1937 - Lost Horizon

Less than a week now until the 82nd Academy Awards ceremony, so allow me these musings on how things may turn out.

The four acting awards, as in most previous years, are relatively easy to predict, the supporting categories especially. Christoph Waltz and Mo'Nique are all but locks for Inglourious Basterds and Precious respectively. Jeff Bridges is definitely leading the game for Best Actor. And Sandra Bullock currently holds the favourite spot for Best Actress, but don't be surprised if that goes a different way. If there's going to be an upset, this is where it will be.

The screenplay awards are also fairly clear. Up In The Air seems to have Adapted Screenplay in the bag, and I suspect The Hurt Locker will edge out Inglourious Basterds for the Original Screenplay gong.

Best Director and Best Picture are perhaps a little trickier. The media is certainly touting the competition between ex-spouses James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow for the director's award, and their respective films, Avatar and The Hurt Locker, also seem pitted against each other for Best Picture. The Academy's long history certainly indicates that one film is likely to win both these awards, but recently (over the last decade and a half, say) there has been a proportionally significant number of years in which that has not been the case - 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005. So, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Kathryn Bigelow will become the first female Best Director winner, while Avatar will take home the Best Picture prize. Brave prediction, I know. Let's see how it pans out.

Today, I watched another 1937 Best Picture nominee. I was going to comment that, with this viewing, I have culled the list down to 400 films remaining, but that doesn't take into account the current crop of contenders. Once this year's Oscars are in the past, I shall update the tally and the nominee list. For now, though, here are my thoughts on...

Lost Horizon

Director:

Frank Capra

Screenplay:

Robert Riskin

(based on the novel by James Hilton)

Starring:

Ronald Colman, Jane Wyatt, Edward Everett Horton, John Howard, Thomas Mitchell, H.B. Warner, Sam Jaffe

Academy Awards:

7 nominations

2 wins, including Best Art Direction

After its initial release in 1937, Lost Horizon went through some changes, losing several minutes of its running time by the time of its re-release some years later. Fortunately, some film restoration do-gooders set themselves the task of restoring the film to its original length. Unfortunately, there were seven minutes of footage that eluded them, although they did manage to find the film's entire audio track. Thus, in the current DVD release that I viewed, there are a couple of scenes which have been uniquely recreated using the original sound which is played over still images that were made for the film's publicity. The result is surprisingly not as unusual as you might imagine. Not completely seamless, obviously, but neither is it too distracting.

The story begins with British diplomat Robert Conway (Colman) attempting to evacuate several Westerners from war-torn China. Unfortunately, he and four others find themselves on a hijacked plane, which eventually crash lands somewhere in the icy Himalayas, killing their kidnapper/pilot. Fearing for their survival, they are fortuitously met by a mysterious man named Chang (Warner), who leads them to an idyllic village that is somehow immune to the surrounding meteorology. Shangri-La, as it is known by its inhabitants, is eternally warm and pleasant, and nobody there grows old. While Conway settles in, his four companions have a bit more trouble acclimating, especially Conway's brother (Howard), who suspects that all is not what it seems.

Lost Horizon's first twenty minutes or so are utterly captivating. From the urgency of the opening scene at the Chinese airport, through the suspenseful flight and ensuing crash, we are treated to some brilliant story-telling. The ending, too, is full of intrigue and mystery. And while the in-between is not dreary, per se, there is a definite saggy feeling to the film's middle act. The suspense and mystery are replaced by a kind of fantasy - men can live to 200 years old, it never snows despite the geography and everybody is "more than moderately happy." It's the utopian existence that we all wish for but know can never really be. A self-sufficient society in which there is no crime or sadness or dissatisfaction. A Shangri-La, if you will.

While I have no problem at all with imaginatively far-fetched stories (I'm a big fan of the science fiction genre, for instance), I've always been slightly put off by the idea that blind faith is a virtue. And Lost Horizon seems to send the message that, when you have no proof, but it feels right, then you should go ahead and accept it. One character in the world outside of Shangri-La sums it up by commenting, "I believe it because I want to believe it." Really? Is that a healthy way to decide what's real? I recognise, of course, that being rational and scientific is simply not as romantic and, therefore, not as interesting to watch, but there's no need to make belief in magic seem virtuous. If this makes me sound like a crotchety old grumpy-boots, so be it.

Despite those themes, I actually did enjoy Lost Horizon a great deal, mostly due to the aforementioned suspense. Ronald Colman delivers a fine performance, although he perhaps makes Conway too calm - nothing seems to bother him very much at all. Jane Wyatt is adorable as Conway's love interest, Sondra. While effective as the 200-year-old High Lama, Sam Jaffe's missing teeth and wide-eyed gaze occasionally make him seem horror-movie crazy. And reliable supporting actor Thomas Mitchell rolls out another first-class portrayal as embezzler Barnard.

1937 - The Good Earth

New York is once again enveloped by a snowstorm, and as it stretches into its second day of near constant snowfall, what better way to pass the time indoors than watching movie outtakes. I stumbled across a fascinating collection of classic bloopers that Warner Brothers created on a yearly basis for about a decade or so. It is somehow reassuring to know that even the greats like Humphrey Bogart and Bette Davis and James Cagney screwed up now and then as well. It is also abundantly clear that "Nuts!" was the curse word of the time.

P.S. Don't forget to vote for which early 1970s year we should cover next. Poll is on the right.

Yesterday began the journey into the ten-deep set of nominees involved in the battle for Best Picture of 1937...

The Good Earth
Director:
Sidney Franklin
Screenplay:
Talbot Jennings, Tess Slesinger & Claudine West
(based on the novel by Pearl S. Buck)
Starring:
Paul Muni, Luise Rainer, Walter Connolly, Tilly Losch, Charley Grapewin
Academy Awards:
5 nominations
2 wins, including Best Actress (Rainer)

Wang Lung (Muni) is but a simple Chinese farmer. He weds ex-slave O-Lan (Rainer) and the two carve out a living on their farm, raising three children along the way. Famine forces them to move to the big city to find work. But when O-Lan comes into some unexpected wealth, Lung begins to lose sight of what is truly important.

The first thing that smacks you in the face about The Good Earth is that, for a film that purports to be a celebration of Chinese heritage and Chinese people, it sure has a lot of white people in it. Every character in the film is Chinese and yet the main cast consists of the least Asian people imaginable. As Lung's father, Charley Grapewin (most famous for playing Dorothy's Uncle Henry in The Wizard of Oz) seems far more suited to portraying old codgers in Westerns. And both of Lung's wives sport European accents (which I guess is at least geographically closer to Asia than the Old West). Plus, and I can't be certain, but I think Paul Muni is attempting a Chinese accent. If he is, it's a horribly unsuccessful attempt.

The impressive cinematography and editing (both Oscar-nominated, the former winning) have a more modern sensibility than the film's 1937 release date might suggest. Despite the inherent implausibility of the film as a genuinely Chinese tale, director Sidney Franklin and his film-making collaborators, through their innovative style, create some breathtakingly effective sequences. Most notable is the looting of the city, which is followed by a suspenseful scene involving O-Lan's attempt to avoid a firing squad. Also thrilling is the locust plague, complete with several close-ups of the spindly critters. Not for the squeamish.

Paul Muni's performance is oddly immature. In fact, at times, he appears to be a simple-minded buffoon, especially when he laughs hysterically ... which he does a lot. Luise Rainer, on the other hand, is touching as O-Lan, winning the second of her back-to-back Best Actress awards. Despite that double win (her only two nominations, I might add), she has remained a far lesser-known actress than her contemporaries, which goes to show that Oscar isn't everything. It certainly hasn't affected her longevity, though, as she turned 100 years old last month, making her the oldest surviving Oscar winner.

Best Picture of 1981

The last few verdicts have proved to be simpler decisions than most and that pattern continues with 1981's evaluation. One clear favourite emerged in my estimation despite some commendable competition.

The nominees for Best Picture of 1981 are:

• Atlantic City
• Chariots of Fire
• On Golden Pond
• Raiders of the Lost Ark
• Reds

Right off the bat, it is easy for me to remove Atlantic City from the running. Mostly because it just wasn't my cup of tea ... or any other beverage, for that matter. I don't really know what it was. On Golden Pond is next to go. While it contains much that is praise-worthy, its melodramatic tendencies kept me at a distance. To continue the earlier analogy, it may have been my cup of tea, but someone just put too many lumps of sugar in it.

Being the well-crafted film that it is, it is easy to see why the Academy selected it as their winner. And although it is difficult to find specific fault with Chariots of Fire, there was nonetheless something undefined missing - not a particularly constructive piece of criticism, I know - so I am compelled to say goodbye to those slow-motion runners also. A nice cup of tea, but perhaps not quite enough milk ... or maybe honey.

The most action-packed and overtly entertaining of the five, Raiders of the Lost Ark comes in a close second. Pure spectacle from the start, but the conclusion lacked a certain substance. To switch to a different hot drink: Raiders is like drinking an amazing hot chocolate, but discovering that there are no delicious gobs of gooey chocolate to slurp at the bottom of the cup. That's the best part!

That leaves us with Reds, Warren Beatty's intelligent exploration of communism in America. It was a relatively easy choice for me. Reds moved me far more than any of its competitors with its witty script and fine performances. Hence, it receives the Matt vs. the Academy stamp of approval. A spectacular cup of tea, even if you don't like tea.

Best Picture of 1981
Academy's choice: Chariots of Fire	Matt's choice: Reds

Your choice:

Vote for your own favourite with the poll above. Next up on Matt vs. the Academy, we will be taking a look at 1937, a year of ten nominees. Appropriate, considering this year's ceremony (in a little under two weeks) will feature the return of the ten-way Best Picture race.

And the nominees for Best Picture of 1937 are:

• The Awful Truth
• Captains Courageous
• Dead End
• The Good Earth
• In Old Chicago
• The Life of Emile Zola
• Lost Horizon
• One Hundred Men and a Girl
• Stage Door
• A Star Is Born

Also, over the next few posts leading up to the Oscars show, I will weigh in on my picks for the awards.

1981 - On Golden Pond

Matt vs. the Academy's next year of review seems like a foregone conclusion, but there's still time for a late rush of voting, so make your voice heard in the poll on the right.

In the meantime, let me conclude my summation of the 1981 Best Picture nominees with my thoughts on...

On Golden Pond

Director:

Mark Rydell

Screenplay:

Ernest Thompson

(based on his play)

Starring:

Katharine Hepburn, Henry Fonda, Jane Fonda, Doug McKeon, Dabney Coleman

Academy Awards:

10 nominations

3 wins, including Best Actor (Henry Fonda) and Best Actress (Hepburn)

Elderly couple Norman (Henry Fonda) and Ethel Thayer (Hepburn) spend their summers in a lake house on Golden Pond. This year, their daughter Chelsea (Jane Fonda) visits with her new beau Bill (Coleman) and his son Billy (McKeon). When Chelsea and Bill leave to travel on their own, Billy is left in the care of the aging duo. Estranged with his own child, Norman at first has difficulty bonding with the boy, but soon learns to let loose.

Considering the cast's pedigree, I really wanted to like On Golden Pond. Unfortunately, my overall impression of it is of a superficial melodrama. There are occasional moments of wit and poignancy but they are just too occasional to outweigh the overwhelming sweetness.

The fault, as I see it, is mostly in Mark Rydell's direction. Too much cheese. Everything is just a little overdone. Despite witty dialogue, the script is often made to sound like a soap opera. Despite naturalistic performances, the relationships between the characters are mostly clichéd and unreal. Despite beautiful cinematography, some wordless sequences are reminiscent of the background montages on a karaoke machine. Despite evocative themes, the score is overproduced and used far too often. This musical diarrhea is particularly evident during the scene in which Norman loses his way in the woods. The use of dramatic suspense music borders on parody.

The main conflict in the story is the strained relationship between father and daughter and, to be honest, I just didn't buy it, which is especially troubling considering that Henry and Jane (real life father and daughter) were said to have had a similar relationship. There is plenty of talk within the script that portrays Norman as a cantankerous curmudgeon, yet instead of coming across as emotionally distant, he just seemed like a lovable old fuddy-duddy to me. Sure, he was sarcastic and a bit grumpy, but I never took his grouchiness too seriously. It just seemed like he was playing around. And yet, everyone around him was positive he was nasty and aloof.

None of this is in any way a criticism of Henry Fonda's performance. He is absolutely delightful. But it's almost as if he's in a different movie than the other characters. Katharine Hepburn, too, is a pleasure to watch. She and Henry both won Oscars for their roles here and I certainly can't begrudge them that. And for all my quibbling, their final scene together is genuinely touching, proving that the film is not completely without merit. Jane Fonda is surprisingly the most artificial, as is her 80s hair. And I was particularly impressed with Dabney Coleman, delivering an intelligent and vulnerable performance.

1981 - Raiders of the Lost Ark

It's no secret that I'm a film buff. I've been a fan of movies for as long as I can remember. When browsing through my local video store as a teenager, I often avoided the new releases, choosing instead to scour the other shelves for classic films or those must-see pictures. For a while, I took great advantage of their 10 weeklies for $10 deal. Sometimes, I would select a director and rent as many of his films as they had in stock. My knowledge of Alfred Hitchcock's and Woody Allen's bodies of work is directly due to such proceedings. In fact, in a precursor to Matt vs. the Academy, I attempted to view every film that had been awarded the Best Picture Oscar, succeeding in watching all but six winners, a state of affairs that will obviously be remedied upon this project's conclusion.

But along with my love of movies, I'm also fascinated by the process of making movies. I am simply enamoured with all those behind-the-scenes documentaries and audio commentaries and so on. Hence, I was thoroughly enthralled by my visit today to the Museum of Moving Image here in New York. There are fine exhibits explaining all the different departments involved in putting a film together, from writing to editing and everything in between. Plus, scattered throughout the museum are piles of movie memorabilia, including a miniature from Blade Runner, Robin Williams' Mrs. Doubtfire costume, a cast of Al Pacino's face, a shooting script from Citizen Kane and the Chewbacca head that Peter Mayhew wore, amongst many other things. As you can imagine, I was like a kid in a toy store. It really reminded me of the magic of movies.

Last night, I watched one of the few action blockbusters to be nominated for Best Picture, this one from 1981...

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Director:

Steven Spielberg

Screenplay:

Lawrence Kasdan

(story by George Lucas and Philip Kaufman)

Starring:

Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, Paul Freeman, Ronald Lacey, John Rhys-Davies, Denholm Elliott

Academy Awards:

9 nominations

5 wins, including Best Visual Effects

It almost seems irrelevant to add to the millions of words that have been written about Indiana Jones. The phenomenon began with Raiders of the Lost Ark and it is this first instalment that is generally favoured by critics and fans alike. Consequently, it has achieved such renown that it is far more important than anything I could ever write. Then again, I'm not narcissistic enough to believe that any of my humble reviews ever outshine the objects of their opinions, but in this case, considering the film's blockbuster status, my review may not even shine at all.

Not that you need to be reminded of its story, but in the interests of consistency, here's a quick recap. It's 1936 and archaeologist Indiana Jones (Ford) is sent by US Army Intelligence to procure the much sought after Ark of the Covenant. His ex-lover Marion Ravenwood (Allen) is in possession of an artifact that holds the key to the Ark's location but rival French archaeologist René Belloq (Freeman) and a bunch of Nazis will stop at nothing to find the Ark first.

There is simply no doubt that Raiders of the Lost Ark is pure escapism. With a rugged leading man, a feisty love interest, a trusty sidekick and a scheming foreign villain, you know you're in action/adventure territory. No more than five or ten minutes go by in between action scenes and there is enough adventure and romance to satisfy even the most die-hard fan of the genre.

The bulk of the film's entertainment is, of course, embodied in the character of Indiana Jones - a rugged adventurer with the perfect balance of determination and sarcasm. He is just so darn lovable, mostly because he is anything but invincible. In fact, he spends a vast majority of the film in situations where he has no control. At every turn, he seems to bungle along with little clue as to what he's doing, yet somehow he heroically finds his way out of every sticky situation with a delightful sense of humour ... And the audience cheers.

The remarkable John Williams delivers another stirringly memorable score capturing the heroism of the story. I couldn't help but notice, however, the uncanny similarity to elements of his even more memorable score for Star Wars. Granted, every composer has his own distinct style, and perhaps none is more distinct than John Williams, but there were phrases in this orchestration that almost seemed like note for note reproductions.

So rare is it that an action film is recognised by the Academy in the Best Picture category that I am hesitant to discuss the film's flaws. While Raiders is entertaining and adrenalin-pumping, there is little in the way of an emotional journey for the main character. He doesn't really learn anything or grow as a human being. Nor is he positively involved in the film's conclusion which is slightly unsatisfying. His attempts to recapture the Ark from Belloq initially fail and then, when the bad guys are all supernaturally disintegrated (which includes the truly spectacular melting face effect), Indy gains the Ark by default. Even then, when he delivers it to the Army guys, he doesn't even get the satisfaction of seeing it displayed in a museum as he desired. Everything just happens around him without his input ... apart from the fight scenes, of course. He's good at that.

Harrison Ford adopts his role with great confidence, bringing out Indy's exasperated wit marvellously. Karen Allen as the spunky Marion is either annoying or brilliant, I can't decide which. Also worth noting are Paul Freeman, who supplies a dry strength to the sinister Belloq, and John Rhys-Davies, whose jolly Sallah is a nice counterpoint to his irascible Gimli in a more recent blockbuster franchise. And that's a young Alfred Molina making his film debut alongside Indy in the opening Peruvian jungle adventure.