2002 - The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Although my interest in soccer mostly died out after my stint in the Under 8's, I have to admit that I've still come down with a bit of World Cup fever. My parents are a little more devoted and are currently in South Africa on a tour, where they will attend all the matches featuring the Australian team. While it must have been difficult for them on Sunday to be first-hand witnesses to the Socceroos' humiliating 4-0 defeat at the hands of the German team, imagine how Kat and I felt as we watched the game at the Bohemian Beer Garden. Although the venue is technically a Czech and Slovak pub, the painted German flags on patrons' faces made it clear which team had more support. Not to mention the four rousing cheers that erupted. Yes, that's right. Four.

Today, I watched another nominee from 2002's Best Picture shortlist...

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Director:

Peter Jackson

Screenplay:

Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, Stephen Sinclair, Peter Jackson

(based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkein)

Starring:

Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, John Ryhs-Davies, Ian McKellen, Bernard Hill, Dominic Monaghan, Billy Boyd, Miranda Otto, David Wenham, Liv Tyler, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Brad Dourif, Christopher Lee, Andy Serkis

Academy Awards:

6 nominations

2 wins, including Best Visual Effects

Picking up where The Fellowship of the Ring left off, Frodo (Wood) and Samwise (Astin) continue to make their way to Mount Doom to destroy the One Ring. On their way, they encounter one of the ring's previous owners, the emaciated and bipolar Gollum (Serkis), who acts as their guide. Meanwhile, Merry (Monaghan) and Pippin (Boyd) escape the Orcs and find themselves riding a talking bearded tree named Treebeard.

But the Hobbits take a relative back seat in this instalment as the story focuses on the other surviving members of the Fellowship, the imposing man-elf-dwarf combination of Aragorn (Mortensen), Legolas (Bloom) and Gimli (Rhys-Davies). The three soldiers, with a little help from Gandalf the Wizard (McKellen), take up the task of assisting the Rohan, led by King Theoden (Hill), in defending themselves against Saruman's (Lee) army in the Battle for Helm's Deep.

There is something slightly odd about reviewing the three Lord of the Rings films separately. They were all shot simultaneously with the same key creative crew, so it seems unlikely that there would be any major differences between them, certainly in respect to the film-making process. The cinematography is still spectacular this time around, utilising New Zealand's landscapes admirably. The make-up is still remarkable, especially the Uruk-hai. And the visual effects are still mind-blowing. Thus, one is left with the differences in story and the additions to the cast.

Perhaps it's a sign of my television habits, but I was a little disappointed that The Two Towers did not begin with a voice over (by Ian McKellen, let's say) announcing, "Previously on ... The Lord of the Rings," followed by a recap. It certainly would have been helpful to me. Nonetheless, the opening does replay one sequence from the first film before the action begins in earnest.

Story-wise, The Two Towers and its predecessor hold similar ground - they could both be described as action/adventure. However, whereas The Fellowship of the Ring leaned a little towards the adventure, its sequel falls towards the action. The battles are more epic and more violent, involving a great deal more participants. Plus, this focus on action has an added bonus. It allays an issue with which the first film struggled, namely superficial dialogue. With more screen time devoted to battle sequences, we are spared some of the overly sentimental moments. They still exist, but there are fewer of them.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the amazing technological feat that is the character of Gollum (pictured). We got a taste of him in Fellowship, but here, he is something to behold. Although it is abundantly clear that he is entirely computer-generated, the exquisite detail in his facial expressions almost allows you to forget that fact. No doubt, Andy Serkis is a large part of Gollum's effectiveness.

Some of the cast from the first film are given the chance to shine a bit more in The Two Towers, particularly Dominic Monaghan, who gives us a rare glimpse of a pissed-off Hobbit. John Rhys-Davies supplies a lot of the picture's humour with short person jokes aplenty. Incidentally, he also provides the voice of Treebeard. Bernard Hill joins the main cast for this film with a moving performance as the King in an impossible predicament. He is accompanied by two fellow Australian thespians, Miranda Otto as the strong but sweet Eowen, and David Wenham as the proud Faramir. Most impressive, however, is Brad Dourif, whose sinister gazes are the embodiment of evil. Is there any other way to play a character named Grima Wormtongue?

2002 - Gangs of New York

Uncharacteristically, I failed to notice that the previous post (reviewing Chicago) was the 100th post of Matt vs. the Academy. Surely, a celebration is in order. Perhaps I could follow in the footsteps of 80s sitcoms and have a clip show, highlighting the best moments of the past 100 posts ... or not. I'm also fast nearing 100 films watched, as well. Plus, next week, this project will mark its 300th day. Meaningless milestones all around.

Last night, the next 2002 Best Picture nominee was popped into the DVD drive...

Gangs of New York

Director:

Martin Scorsese

Screenplay:

Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan

Starring:

Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz, Jim Broadbent, John C. Reilly, Henry Thomas, Liam Neeson, Brendan Gleeson

Academy Awards:

10 nominations

0 wins

New York, 1846. In the slum known as Five Points, two rival gangs prepare for a territorial battle. On one side are the American-born "Natives", led by Bill Cutting (Day-Lewis), nicknamed The Butcher for two reasons - one, he is particularly fierce when it comes to murder, and two, he is actually a butcher. Challenging the Natives is the gang of Irish immigrants called the "Dead Rabbits", led by Priest Vallon (Neeson), who is not actually a priest. The two groups viciously murder each other, culminating in Cutting's fatal stabbing of Vallon, a grisly sight witnessed by the eyes of Vallon's young son Amsterdam, who is then shipped off to an orphanage.

Sixteen years later, Amsterdam (DiCaprio), now a grown man, returns to the Five Points with vengeance on his mind and a genetically convenient change in appearance, just enough so as to make him unrecognisable to Cutting. With the help of old friend Johnny (Thomas), Amsterdam wheedles his way into Cutting's inner circle, gaining his trust and falling for one of his playthings, Jenny (Diaz). As he waits for the opportune moment to strike, the country meanwhile is in the midst of the Civil War and New York City comes closer and closer to civil unrest due to President Lincoln's new military draft, disliked by the poor immigrant population.

The opening pre-battle scenes of Gangs of New York are intensely suspenseful as they segue into a battle sequence that has all the elements of a good grunge music video. In fact, Scorsese uses a somewhat stylised technique throughout. There is a dream-like quality that pervades the picture, chiefly due to the starkly interesting design which consists primarily of browns and greys punctuated with well-placed splashes of colour. For instance, in battle, the "Natives" are all dressed in bland earth tones with a strong blue ribbon somewhere on their person. The "Dead Rabbits" are similarly attired but with red stripes featuring on their clothing. It's almost like Survivor.

Most of the publicity material for the film seems to indicate that this is a story about the birth of America, with specific regard to its violent in-fighting. Oddly, though, I felt the personal stories of the main characters were far more substantial. So much so that the idea of national legacy hardly occurred to me. Granted, there is great reference to the Civil War and to immigrants and to class struggles. Plus, the film's final images are of the Lower Manhattan skyline as it appeared through the years, dissolving chronologically from 1862 through to present day. If that weren't blatant enough, the closing credits feature a U2 song called "The Hands That Built America", followed by sound effects of modern day New York, car horns and sirens blazing. Nonetheless, the more intimate themes of personal vengeance and loyalty gained a far deeper hold on me. Sorry, Marty.

Gangs of New York also marks the first in a recent string of collaborations between Scorsese and DiCaprio, a highly successful pairing considering three of their four outings have garnered Best Picture nominations. The fourth, Shutter Island, will be eligible for next year's Oscars and could very well make it a perfect score. Scorsese's previous favourite lead actor, Robert De Niro - who, incidentally, has also appeared in three Best Picture-nominated Scorsese films - has no reason to feel dismissed, though. To some extent, he still has a presence in this film in the form of Daniel Day-Lewis (pictured) who appears to be doing an homage to the Taxi Driver star. Imagine Robert De Niro playing Tony Soprano. That's the sensation one gets when watching Day-Lewis portray Bill Cutting, squinty eyes and all.

DiCaprio is an often underrated actor due to his pretty boy persona, which I've never quite understood, considering the majority of his roles are actually quite gritty. Here, he is affecting yet restrained, especially alongside Day-Lewis' extravagant portrayal. Cameron Diaz finds her own, avoiding her regular giggly characterisation. The rest of the principal cast also deliver strong performances, including the always brilliant Brendan Gleeson, and two of my favourites, Jim Broadbent and John C. Reilly. And keep an eye out for a cameo from Scorsese himself, appearing very briefly as an upper class patriarch.

2002 - Chicago

The new poll to decide Matt vs. the Academy's next year of review is up. Five different years from the 1940s to choose from. One of them has ten nominees, all the others have five.

Meanwhile, let's get cracking on the nominees from 2002. Yesterday, I had the occasion to watch the first of the contenders for Best Picture that year...

Chicago

Director:

Rob Marshall

Screenplay:

Bill Condon

(based on the stage musical by Kander & Ebb)

Starring:

Renée Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Richard Gere, Queen Latifah, John C. Reilly

Academy Awards:

13 nominations

6 wins, including Best Picture and Best Supporting Actress (Zeta-Jones)

Chicago, 1927. Roxie Hart (Zellweger) is bored with her meek husband Amos (Reilly) and dreams of fame as a vaudeville star. She begins an affair with a man who promises her important introductions, but when he admits that he has no connections, she impulsively murders him. This crime of passion lands her in jail, where she awaits her trial. In prison, she meets her idol Velma Kelly (Zeta-Jones), who happens to also be a murderess, just with a lot more press. Velma's unscrupulous lawyer Billy Flynn (Gere) takes on Roxie's case as well, promising to make her a star in the process. As the film's poster proclaims, "If you can't be famous, be infamous."

There is an inevitable oddity in characters randomly bursting into song, a fate applicable to most musicals. However, Chicago manages to get around this by staging all of the musical numbers as inner thoughts or fantasies, thereby allowing the drama to unfold a tad more naturalistically. It is a very effective convention, cleverly employed so as to combine theatrical extravaganza with cinematic intimacy. And Chicago is a big, brassy, theatrical show, clearly suited for a big stage, so Rob Marshall is to be commended for his extremely creative direction, taking every advantage of his medium.

From the outset, Chicago promises to be a toe-tapping and sexy picture, maintaining its raunchy energy right to the final frame. The imaginative choreography (also by Rob Marshall) is spectacular to witness. In one number, Renée Zellweger literally walks in mid-air, her legs held up by male dancers, while in another number, female dancers inventively shape themselves into a car that is "driven" by Richard Gere. These stunning visual elements are complemented by the equally stunning design (costume, production and lighting).

The story uses the circus as a recurring theme to great effect. One song sees Flynn act as ventriloquist to Roxie's dummy (pictured), representing his puppetry of her image. Another sees Andy singing as a sad clown. Most poignantly, the hanging of one of the female inmates is inter-cut with a high-diving routine. The whole metaphor is summed up nicely by Flynn's rendition of Razzle Dazzle, explaining how the world loves a spectacle. It is this theme of fame and attention that is most prevalent in the script. Roxie just wants her fifteen minutes of fame, but at what cost?

Catherine Zeta-Jones won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her sultry portrayal of Velma Kelly. Three other cast members were also nominated for awards, namely Zellweger, Latifah and Reilly, all entertaining performances. Also impressive in smaller roles are Lucy Liu, Taye Diggs and Christine Baranski. For Grey's Anatomy fans with very keen eyesight, Sara Ramirez appears in the dancing ensemble.

The film itself was the first musical to take out Best Picture since Oliver! in 1968, a feat that could partly explain the return in popularity of the musical film (even if most of the recent film musicals have been adaptations of Broadway shows). And despite all the songs from the stage version being ineligible for Best Original Song, composer John Kander and lyricist Fred Ebb were nominated for their collaboration on I Move On, a new song written specifically for the film, albeit only heard during the closing credits.

Best Picture of 1950

As I venture further and further into this project, I am consistently blown away by the enormous quality of film-making that I am experiencing. 1950 is certainly no exception. Another year filled with spectacular cinema, including a number of fine classics.

The nominees for Best Picture of 1950 are:

• All About Eve
• Born Yesterday
• Father of the Bride
• King Solomon's Mines
• Sunset Boulevard

It's an entirely unfair consequence of comparing films of different genres, but if they are each of similar artistic and creative quality, the drama will more often than not emerge as superior to the comedy ... or the action or the science fiction or the western or the adventure ... and the list goes on. I suppose it is the drama's greater potential for emotional stimulation. Other genres thrill and amuse and generally entertain, but at the end of the day, powerful subject matter tends to more effectively stick in the audience's minds. Like I said, entirely unfair. (It even occurs within sub-genres of the drama category. Just look at how successful epic dramas have been with the Academy.)

Three of 1950's Best Picture nominees fall prey to this unfortunate disadvantage. They are immensely enjoyable films, accomplished examples of their respective genres, but they are overshadowed by the other two nominees for no other reason than they are not dramas. King Solomon's Mines is an exhilarating adventure. Born Yesterday is a whimsical comedy. Father of the Bride has its moments of poignancy, but is still at its heart a comedy, and a delightfully charming one at that.

All three are solidly entertaining films that find themselves up against two dramatic pictures that have both since become classics - All About Eve and Sunset Boulevard. I bounced back and forth between these two intensely personal and moving films. The former won the Academy's top honour, but I eventually came down on the side of the latter. So, I now officially name Sunset Boulevard my favourite of 1950's Best Picture nominees.

Best Picture of 1950
Academy's choice: All About Eve	Matt's choice: Sunset Boulevard

Your choice:

Vote for your own favourite with the poll above. Next up, we will be travelling to a more recent era to take a look at Oscar's picks from 2002.

And the nominees for Best Picture of 2002 are:

• Chicago
• Gangs of New York
• The Hours
• The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
• The Pianist

Another diverse bunch to sink our teeth into.

1950 - Born Yesterday

Last week marked one year since Kat and I left our home in Sydney to try our luck in the Big Apple. The opportunities for an actor in New York are certainly greater than back home and these past twelve months have definitely brought some great opportunities my way. But this week, in an ironic twist of fate, my biggest opportunity yet came knocking ... via my Australian agent. It appears the Australian casting director of The Hobbit wanted to see me for a role. The wonders of the modern age allowed me to record my own audition here in New York and send it back to them online. Now we wait...

And considering the accolades received by The Lord of the Rings trilogy, it's a fairly safe bet to assume that The Hobbit will also garner a Best Picture nomination in the year of its release. If so, and if I manage to score a role in it, then this project will have come full self-referential circle.

This morning, I rounded out the 1950 Best Picture nominees with a viewing of...

Born Yesterday

Director:

George Cukor

Screenplay:

Albert Mannheimer

(based on the play by Garson Kanin)

Starring:

Judy Holliday, Broderick Crawford, William Holden

Academy Awards:

5 nominations

1 win, for Best Actress (Holliday)

Cranky and corrupt millionaire Harry Brock (Crawford) arrives in Washington to broker a shady deal with a congressman. Along for the ride is his fiancée Billie Dawn (Holliday), an ex-chorus girl with the social graces and intelligence of a lamp-post. In order to prevent any embarrassing incidents, Brock hires local journalist Paul Verrall (Holden) to give her some learnin'. But Billie's newfound knowledge causes problems for Brock when she begins to question his business activities.

Along with its fellow Best Picture nominee Father of the Bride, Born Yesterday is a pleasantly clever comedy. It hits all the right notes - witty dialogue, strong characters, some romance, a little drama and plenty of laughs. It is, however, quite clear that this film's source material is a play, perhaps more so than other stage adaptations. The vast majority of the story takes place in the same suite, containing several lengthy scenes of dialogue. Still, none of that really detracts from the film's enjoyment, thanks mostly to one Judy Holliday.

After originating the role on Broadway, Holliday (pictured) absolutely shines here, bringing to life one of the quirkiest characters ever written. She manages to successfully avoid caricature by imbuing Billie with great sincerity despite her hilarious stupidity. Such superb comic timing and so incredibly endearing. For her efforts, she took home the Oscar for Best Actress, beating out two classic screen performances by Bette Davis and Gloria Swanson. That's no mean feat and, for my money, I think she earned it.

Broderick Crawford, fresh from his own Oscar win the year before, leans a bit more towards caricature in his performance as the temperamental tycoon. Then again, all that blustering does suit the character and, when you think about it, the audience isn't supposed to like him very much anyway, so mission accomplished. William Holden rounds out the starring trio with a subtle portrayal of Paul, the only normal man amongst a band of crazies. The swift way in which he falls for Billie is a little tough to buy, but slow romances are not common on the big screen, especially in the olden days, so we'll let that slide.