Oscar Winner Predictions 2018

Well, my Oscar nomination predictions turned out to be fairly average, especially considering how well I did with the nominations last year. Maybe I can save face with some decent winner predictions, though I'm not sure that's going to happen either. The trend of the Oscar winners becoming harder and harder to predict continues. It feels like there are even fewer sure things this year than there were last year, and last year there were hardly any.

So, without further ado, here are my predictions for who's going to take home Oscars on Sunday night. Happy Oscars weekend!

Oscar Nomination Predictions 2018

Just popping back in to deliver my Oscar nomination predictions ahead of Tuesday morning's announcement. It feels like this gets more and more difficult every year. Granted, last year was my best ever, but I probably just got lucky. I'm certainly not expecting to achieve anywhere near that level of success this year. So many races seem wide open. But I've made my choices so I'll stand by them and, if necessary, remove the egg from my face on Tuesday. If you're interested, you can take a look at my predictions here.

1935 - Broadway Melody of 1936

From the chill of Sydney's winter back to the oppressive heat of another Los Angeles summer, I've returned to my adopted home without blogging about the last film I watched before leaving L.A. in the first place. The three weeks in Australia was a nice holiday, but now it's time to get back to business.

Next up, we take a look at another musical entry into 1935's Best Picture contest...

Broadway Melody of 1936
Director:
Roy Del Ruth
Screenplay:
Jack McGowan, Sid Silvers, Moss Hart, Harry W. Conn
Starring:
Jack Benny, Eleanor Powell, Robert Taylor, Una Merkel, Sid Silvers, Buddy Ebsen, June Knight, Vilma Ebsen
Academy Awards:
3 nominations
1 win, for Best Dance Direction

After his boss orders him to make his column more sensational, Broadway gossip columnist Bert Keeler (Benny) stumbles upon a potentially sleazy relationship between producer Bob Gordon (Taylor) and wealthy widow Lillian Brent (Knight). She is investing in his show on the condition that, if Gordon can't find a star within two weeks, she'll take the role. Enter Irene Foster (Powell), Gordon's estranged high-school sweetheart, herself a budding stage actress with her own desire to headline Gordon's show.

From that plot, you'd be forgiven for thinking this is just another run-of-the-mill musical comedy from old Hollywood. They certainly churned those out in those days, but if this is run-of-the-mill, then it's a pretty entertaining mill. I never considered myself a big fan of the extravagant dance musical but something really tickled my fancy with this one. With its exciting showbiz story and its truly toe-tapping musical numbers, this is escapism at its purest.

In the lead role, Jack Benny, already a radio star at the time, is drily hilarious and can already be seen utilizing his trademark exasperated expression with one hand gently perched on his lower jaw. Also enjoyable is Una Merkel's sly and humorous turn as the sassy secretary. Perhaps the standout, though, is Buddy Ebsen, who is immensely charming and quirky and, if you're only familiar with him as Jed Clampett, you'll be surprised at what an accomplished song-and-dance man he is. Plus, that's his real-life sister Vilma playing his on-screen sister. The two of them (pictured with Eleanor Powell) perform an absolutely mind-blowing tap dance routine.

In fact, all the dancing talent is spectacular, particularly that one guy in the opening number who literally jumps over all the chorus girls, lined up in a row. It's a confusingly random feat, but impressive nonetheless. And that's just one example of the unique choreography on display. It's no wonder the film's only Oscar came for Best Dance Direction (a now defunct category). It also nabbed a nomination for Best Writing (Original Story), though, in my opinion, the script's greatest feature is its witty dialogue. And, of course, there was the Best Picture nod, which, it could be argued, makes it the first sequel to ever be nominated for the top prize, despite the fact that the story and characters are entirely unrelated to 1928/29's Best Picture winner, The Broadway Melody.

1935 - Naughty Marietta

Greetings from wintry Sydney, Australia. I'm back in my home town for a few weeks visiting family and friends, so I may not get much of a chance to watch more of the current crop of nominees, but I had already watched two more of them before I left L.A., so I hope to at least find a little time to blog about them while I'm here.

And indeed, here are my thoughts on one of those films, another Best Picture nominee from 1935...

Naughty Marietta
Director:
Robert Z. Leonard, W.S. Van Dyke
Screenplay:
Frances Goodrich, Albert Hackett, John Lee Mahin
(based on the operetta by Victor Herbert [music] and Rida Johnson Young [book & lyrics])
Starring:
Jeanette MacDonald, Nelson Eddy, Frank Morgan, Elsa Lanchester, Douglas Dumbrille, Joseph Cawthorne, Cecilia Parker, Walter Kingsford, Greta Meyer, Akim Tamiroff
Academy Awards:
2 nominations
1 win, for Best Sound

In order to escape an arranged marriage, a French princess (MacDonald) adopts the identity of a lowly servant named Marietta and sails to New Orleans with dozens of other girls who are hoping to marry the colonists there. However, Marietta has no intention of marrying anyone. Before they arrive in New Orleans, the ship is overtaken by pirates and their plans look dashed until mercenaries come to the rescue. The leader of the mercenaries, Captain Warrington (Eddy), takes a liking to Marietta, though he, too, is stubbornly against marriage.

Of all the different genres of film, musicals arguably contain the least naturalistic conceit. Even fantasy films don't feature people randomly breaking into song (unless they're fantasy musicals, I guess). Not that I'm criticising, mind you. I love a good musical. It's just that, if you're going to ask the audience to suspend disbelief about the spontaneous singing, you might want to make the lyrics at least somewhat relevant to the action. Maybe I'm exaggerating since most of the songs do indeed make sense, but there were still a few that seemed to bear little relation to the story. Of course, it didn't help that unfamiliar characters would often join in the musical numbers for only one or two verses (and sometimes even start the song), even though we hadn't been introduced to them yet nor would we ever see them again. Just some random guy in a crowd belting passionately about something or other. Ironically, the songs are probably the least entertaining part of this whole affair but that may just be a modern viewer's perspective of a very old-fashioned style.

Despite all that and a somewhat formulaic plot, the picture is still very watchable. The visual gags, in particular, may be subtle and sparse, but they often had me laughing out loud. In opposition to the sometimes odd lyrics, the spoken dialogue is sharp and entertaining. Not to mention the old-timey slang. Who knew that "hollow in his pork basket" meant he was hungry?

Frank Morgan is the standout among a very capable cast. His amiable bumbling makes for a fantastically comedic performance. The chemistry between the two leads, Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy (pictured), works very well, and they both have superb classical singing voices, if you like that sort of thing. As for its Oscars record, Naughty Marietta only received one other nomination besides its Best Picture nod, but it took home that prize, which was for Best Sound Recording.

1935 - Alice Adams

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending an Academy event which, for this Oscars freak, was a giddy experience, despite it being a fairly low-key affair, open to the public. In any case, I'm grateful to be living in a city that affords me the opportunity to attend such things.

As you can see from the program (pictured to the right), this was a George Stevens Lecture, the Academy's long-running series of screenings/lectures celebrating the cinematic arts (and, if I'm not mistaken, I believe the point is that it's always a George Stevens film). While waiting for the event to begin, the audience was treated to some archival footage of interviews with legendary director George Stevens and producer Pandro S. Berman, discussing some behind-the-scenes tidbits about the movie we were about to see. Then, after a brief introduction by Academy President John Bailey, we heard from the director's own son, George Stevens Jr., also a filmmaker and an important figure in the film industry himself (he founded the AFI), who gave us a general overview of his father's life and career, as well as some more stories about the evening's film. He then handed the floor to the main lecturer of the evening, writer and director Robin Swicord, a member of the Academy's Board of Governors, representing the writers branch. (Swicord was Oscar-nominated for her adaptation of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which will be covered on this blog at some point in the future.)

Swicord's speech offered an in-depth look at the themes that Stevens was exploring in his film and how relevant they remain to this day. It was a genuinely fascinating talk, full of humour and insight, despite some spoilers. Though, it's hard to complain about spoilers of a film that was released 83 years ago. Finally, Swicord introduced the film itself and we all sat back to watch one of the Best Picture contenders from 1935...

Alice Adams
Director:
George Stevens
Screenplay:
Dorothy Yost, Mortimer Offner, Jane Murfin
(based on the novel by Booth Tarkington)
Starring:
Katharine Hepburn, Fred MacMurray, Fred Stone, Evelyn Venable, Frank Albertson, Ann Shoemaker, Charles Grapewin, Hattie McDaniel
Academy Awards:
2 nominations
0 wins

The Adams family (not the creepy, kooky one) are a lower middle class family who have hit upon rough times. Mr. Adams (Stone) is lucky to still be paid for a factory job he's been unable to perform in years, due to illness. His daughter Alice (Hepburn) desperately wants to be upper class, often forced to fake it as she attends fancy society soirees. But she struggles to keep up the facade when she falls for wealthy Arthur Russell (MacMurray), who seems to remain interested in her even after becoming aware of her compromised social status.

Alice Adams is an engaging, if slightly superficial, tale of class differences in Depression-era America. Despite the desperation subtly seeping from every scene, there's a surprising amount of humour. It's a mix that works wonderfully well, making for a cinematic experience that is both moving and enjoyable. Perhaps my only complaint is the abrupt ending. While that's clearly not unusual for early Hollywood, here it seems particularly unconvincing. The implausibly hasty resolution between Mr. Adams and his boss is perhaps bad enough, but then our two protagonists suddenly set aside their differences with only a few words and a sweeping kiss, followed by The End. Interestingly, the book on which this film is based did not end the same way and instead saw Alice and Arthur go their separate ways. Hepburn and Stevens pushed hard to retain the book's more realistic ending, including a final scene showing Alice heading off to business school, but in the end, producer Pandro S. Berman got his way, making sure the lovers united for a traditional, and box-office friendly, happy ending.

That's a relatively minor quibble, though, because the film is indeed captivating, in great part due to Katharine Hepburn's tour-de-force performance. She's charmingly natural in a role that paradoxically requires a near constant tone of insincerity. I must admit, though, that the pretension was a bit grating at times, almost jeopardising our desire to see her succeed, but I suppose it only added to the character's flawed desperation. Also noteworthy is a pre-Gone With the Wind Hattie McDaniel in a drily comic turn as an incompetent maid, delivering the film's funniest performance. But it was Hepburn that claimed the film's only acting nomination. In fact, it was the film's only nomination in any other category aside from Best Picture.

Best Picture of 1946

It's always a little difficult writing a verdict when I've left so long in between the first and last film viewings of a review year because I barely remember the first film any more. Thankfully, though, this is a blog, so I can just read my posted thoughts on each film to refresh my memory. Funny how that works.

The nominees for Best Picture of 1946 are:

• The Best Years of Our Lives
• Henry V
• It's a Wonderful Life
• The Razor's Edge
• The Yearling

This shortlist is heavy on classics and, with a diverse range of subject matter, no two are particularly alike, either. From a Shakespeare adaptation to a coming-of-age drama to the ultimate feelgood Christmas flick, it's quite a mixed bag.

The Yearling was probably my least favourite, though certainly not unworthy of its recognition as a Best Picture nominee. The Razor's Edge, too, is fine but the melodrama prevents it from being at the top of my list. Third to go is Henry V. I thoroughly enjoyed the cleverness of Olivier's adaptation but there's sometimes an unfortunate language barrier to Shakespearean works that makes it difficult to remain constantly absorbed.

That leaves two and it's a close call. The Best Years of Our Lives was the Academy's pick and I enjoyed it immensely - a nice mix of drama and comedy. But ultimately, I'm siding with the picture that has justifiably become a mainstay of Christmas season. Therefore, my favourite nominee from the Best Picture race of 1946 is the utterly charming It's a Wonderful Life. 

Best Picture of 1946
Academy's choice: The Best Years of Our Lives	Matt's choice: It's a Wonderful Life

Your choice:

I'm interested to find out what your favourite was, too. Cast your vote above. As I mentioned a few blog posts ago, the trend of me starting a new year of review due to a local screening continues. Last week, I caught an event hosted by the Academy itself, which I'll discuss in my next post. Due to said screening, we'll now be shifting to a rare 12-nominee year and discussing the films of 1935.

And the nominees for Best Picture of 1935 are:

• Alice Adams
• Broadway Melody of 1936
• Captain Blood
• David Copperfield
• The Informer
• Les Misérables
• The Lives of a Bengal Lancer
• A Midsummer Night's Dream
• Mutiny on the Bounty
• Naughty Marietta
• Ruggles of Red Gap
• Top Hat

Another mixed bag. Maybe even mixier. Stay tuned...

1946 - Henry V

Well, I've got a verdict post to write, as well as the first post of the next year of review, so let's move this right along.

Our final film in the race for 1944's Best Picture is...

Henry V
Director:
Laurence Olivier
Screenplay:
Laurence Olivier, Dallas Bower, Alan Dent
(based on the play by William Shakespeare)
Starring:
Laurence Olivier, Renée Asherson, Robert Newton, Leslie Banks, Felix Aylmer, Esmond Knight, Leo Genn
Academy Awards:
4 nominations
0 wins, plus 1 Honorary Award

Young King Henry V of England (Olivier) believes that France is rightfully part of his domain, and after being teased by the French, he begins a military campaign to claim their throne. His troops successfully take Harfleur, but at Agincourt, they are vastly outnumbered. Victory will be hard won here, testing Henry's skills as a strategist, a leader, and even an orator.

Henry V begins with the clever conceit that we are actually watching a filmed version of the play being performed in Shakespeare's time. There's a rowdy audience; the actors bow after each scene; we even see what goes on backstage on occasion. The on-stage narrator (or the Chorus, as Shakespeare named him) often apologises for the inadequacy of a stage production in being able to truly represent the grandness required of the story, asking us instead to use our imaginations to see the sweeping fields of France or the extravagant court of the English King.

And here's where Olivier gets really clever. About half an hour into the film, gone are the small stage sets, along with the theatrical entrances and exits, and we suddenly find ourselves watching the same characters on location instead. No longer do we need to imagine the scenery because we can actually see it in all its Technicolor splendour. In addition, the Chorus now addresses the camera and the soliloquys are presented in voice over as if they are true internal monologues. Shakespeare knew his medium didn't entirely have sufficient means to tell this story and, in a truly masterful stroke, Olivier appropriately adapted it to a medium that did.

At the end of the film, we return to Shakespeare's stage to hear the audience applaud as the actors take their bows. This perhaps suggests an additional metaphor at play. By bookending the film with scenes from a theatrical production, Olivier is maybe offering his take on the theatre's ability to transport its audience. All the scenes in between those bookends represent how we can truly get lost in our imagination as we watch the players on stage.

And there are indeed some spectacular sequences, in particular the Battle of Agincourt. The action is dramatically staged on wide open fields with seemingly hundreds of medieval soldiers in a breathtaking melee of swords and arrows. Perhaps the only detraction from this powerful sequence is the somewhat fake-looking matte paintings in the background.

The film boasts a stellar cast of experienced Shakespearean actors, led by one of the theatre world's greatest knights, Laurence Olivier (pictured). Olivier garnered himself a Best Actor nomination from the Academy as well as one for producing a Best Picture contender. He didn't win either of those (nor did the film win its other two nominations), but the Academy bestowed a Special Award on him anyway for his "outstanding achievement as actor, producer and director in bringing Henry V to the screen".

1946 - The Yearling

This is beginning to be a bit of a pattern. I neglect the blog for several months and then I notice there's a local screening of a Best Picture nominee, so I book myself a ticket, but because the screening is of a film in a different year of review than the one I'm currently working on, I'm forced to watch a number of films in quick succession in order to complete the current year of review before going to the screening. So, here we are again.

With two films remaining in 1946's Best Picture race, here's a look at...

The Yearling
Director:
Clarence Brown
Screenplay:
Paul Osborn
(based on the novel by Marjorie Kinnan Rawling)
Starring:
Gregory Peck, Jane Wyman, Claude Jarman Jr., Chill Wills, Henry Travers, Forrest Tucker
Academy Awards:
7 nominations
2 wins

In the latter part of the 19th century, 11-year-old Jody (Jarman) lives with his parents, Penny (Peck) & Ora (Wyman), on their farm in rural Florida. As the family struggles to make ends meet, Jody longs for any kind of pet to play with. Ora, who shows little love for her son as a coping mechanism for the three other children she lost, is against the idea, but she's overruled by Penny when Jody brings home an orphaned fawn (whose mother's death Penny happens to be responsible for). The boy and the young deer grow close, but Jody struggles to keep the wild animal under control.

The first thing you notice about The Yearling is its striking Technicolor cinematography. Maybe it's because it still seems like a novelty to see colour films from the 1940s (not that they were all that rare) instead of the usual muted black-and-white tones, or maybe it's just the fact that green foliage and babbling brooks feature very prominently throughout the picture, giving it an almost nature documentary feel, but whatever the reason, it's genuinely beautiful. Indeed, the Academy must have agreed because the only two Oscars the film won (out of seven total nominations) were for Best Color Cinematography and Best Color Art Direction.

Perhaps another sign of the times is how a film with such a depressing ending was considered a "family" film. To be fair, the first two hours of the film are indeed mostly family fare, as well as quite obviously a coming-of-age story, but that finale is squarely on the darker end of the coming-of-age spectrum.

As expected for this period, most of the acting is rather superficial, especially the kids, and even more especially Claude Jarman Jr (pictured). That said, it's probably not his fault that he was directed to literally leap through the woods on several occasions and he essentially has to carry the film after all, so I suppose he does a decent enough job all things considered. The Academy certainly thought it was a noteworthy performance since they gave him the Juvenile Award for "outstanding child actor of 1946". Technically, the film itself wasn't cited so it's not officially counted as an 8th nomination, which is a little odd considering it was the only film Jarman was in that year. As Jarman's parents, Jane Wyman and Gregory Peck have some more natural moments. Peck, in particular, proves how gifted a naturalistic actor he is, much more subtle than most of his contemporaries.

And then there are the animal actors. I'm sure several different deer shared the title role and they're all adorable. They also seem to follow directions surprisingly well, which is either a testament to the trainers or the editors, probably both. An early scene also features a pretty vicious (and spectacular) fight between a bear and two dogs that made me wonder how ethical the filmmakers were, but the now familiar "no animals were harmed" disclaimer is indeed included in the end credits and, after some cursory research, it seems that American Humane began monitoring animal use in films in the early 1940s, so I guess it checks out.

Oscar Winner Predictions 2017

I was hoping to have watched a couple more 1946 movies before making this post so that I could have spent a bit more time discussing this year's Oscar race, but we'll have to make do with a quick 11th hour post instead.

I know I said it last year, but this year really has been the toughest Oscar race to predict in about as long as I can remember. Despite the fact that Best Director and the four acting categories seem like foregone conclusions, almost every other category is a toss-up. For so many categories, there are two main contenders (sometimes three) that are almost impossible to separate, including Best Picture. At the risk of repeating myself from last year, I'm really not confident of my selections here at all. We'll know in less than 24 hours whether my coin tosses paid off.

So, for those of you interested, here are my predictions for the 2017 Academy Awards. Enjoy!

Oscar Nomination Predictions 2017

With the Screen Actors Guild Awards last night (which, incidentally, Kat and I were very fortunate to attend - more on that in an upcoming post), the acting races now have very clear frontrunners. And tomorrow morning, we'll find out who is in contention as the Oscar nominations are announced. Here are my predictions on which films will see themselves shortlisted. Some are near certainties, but overall, this was a slightly tougher year to predict. We'll find out soon enough how well I did.

1946 - It's a Wonderful Life

Just over two weeks now until the Oscar nominations are announced, so let's take a quick look at how the lead acting categories are shaping up. Gary Oldman was the early frontrunner for the Best Actor prize for his transformation into Winston Churchill in Darkest Hour. However, 22-year-old Timothée Chalamet could give him a run for his money due to a star-making performance in Call Me By Your Name. He'd be the youngest winner in that category by several years if he can pull it off. Tonight's Golden Globes (which are in progress as I write this) may boost one of their chances since they're competing against each other in the Best Actor in a Drama category.

The Globes may also provide some insight into the Best Actress race, which is much more unclear at this stage. Sally Hawkins probably has the most buzz so far for her role in The Shape of Water, but Frances McDormand (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri) and Saoirse Ronan (Lady Bird) have both garnered attention, too. And you can never rule out Meryl Streep (The Post) or her British Oscar-bait counterpart, Judi Dench (Victoria & Abdul), though they probably have a more uphill battle.

Back to the 1946 Best Picture race. The next nominee is a staple of Christmas television, and even though we're already a week into the new year, I did indeed watch it (not for the first time) a few days after Christmas, so try to hang on to what's left of your festive spirit as you read my thoughts on...

It's a Wonderful Life
Director:
Frank Capra
Screenplay:
France Goodrich, Albert Hackett, Frank Capra, Jo Swerling
(based on a story by Philip Van Doren Stern)
Starring:
James Stewart, Donna Reed, Lionel Barrymore, Thomas Mitchell, Henry Travers, Beulah Bondi, Frank Faylen, Ward Bond, Gloria Grahame
Academy Awards:
5 nominations
0 wins

Christmas Eve in Bedford Falls and it seems like almost everyone in town is praying for George Bailey (Stewart) to get a lucky break. God answers those prayers by assigning a fledgling guardian angel named Clarence (Travers) to prevent George from taking his own life. In preparation, Clarence is shown a recap of all the important moments in George's life.

As a young boy, George shows his heroism and honesty. As a young man, he vows to get out of Bedford Falls and accomplish big things. But his plans are thwarted when his father unexpectedly passes away, leaving George in charge of the family's building and loan company. Through the following years, George's dreams slip further and further away, always seeming to take a back seat to his obligations.

Has there ever been a more charming movie than It's a Wonderful Life? A charming story, set in a charming town during a charming time of year with charming characters, this is feel-good cinema in its purest form, the epitome of the classic Hollywood film. Even seven decades later, it all holds up. The script is delightful, a mix of witty dialogue and heartwarming drama, wrapped up in a fantastically creative structure. Perhaps unexpectedly for a film that attempts to be so many different things, It's a Wonderful Life actually succeeds in being a well-rounded picture, finding the perfect balance of each of its elements and covering the gamut of human emotion. There's heart, there's drama, there's humour. Plus, there's some high concept fantasy, a plot device that can so often fail, but is executed perfectly here, never becoming so silly that it diminishes the dramatic realism.

It's impossible to imagine anyone but James Stewart in the role of George Bailey. As arguably the most affable movie star of all time, he embodies the selflessness and wide-eyed ambition of George wonderfully, earning himself a Best Actor Oscar nomination in the process. He's supported by a cast of wonderful actors, including Donna Reed as his supportive wife, the always delightful Thomas Mitchell as his uncle, a wonderfully slimy Lionel Barrymore as the town's rich bully, and the beautiful innocence of Henry Travers (pictured) as the rookie angel.

Along with its Picture and Actor nominations, the film garnered nods for its director Frank Capra (who had already won three Best Director Oscars by this point), as well as for its Film Editing and Sound Mixing, bringing its total nods to five. Sadly, though, this classic walked away with no wins at all.

1946 - The Razor's Edge

This year's Oscar race is heating up. Most of the critics associations have weighed in with their picks, and the Golden Globes and SAG Awards nominations have been announced as well, so a few frontrunners are emerging. Probably the surest shot at this early stage is in the Best Supporting Actor category. After an esteemed career to date, including two prior Oscar nominations, it seems like this could be Willem Dafoe's year for his performance in The Florida Project. Meanwhile, the Supporting Actress contest is shaping up to be a battle between two horrible mothers - Laurie Metcalf in Lady Bird and Allison Janney in I, Tonya. Both are almost guaranteed to earn their first Oscar nominations next month with the scales leaning towards Metcalf for the win.

And now we shift our attention back to the next 1946 Best Picture nominee...

The Razor's Edge
Director:
Edmund Goulding
Screenplay:
Lamar Trotti
(based on the novel by W. Somerset Maugham)
Starring:
Tyrone Power, Gene Tierney, John Payne, Anne Baxter, Clifton Webb, Herbert Marshall
Academy Awards:
4 nominations
1 win, for Best Supporting Actress (Baxter)

Larry Darrell (Power) returns home from World War I, lucky to be alive after a fellow soldier made the ultimate sacrifice to save him. The event has left Larry traumatised and confused, so much so that he turns down job offers in order to simply loaf around and live off his modest inheritance, something his fiancee Isabel (Tierney) can't quite comprehend. Despite not truly being on board with it, Isabel agrees to postpone their nuptials so that Larry can spend an unspecified amount of time in Paris to clear his head.

The Razor's Edge is squarely in the melodrama genre. High emotion, high stakes, high society. That said, it's captivating melodrama, so while the events are like something out of a soap opera, we remain connected to the characters and their futures. The picture begins with a whirlwind of character introductions, making it initially tough to follow. This is somewhat confounded by the fact that W. Somerset Maugham (the author of the source material) is presented as a character within the narrative, though always on the outskirts of the main action. It's an interesting plot device that works nicely in its own right, but since the audience identifies predominantly with him in the opening scenes, it's unclear at first who the actual protagonist is. Though, to be fair, even by the end of the film, none of the characters really turns out to be wholly protagonist material. As expected in melodrama, each of the characters often see-saws between likable and not.

Despite some heavy-handed dialogue (another hallmark of melodrama), I did enjoy the old-timey slang. When Isabel's uncle is trying to console her after Larry leaves, he promises her that she soon "won't care two straws for him." Later, on a different topic, he exclaims, "I don't care a row of beans." People back then sure had a long list of random, unimportant things they didn't care about.

The cast of The Razor's Edge is uniformly great, delivering cleverly nuanced performances that make us forget how melodramatic the material is. Tyrone Power, in particular, manages to avoid portraying Larry as one-dimensionally meek, despite his being existentially lost for most of the story. Instead, Power instils his character with strength and a confidence that he's got it all together, even when he clearly doesn't. Gene Tierney is also outstanding, swinging back and forth between vulnerable and selfish. And while Anne Baxter (pictured) is admittedly a little showy (not unexpected for 1946, especially in a melodrama) as the scorned alcoholic, she remains utterly watchable. I also particularly enjoyed Lucile Watson's charmingly witty and strong performance, despite a small role.

Apart from its Best Picture nod, the film was also cited for Art Direction and two supporting performances, Clifton Webb and Baxter, the latter earning the film's only Oscar.

1946 - The Best Years of Our Lives

We now come to the impetus for my recent productiveness on this blog. Last week, one of L.A.'s premier revival cinemas, The New Beverly, held a screening of the eventual winner of this year of review. I've written briefly about the New Bev before and I only wish I had the time to visit it more often. After three years in L.A., this marks only the second time I've been.

In any case, here's my take on 1946's successful Best Picture nominee...

The Best Years of Our Lives
Director:
William Wyler
Screenplay:
Robert E. Sherwood
(based on a novel by MacKinley Kantor)
Starring:
Myrna Loy, Fredric March, Dana Andrews, Teresa Wright, Virginia Mayo, Cathy O'Donnell, Hoagy Carmichael, Harold Russell
Academy Awards:
8 nominations
7 wins, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (March), Best Supporting Actor (Russell)

As World War II comes to a close, three American servicemen meet for the first time on the return trip to their hometown of Boone City. Al Stephenson (March) reluctantly returns to work at his old banking firm while attempting to reconnect with his wife, Milly (Loy). Meanwhile, Fred Derry (Andrews) struggles to find any work at all, disappointing his wife, Marie (Mayo). The pressure puts a strain on the relatively new marriage, as does Derry's falling for Stephenson's daughter, Peggy (Wright). Lastly, Homer Parrish (Russell), who lost both his hands during the war, deals with his own feelings of inadequacy.

A touching story of how returning servicemen cope when rejoining civilian life, The Best Years of Our Lives contains a healthy dose of moving drama, as expected, but it's also rich in humour. That's exactly my cup of tea, so it's fair to say I enjoyed this picture quite a bit. Granted, more modern takes on this theme, like Coming Home and Born on the Fourth of July - both of which will be covered on this blog eventually - may dig deeper, but this was the 1940s after all, so a little overly sweet melodrama was just the style of the day. Likewise, the comedy can be a bit broad and unrealistic, but it's still genuinely funny, which is the important thing. I saw the movie with what I can only assume was a room full of like-minded classic film buffs and there were several moments in which the entire audience erupted with laughter.

The film is blessed with a fantastic ensemble cast. There's really not a lemon among them. Fredric March is frequently hilarious, yet genuine when appropriate, earning himself his second Oscar for Best Actor. Myrna Loy and Teresa Wright are both delightfully cheeky, excelling at their sarcastic delivery. Kudos also to screenwriter Robert Sherwood for giving them all such witty things to say.

And then there's Harold Russell, a real-life WWII vet and amputee who was not an actor, though you might not know it because he definitely holds his own among this cast. Perhaps he's a little stiff in the really dramatic scenes, but he laps up the casual banter of his character like a pro.

Interestingly, only two years earlier, Barry Fitzgerald became the first and only actor to be nominated twice for the same performance: Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor for Going My Way. The Academy changed its rules so that could never happen again, yet two years later, they befittingly decided to bestow an honorary award onto Harold Russell for "bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans" fearing he probably wouldn't be successful in his Best Supporting Actor nomination. Lo and behold, he ended up winning the trophy, making him the only actor to actually be awarded two Oscars for the same performance. That's him pictured above with his double golden statues.

All in all, the film itself closed out Oscar night with a pretty impressive strike rate. Not including Russell's honorary award and producer Samuel Goldwyn's Thalberg award, the film won seven of its eight nominations, only missing out on Best Sound.

Best Picture of 1972

Like the previous year of review, there is one picture among these nominees that is clearly held in high regard by film buffs, film reviewers and film historians, so it's tough to look past that. Nonetheless, when making these verdicts, I try to set aside any outside influence and focus on the filmmaking, so let's see where that leads us.

The nominees for Best Picture of 1972 are:

• Cabaret
• Deliverance
• The Emigrants
• The Godfather
• Sounder

Three films in that list have continued to enjoy a place in pop culture for the last several decades. The other two are not quite as well remembered. All of them, however, are intensely dramatic in different ways, and they share a common theme: survival.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the two least remembered films were also my least favourite. Sounder had some fine moments but overall, it felt too superficial for my liking. The Emigrants was engaging on many levels, but its laboured storytelling is not my cup of tea. If the first hour was removed, it probably wouldn't have affected my understanding of the plot but might have increased my enjoyment of it.

Deliverance and Cabaret are both fiercely captivating for entirely different reasons. As well-deserving as their Best Picture nominations are, they had some stiff competition from The Godfather, a film that has become an icon of modern filmmaking. And so it is that I now officially name The Godfather as my favourite of 1972's Best Picture nominees.

Best Picture of 1972
Academy's choice: The Godfather	Matt's choice: The Godfather

Your choice:

The Godfather ranks highly in most polls (of industry and of the general public), so I'm assuming we'll see it triumph in my irrelevant poll as well, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Cast your vote above. A few days ago, I hinted at the reason for my current spate of blog posts, which was the same reason I chose 1972 as the previous year of review. Back then, it was a local screening of The Godfather. This time, it was the Best Picture winner from 1946, so we head back to the 40s again for our next year of review.

And the nominees for Best Picture of 1946 are:

• The Best Years of Our Lives
• Henry V
• It's a Wonderful Life
• The Razor's Edge
• The Yearling

Several much-loved classics in that bunch, so I'm looking forward to diving in. Stay tuned...

1972 - The Emigrants

This is one of those times when my incessant procrastination pays off. The next film of review has been unavailable in the US until early last year, so seeking it out for a viewing would have been far more difficult before then. Let that be a lesson to you all. Sometimes, if you put something off long enough, it actually becomes easier.

So, let's see what we make of this nominee from the Best Picture contest of 1972...

The Emigrants
Director:
Jan Troell
Screenplay:
Bengt Forslund, Jan Troell
(based on the novels by Vilhelm Moberg)
Starring:
Max Von Sydow, Liv Ullmann, Eddie Axberg, Allan Edwall, Monica Zetterlund, Pierre Lindstedt
Academy Awards:
5 nominations
0 wins

The Emigrants opens with a series of oddly statistical captions about the Swedish town in which the main characters live. In fact, the subtitling, in general, of the version I watched is more than a bit unprofessional. The English translations are not always grammatically correct, not to mention the frequent typos. But I digress...

In this small Swedish town in the 19th century, the Nilsson family struggles to make their farm profitable. Robert (Axberg) hits on the idea to emigrate to America to pursue a better life, so he offers to sell his share of the farm to his older brother, Karl-Oskar (Von Sydow) in order to pay for the trip. However, Karl-Oskar confides in Robert that he, too, has been considering moving to the States, so he takes the idea to his wife, Kristina (Ullmann), who is not convinced. After all, they have four children and the trip across the Atlantic is long and dangerous.

When one of their children dies due to hunger, Kristina changes her mind and the preparations begin. Joining them on the ship are Robert's friend Arvid (Lindstedt), Kristina's uncle Danjel (Edwall) along with his wife and kids, and former prostitute Ulrika (Zetterlund) and her teenage daughter. After hearing from fellow passengers about the fertile land in Minnesota, the Nilssons decide that will be their final destination, but they'll need to survive the arduous journey first.

This is not a short film. Not by a long shot. At just over three hours, it definitely has an epic feel, but the pacing is often so laboured that it sometimes feels even longer. There I was thinking Sounder was slow but in the time it took Sounder to tell its entire story, The Emigrants hadn't even started emigrating yet. Not that nothing happens. There's a fascinating story being told, but so many of the scenes include lengthy blocks of repetition or inactivity. Sometimes, something will actually happen after the silence, but often, an entire scene will go by without any dialogue or plot progression. There are, for example, several scenes devoted to someone sitting on a swing and swinging for a minute or two.

From the above description, you'd be forgiven for thinking this is one of those artsy films that eschews plot and character in favour of experimental camera techniques and metaphorical dialogue. And while there are indeed some inexplicable fast zooms, the film is, for the most part, a conventional production. However, the score remains an oddity and is mind-bogglingly inappropriate to the action taking place on screen. Thankfully, it's not all that frequent, but when there is music, it sounds like it was composed for a thriller, not an epic drama. There are literally establishing shots of benign landscapes underscored by chilling suspense music. I almost expected a goblin to jump out from behind a tree.

Nonetheless, like Sounder, The Emigrants becomes much more captivating in the second half. The scenes aboard the ship and after landing in America are still sometimes slow, but I suppose we've spent so long with these characters by that point that we can't help but be invested in what happens to them.

Despite the intermittent tedium, the cast, led by Max Von Sydow and Liv Ullmann (both pictured), are all supremely riveting in their roles, though Ullmann was the only one nominated for her performance. My pick of the bunch, however, is Monica Zetterlund's feisty portrayal of Ulrika. And in an apparent act of nepotism, Zetterlund's on-screen daughter is played by her actual daughter, Eva-Lena.

The Emigrants achieved the very rare Oscars feat of receiving both a Foreign Language Film nomination as well as a Best Picture nod, though unlike the other three films in that exclusive club - Z, Life Is Beautiful and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - The Emigrants took two Oscar ceremonies to accomplish it. Due to Academy rules, Foreign Language submissions need not have been released in the States, so The Emigrants garnered its Foreign Language nomination in 1971, when it initially played in Sweden. Then, when it was eventually released in the US in 1972, it became eligible in all the other categories. Also unlike the other three movies, which were all successful in winning the Foreign Language award plus at least one other, The Emigrants took home no Oscars at all. To cap it off, though, its sequel, The New Land, happened to be competing in the Foreign Language category in 1972, also.