wonder what was happening socially in the late 1970s that resulted in films like these.

Kramer vs Kramer: 1979

Before watching Kramer vs Kramer, I watched the trailer, and just from that minute and a half of the film, I was already hooked. Not only does this film have Dustin Hoffman AND Meryl Streep, it tells a realistic story of divorce and custody battles. At times, I was disgusted with the husband Ted (Hoffman) and at other times with Joanna (Streep). Both characters had flaws, and the story was completely honest with those flaws. Ted spends more time with their son Billy, as Joanna is the one who leaves the apartment and for 18 months does not see their son. What I loved about Ted is how he was a real parent, the whole time. He made mistakes, plenty of them, and struggles with raising Billy on his own. But even in the moments where Ted is incredibly frustrated there are scenes that demonstrate how much love he has for Billy, reaffirming that parenthood is a hard labor of love. And that can be cheesy, but Kramer vs Kramer doesn't go there. Instead, it presents the story of this family honestly.

I won't reveal the ending here, but you should know that Joanna returns after being gone for 18 months and now wants full custody of her son. That's when the film became heart-wrenching for me, as Ted struggles with the idea of losing Billy to a woman who deserted Billy. I started the movie thinking I would be on Joanna's side, but I quickly switched to Ted's because her desertion is so unforgivable. And as Ted changes, I didn't find myself varying from his side.

My favorite scene in the movie is the breakfast scene after Ted and Billy have settled into a routine. Breakfast the day after Joanna left was fraught with problems--disastrous french toast, swearing--but later the father and son settle into a routine that works for them. The scene begins with Billy getting up and using the bathroom. The frame is centered on the hallway and we see Billy enter the bathroom, leave, stop by his dad's room, and move down the hall to the kitchen. The camera pulls back and pans over to the breakfast table where Billy sets the table and puts out doughnuts. Meanwhile, Ted uses the bathroom, grabs milk and orange juice, and pours their drinks at the table. The two sit down and have breakfast together, each reading something. The scene is so domestic; we see that after the initial french toast disaster and the difficulties that Ted had adjusted to single-parenthood, the two are a family unit. They're making it work together.

I'm really glad this movie was on the Best Picture list because I don't know if I would have picked it up otherwise. It's such a great story, and the acting is outstanding. If you haven't seen it, you should.