1937 - The Life of Emile Zola

One more sleep until the Oscars. While Kat and I get ready for our Academy Awards dinner party (featuring such items as Avatado and The Hurt Liquor), here are my 2009 Oscar predictions, including my wacky Avatar-Bigelow combination for Picture-Director.

As Avatar and The Hurt Locker battle it out for the 82nd Best Picture award, yesterday I watched the winner of the 10th Best Picture award...

The Life of Emile Zola

Director:

William Dieterle

Screenplay:

Norman Reilly Raine, Heinz Herald, Geza Herczeg

(based on the book "Zola and His Time" by Matthew Josephson)

Starring:

Paul Muni, Gale Sondergaard, Joseph Schildkraut, Gloria Holden, Donald Crisp

Academy Awards:

10 nominations

3 wins, including Best Picture and Best Supporting Actor (Schildkraut)

Contrary to its title, The Life of Emile Zola is less a biography of the famed French writer as it is an exploration of the Dreyfus affair. While it does deal with Zola's life, especially his rise to fame, the central focus of the film is his involvement in the the political scandal that rocked France in the late 19th century.

Struggling as a writer in his early days, Emile Zola later finds success due to several politically charged books critical of the establishment. Meanwhile, French Jewish soldier Alfred Dreyfus is wrongly accused and subsequently convicted of treason. When evidence comes to light that would prove his innocence, ranking officials seek to sweep it under the rug. But our intrepid hero Mr. Zola steps in to speak up for Dreyfus only to find himself on trial for libel.

The picture begins at a cracking pace, covering Emile Zola's early life and career relatively quickly. Nonetheless, it never glosses over anything. Instead, we are clearly presented with the portrait of a man who loves his country and will passionately speak his mind on any perceived injustice. Clearly a strong believer in free speech, Zola is not fazed by authority, authoring several tomes that rock the proverbial boat.

When the story switches to the events leading up to Dreyfus' arrest and imprisonment, there is a slightly odd feeling of displacement, probably due to one's expectation of the story based on the film's title. All of a sudden, the Life of Emile Zola becomes the Corruption of the French Military. Not that I'm complaining. It's a gripping, well-told story of weighty themes. Zola takes the backseat for a while and he never quite manages to leave it for the rest of the film. Yes, he's the one who got people talking about Dreyfus again after the world had all but forgotten him, but once his famous "J'accuse!" article is written, his role from that point on is mostly a passive one, save for the powerful closing statement he delivers at his own trial (pictured). But, in the end, despite the film's intention of portraying Zola as a heroic man of action, he dies an entirely unheroic and horribly anti-climactic death. (Oops, spoiler alert...)

Paul Muni's French accent is only slightly better than his Chinese accent, but his performance in this film far outshines his work in The Good Earth. His portrayal lends Zola a certain moral heroism even if the story doesn't. Taking home the Best Supporting Actor Oscar, Joseph Schildkraut is heartbreaking as Alfred Dreyfus. A particularly poignant moment occurs when Dreyfus is finally released. He walks out of the prison cell once, stops, walks back in and repeats his exit twice more, clearly enjoying his freedom.

In spite of my criticism, The Life of Emile Zola is a very engaging film. Its only real flaw, then, is that it need not have bothered covering anything but the Dreyfus affair. And since that is the majority of the film anyway, perhaps a title change is all it would have taken.

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.