1935 - David Copperfield

2020 is almost over and, boy, has it been a doozy. Australia is handling the pandemic considerably well at this moment in time, though I realise that's not the case in a lot of other places around the world, so it really gives new meaning to the phrase "the lucky country". It's all the more poignant considering the fact that up until just a few months prior to the outbreak, I was a resident of California, a region that sadly does not seem to be faring as well. But with vaccines beginning to be rolled out in a few countries, let's hope that 2021 will allow us to return to some semblance of normal.

In the meantime, I've checked out another nominee from the 1935 Best Picture contest...


David Copperfield
Director:
George Cukor
Screenplay:
Hugh Walpole, Howard Estabrook, Lenore J. Coffee
(based on the novel by Charles Dickens)
Starring:
Frank Lawton, Freddie Bartholomew, W.C. Fields, Lionel Barrymore, Madge Evans, Maureen O'Sullivan, Edna May Oliver, Lewis Stone, Elizabeth Allan, Roland Young, Basil Rathbone 
Academy Awards:
3 nominations
0 wins

Born after his father's death, young David Copperfield (Bartholomew) lives with his flighty mother (Allan) until she decides to get remarried to the less-than-friendly Mr. Murdstone (Rathbone). Soon, David's mother passes away, too, so Murdstone sends the newly orphaned boy away to London, but his adventures don't stop there. He travels from place to place, meeting various characters and, as an adult (Lawton), continues his exploits, experiencing love, loss and laughter.

Perhaps shamefully, I've never read Dickens' book so was mostly unfamiliar with the story. Ironically, I still don't feel all that clear on the story even after watching this adaptation. I mean, it's not that it's hard to follow at all, but the plot moves so quickly that it feels like we're just getting highlights. David moves from one period in his life to another, meeting new people and then saying goodbye to them just as quickly. I know, I know, this has become a common critique of mine about novel adaptations, particularly in early Hollywood, where it seems screenwriters were afraid to leave anything out when adapting a long piece of literature, resulting in relationships and scenarios not given the time they need for growth in order to feel genuine. With that in mind, it seems there has been no shortage of film and TV adaptations of varying lengths of Dickens' classic (including a mini-series with a pre-Harry Potter Daniel Radcliffe as the young David). I would think, however, in these days of peak television, this story would make a fine limited series, allowing an entire episode to explore each plot point, instead of the fifteen minutes or so that this version affords. But I digress...

There is no doubt this is melodrama. Not just the performances, but a lot of the craft feels overly theatrical, too. For instance, after walking through a fierce storm, young David's clothes are suddenly and strategically ripped in a very aesthetic fashion. Shortly after that sequence, in place of smelling salts, David is offered two nondescript bottles, each with a large novelty label: Salad Dressing and, somewhat inexplicably, Anchovy Sauce.

It's not all hopeless, though. In fact, many of the short snippets of story are indeed entertaining, a testament to George Cukor's direction. Though, I suppose if I'm going to credit the director for the captivating segments, I must also hold him at least partially accountable for the broad caricatures that are most of the performances. Frank Lawton as the adult David is eternally happy and kind in a stereotypical way, which I suppose helps create a feel-good film, but his character just comes off as uninteresting. On the other end of the interesting spectrum are two actors worth mentioning: Roland Young (pictured on the right, with Lawton and W.C. Fields) is just the right amount of conniving as Uriah Heep, and Lennox Pawle is a breath of fresh comedy as the not-quite-all-there Mr. Dick. Pawle's performance is delightfully affable in its absurdity with an uncanny resemblance to both the appearance and slapstick style of Chris Farley, only slightly less erratic. Ultimately, the picture received only two other nominations beside its Best Picture nod - one for Editing and another in the now-defunct Assistant Director category. But on Oscar night, it finished empty-handed.

1935 - Mutiny on the Bounty

With so much going on in the world right now, this silly little movie blog seems somewhat insignificant (even more insignificant than it did before, if that's possible), but maybe it'll be a welcome distraction for somebody. And with all the big film releases getting delayed again and again, next year's Oscars may be a little light on eligible content if things don't pick up soon, so maybe reading about Oscar history will be all that's left. In any case, with the next Academy Awards ceremony shifted back a couple of months, I'll see if I can catch up a bit by getting a few more of these reviews done before then.

So, here are my thoughts on the eventual Best Picture winner from 1935...

Mutiny on the Bounty
Director:
Frank Lloyd
Screenplay:
Talbot Jennings, Jules Furthman, Carey Wilson

(based on the novel by Charles Nordhoff and James Norman Hall)
Starring:
Charles Laughton, Clark Gable, Franchot Tone, Herbert Mundin, Eddie Quillan, Dudley Digges, Donald Crisp, Movita, Mamo
Academy Awards:
8 nominations
1 win, for Best Picture

The HMS Bounty leaves 18th century England's shores on a two-year mission to Tahiti. Serving as the ship's captain is the tyrannical William Bligh (Laughton), famed for issuing inhumane and often unjust punishments to his crew. His lieutenant, the kind Fletcher Christian (Gable), finds himself at odds with Bligh on several occasions, leading to an eventual ... well, take another look at the film's title.

For its era, Mutiny on the Bounty contains some epic production values. While there are still many obvious studio sets with an ocean image merely projected onto the background, there are just as many shots of actual ships on the actual ocean. Similarly, while much of the action was shot along the Californian coastline, the production also utilised Tahiti itself for some scenes.

Historically speaking, it seems the film hits all the major plot points in a relatively accurate fashion, though from my admittedly brief research, it's unclear whether Captain Bligh was truly as horrible as he is portrayed here. Likewise, the real Fletcher Christian may not have been as charming and compassionate as Clark Gable. And while it's true that Christian married a native Tahitian woman, it seems unlikely the courtship was the love-at-first-sight romance presented in this film. This was the height of British colonialism, after all. Still, being a Hollywood movie, there had to be a love interest, so there was no way the studio would have left that part out, but considering the bulk of the movie consists of a bunch of men confined together at sea for months on end, there was limited opportunity for a leading lady. As such, the relationship between Christian and Maimiti is glossed over quite considerably.

Comprising mostly British characters, it's not surprising the film's cast includes a decent number of British actors, led by Charles Laughton, who nails the pompous, heartless megalomaniac. Clark Gable (pictured with Laughton) and Franchot Tone, on the other hand, don't even attempt British accents, though at least they both speak with a theatrically eloquent American sound. And if you look very closely at the ship's crew, you might catch two unexpected faces. Future star David Niven appears as an uncredited extra, as does James Cagney, who was already well-known at the time, but apparently sweet talked his way into the background one day when he unintentionally stumbled across the set.

Mutiny on the Bounty is one of only three films (along with The Broadway Melody and Grand Hotel) to boast Best Picture as its sole Oscar win. It also holds the record for the most Best Actor nominations for a single film with Laughton, Gable and Tone all competing in the same category due to the fact that the Supporting Actor category didn't exist yet. Indeed, it's entirely possible the supporting awards were introduced (only one year later) as a result of this film's domination of the leading category.

1935 - Top Hat

I'm ba-aack!

First, let me gloat about my Oscar predictions from this year. I correctly picked 21 of the 24 winners, the best result I've ever achieved in the more than two decades I've been making predictions. I only missed Sound Editing and the two big ones, Director and Picture. Perhaps the most miraculous part, though, is that I managed to ace all the short film categories!

Now, after the longest period of inactivity (not counting Oscar predictions) in this blog's history, I've returned with a new review. And a lot has happened since my last post almost two years ago. The biggest of those happenings is that I said goodbye to Los Angeles late last year and moved the family back to Sydney. Though, as a dual Australian-US citizen, I'll still travel back to LA a couple of times a year for my career, so it's not a permanent goodbye.

In fact, I was there a couple of weeks ago right before everything got serious in the world. Within a few days, the entertainment industry all but shut down, so I cut my intended trip short and returned to Australia, just in time it seems. A 14-day self-isolation imposed on all returning international travellers had already come into effect by the time I arrived, so with not much else to do, it was the perfect opportunity to watch the next film for this blog. I don't expect it will continue like that, though, because now the kids are staying home from school, meaning the days are full for me once more.

Before we get to the review, there's one piece of exciting news that I've been saving for some time. I had discovered this a while back, but wanted to wait for this film's review to bring it up. Through a genealogy site, I found out that I'm (distantly) related to none other than Frederick Austerlitz, better known as Fred Astaire! We're 11th cousins, to be precise. Our common Czech ancestry dates back to the 17th century, where we apparently share great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents.

So at long last, let's pick back up where we left off with yet another musical from the Best Picture race of 1935...


Top Hat
Director:
Mark Sandrich
Screenplay:
Allan Scott, Dwight Taylor
Starring:
Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, Edward Everett Horton, Erik Rhodes, Eric Blore, Helen Broderick
Academy Awards:
4 nominations
0 wins

American dancer Jerry Travers (Astaire) arrives in London in preparation for producer Horace Hardwick's (Horton) next big show. At his hotel, Jerry loses himself in a tap dance, oblivious to how noisy it is for society girl Dale Tremont (Rogers), who is trying to sleep in the room directly below. The two meet cute and Jerry begins his romantic pursuit of Dale, hindered by the fact that Dale thinks he's the married Horace.

Top Hat is a wonderful example of the big budget musical of the 1930s. Snappy tunes from the incomparable Irving Berlin - including a bunch of time-tested classics like "Top Hat, White Tie and Tails" and "Cheek to Cheek" - are complemented by some snappy tap dancing. In fact, as one would expect from a Fred Astaire flick, there's an abundance of tap numbers, but they avoid a sense of repetition thanks to some highly innovative choreography. Each dance feels distinctive with several moments eliciting an audible "wow" from me. Not to mention that it's the greatest dance pair in movie history that are performing the routines so, of course, it's immensely visually pleasing.

Now, it wouldn't be a big budget musical without big budget sets, and the production design on display here is nothing short of extravagant. Art director Van Nest Polglase's outdoor Venice set (pictured) is particularly stunning, even though it may sacrifice realism for the sort of polished bigger-is-better ostentation that makes Las Vegas hotels such a magnificent sight. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if the architects of The Venetian used this film as inspiration.

Perhaps, though, the picture's weakest point is the paper-thin storyline. While the dialogue is witty and entertaining, the plot is about as contrived as you can get. It pins itself entirely on the farcical case of mistaken identity that subsists literally for the entire film. That makes for a lot of scenes in which characters speak in terms that are just vague enough to maintain the misunderstanding between them.

Despite the flimsy plot, the witty words are buoyed by a greatly comic supporting cast, including the always affably innocent Edward Everett Horton, whose double takes are sublime. And unless you're looking out for it, you'll almost certainly miss (I did!) a young Lucille Ball as a flower shop clerk.

Oscar Winner Predictions 2019

My nomination predictions a few weeks ago turned out to be some of my best ever, particularly in the major categories. I suspect a similar pattern will follow regarding my winner predictions since the main races are shaping up to be quite predictable. The acting categories, in particular, all seem like foregone conclusions. And while I wouldn't be too surprised if Parasite takes one or both of Picture and Director, I'm putting my (metaphorical) money on 1917 taking the top prizes.

The craft and technical categories, on the other hand, are a different kettle of fish altogether. Almost all of them (save for International Feature and Makeup) have at least two nominees that could reasonably be named the winner. It's going to be an interesting Oscar night, that's for sure.

To take a look at my official picks, just click here.

Oscar Nomination Predictions 2019

Despite letting this blog gather dust (not forever, I promise), I'm back briefly to share my annual predictions for the Oscar nominations, due to be announced in a little over 24 hours. It seemed a tad easier to predict certain categories this year than it has been in recent memory, though I guess that remains to be seen. I've generally played it safe, picking fairly traditional candidates, though that's resulted in a final tally that has four different films each receiving 10 nominations, which seems a bit unlikely. So, in most categories, I suspect that at least one of those traditional selections will be replaced by a less expected film that could be earning its only nomination.

If you'd like to take a look at my picks, you can find them here.