Change Your Image
mikegordan
Reviews
Gone with the Wind (1939)
Overrated, but still worth watching
Before I begin, I would like to dedicate this review to my Uncle Mark, who had unexpectedly died 2 days ago. Last Sunday, he seemed totally fine, and, having never seen this movie, I asked if he could let me borrow it for a little while. That was the last time I've ever spent any time with him, and I would like to dedicate this review to him, for without his permission, I wouldn't be able to continue on with the Best Picture retrospective.
Now with that out of the way, yeah, up until today, I was pretty much the only person to have never seen Gone with the Wind. And for the longest time, I was curious because from a lot of circles, this was frequently regarded as one of the greatest films ever made. And even so, there were some circles (not all of them Wizard of Oz fans either) that considered it grotesquely overrated, and listed their reasons as such. So, I finally sat down, and watched both discs on my PS2...
...and I thought it was good. Not great, not terrible, not even meh. Just good.
I guess I should start with the production values, because those were the main reasons why it was such a huge success at the Oscars. One of the earliest films shot entirely in Technicolor, and it puts a heavy emphasis on twilight or scarlet-related colors (yeah, I'll get to her, later), and it still looks incredible. Seeing as how many of the earliest Technicolor marvels like Wizard of Oz or The Adventures of Robin Hood had very lavish and gawdy-looking colors that almost made them resemble cartoons, I'm at least content that the color hues weren't so bright and colorful, but instead were dark and foreboding. Still holds up, even today. Granted, the musical score is a little manipulative and overly sentimental, it's still fairly memorable as well. If you need only one reason to watch this movie, watch it for the production values, because you will have to see it to believe it.
But what about the substance itself? The writing and acting? Well, let's be honest; even on the off chance that somebody else out there hasn't seen this movie either, or read the book (wich I haven't), I think it's a fair assumption that just about everybody knows the story and the characters, so I won't bore you with all the needless details. The acting though, while very good, I felt was too good for Vivien Leigh, who played Scarlett O'Hara. I can at least see how, in the book, her character was supposed to grow and be able to take care of herself, and I can even understand that that doesn't automatically mean that she stops being spoiled and selfish, but geez, she's borderline diabolical. Every shot where she tries to run away from the cold, harsh, truths of life such as death, she always comes off as the most uncaring and malicious of creatures. She makes Bella from Twilight look like a Saint for crying out loud. She was not a good person at all, and while he was wrong to marry her in the first place, Rhett Butler (played by the always charismatic Clark Gable) was right to leave her at the end of the film.
The real reason why I consider this movie overrated is the length. Almost 4 hours long, it is arguably (alongside 2 others) the longest film to ever won Best Picture. The problem I have with it isn't the pacing per Se, but that the 2 discs felt almost like 2 different movies. If anything, I felt this should have been split up into 2 different pictures because of how drastically different the 2 halves are. The first half deals with the South's experiences during the Civil War but constantly through the personal point of view of Miss Scarlett. The second half deals with the O'Hara family making it through the hard times as well as their returning fortunes and their fall from grace. And believe it or not, the 2 halves only have 1 thing in common with one another; it deals with the fading away of long- established traditions, families and cultures.
And while the similarity in themes are present, the halves are still jarringly different from one another that it begs the question as to why this was made as one movie in the first place. It almost feels like Disney's merging of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass into a single animated feature...which did happen, by the way. This is especially because the ending of the 1st half looked like a great place to end the picture, but that was just the end of disc 1. Disc 2 just feels like forever, and so much more trimming could have been done. Not to mention that every time I saw Scarlett run over to Ashley or so much as mentions Ashley, I wanted to strangle that woman. Aside from Butler's decision to marry her, which confounds me immensely as to why he'd do it in the first place, I had nothing more than pity for the man's married life to that woman. And the film just keeps going, and going, and going, and I just wanted to know when Butler would finally get up and say, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a dam." (btw, that last word is deliberately misspelled to avoid being censored).
Overall though, everything good or bad about this film has already been said. The only thing I can offer you guys is a first-impressions review. And with that, I give this film an 8 out of 10. I'd recommend this film to people, but let's face it; you've most likely have already seen it.
You Can't Take It with You (1938)
This film sure is chaotic all right!
There are generally 2 types of people in this world; those who consider Frank Capra to be a genius filmmaker, and those who views him as a complete hypocrite powdered with too much sentimentality. I seem to be an exception to this rule in that I see things as they are. But one thing seems to bring everyone to agreement: You Can't Take It With You is not a good movie under any circumstances.
So what is the story behind this film? As cartoony as it sounds today, it's actually about a man who gets engaged to a woman from an anarchist family following the advice from his rich, greedy father who wants their lot for themselves. The only problem is that they are a household of crazy nihilists that sees money as valueless, and cares only about living a good, fun life, because as the movie repeatedly tells us (even in the title), 'You Can't Take It With You.' That is kinda a good theme to go for, and let's face it, it's very much true, but do we really need a movie to tell us this? The theme is not that significant and it is, for the most part, common sense. The problem here though, is that the film literally criticizes those that seek profits and contrary to what the family tells us, money has value in the world, and it is important. Not only does the family borderline hates money and criticizes those that makes it, but the loony residents are supposed to be the sound mind that we are to side with (the irony is that the real world looks sane to us, but not to them. Ha. Ha. Ha.).
There are a few good things going for it though; the acting is all around good (the irony that Lionel Barrymore's the hero in this film, and would go on to play Mr. Potter in It's A Wonderful Life, another Capra film). It is amusing seeing the crazy antics of that particular household too. And it makes a sound argument against the Income Tax; in a better movie, this would probably have left a significant impact on our nation. But as is, it just reached out to us without leaving a dent in the Income Tax laws in the least.
So yeah, I personally didn't like this one either, and even for back then, the fact that it won Best Picture and Best Director (the film's sole wins) was considered an upset. There's very little reason for me or anyone else to recommend this film other than the possible hardcore film buff or, less likely, the most hardcore of Capra fans. At a ranking of 4 out of 10, this is film is a chaotic mess I would personally stay away from.
The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
Better than Ziegfeld...but mainly out of significance rather than merit
Okay, before I begin my review, here's a quick little correction I have to make regarding my Great Ziegfeld review...twice: This film is not a Musical. I apologize for the mix-up; they have 2 things in common: A similar-sounding title (I always got them mixed up), and a specific genre they supposedly share (again, I always got them mixed up). And that genre is the Biopic, or Character Study as it were.
And speaking of which, it was actually better than I thought going into this thing, but I don't know if I'd call it good. I'd certainly watch it over Cavalcade or The Great Ziegfeld, but how many times? What is it about? Well, the title is quite self-explanatory in that light, only trimmed down for our benefit (unlike Ziegfeld), but the question one should ask in this case is, who is Emile Zola? Well, Emile Zola was a French Author and his prolific writing career, including his friendship with French painter Paul Cezanne, and his involvement in the Dreyfuss Affair in which (an espionage-related scandal during the Militarized state of 19th Century France) he plays a part in until his untimely death. There's more to the story, obviously, but if you're curious, you could do one of 2 things: Research on the matter yourself, or see the movie.
Now is it worth seeing? Well, I'll get to that later. The movie is written okay, it is directed okay, heck, even the acting is pretty darn good for its time. I can at least see why it won Best Picture in 1937, and it is a rather important film in the Biopic genre as it led to the Academy's recognition of the genre in a serious light. The cinematography and art direction is pretty good too (for the time), but it at least does well in the most important elements of the Character Study: The acting and the writing. However, the film, while important, is quickly dwarfed 4 years later by a film regarded as the Best ever made (which I'll cover later).
With all that said and done, I would probably only recommend this film to hardcore film buffs, fans of character studies as a whole, and those who might be interested in, in more ways than one, the actual life of Emile Zola. This film does have an audience to this day; in fact, back in 2000, it was one of 25 films selected by the National Film Registry for immortalization in the Library of Congress. So it's not like the film is awful or unwatchable. Personally, it's not my thing, but people like it okay, so why ruin it for others. Take it for what it's worth; I'll give it a 6 out of 10.
The Great Ziegfeld (1936)
After Mutiny on the Bounty, what can possibly go wrong?...Oh, yeah!
Yeah, as you can probably guess, this is not that good a film at all. Talk about the Oscars on the right track for 2 years straight only to take a huge step back in quality. The second Oscar drought would last for another 3 years, the first 2 of which are musicals.
So what are the problems? Well, for starters, it's based on a true story, and about as loosely as a certain recipient of 11 Oscars I'll be covering in 1997, centering on a famous music professor's life and death by the name of Florenz Ziegfeld (played by William Powell). And by loosely, I mean completely disregarding historical events up until the end in exchange for lavish musical numbers. The plot is simply that he wants to glorify women with music. How does he do that? With the Ziegfeld Follies, and who knows how many glamorized musical numbers. That's it.
This is where I take issue with the film; the idea sounds good on paper, but it attempts, and attempts pretty badly, on getting our attention with nothing but splash. There's no depth in any of the performances, we have no reason to care for Ziegfeld hence why the film fails automatically as a character study, nothing about the film is accurate with real events outside of the Stock Market Crash, and it tries to hold our attention for 3 hours. 3 HOURS! Just let that sink in, because all this film offers you is glamor and music (which, to be fair, starts off good, but grows stale over time and quickly runs my patience thin) with nothing else backing it up.
There is a reason why it is regarded as one of the worst Best Picture winners of all time, and also a good reason why Musicals became less and less popular with the Academy over the succeeding years (well, this and the next one); it doesn't give us much other than how tedious the thing is to sit through. I would easily give this film a 3 out of 10. Not as bad as Cavalcade, but I'd definitely skip this one.
Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)
Great sets, costumes, cinematography, and acting, but the writing is okay
During the earliest years in Oscar history, the Academy began to slowly discover its identity, especially as the organization was birthed just as cinema was going through the transitions into talkies. And those early years were, to say the least, brutal. It Happened One Night helped establish a simplistic medium on how to properly direct, write, and act in a talkie picture, and as a result, the film one all 5 of the top honors imaginable. Mutiny on the Bounty, on the other hand, did everything else and more, and served as an important contributor to the evolution of cinema.
Now because this film was a triumph in every other element in cinema that It Happened One Night did not exceed in (except sound, which continued to improve over the years), I'll start off with the cinematography and art direction, which is incredible. While films like Cavalcade had some fairly lazy stage designs and static imagery, every element of this film felt believable. It actually looked like they were sailing through the seven seas on the bounty. Even the acting was very good all around (the only film to date to receive 3 Lead Acting nominations!), which just added a sense of peril when worse comes to worse.
Now where do I fault it? Well, the directing and the writing hasn't aged terribly well. Granted, it isn't horrible and it holds up okay, but the plot of the story just felt too much like 1954's The Caine Mutiny (though Bounty has it's own advantages that barely saves it). What is the film about? Well, it's adapted from the novel of the same name which was loosely based on a true story. Well, a young man named Roger Byam decides to join the Bounty which turned out to be run by the abusive villain, Captain Bligh, played by Charles Laughton. One of the crew members, Clark Gable's fine performance as Fletcher Christian, decides to lead a mutiny against their Captain. And the rest of the story bears strong resemblances to the later released Caine Mutiny, right down to the court-martial (with a few differences here and there). It's an unfortunate fate to an otherwise fine film, but it is what it is.
Overall, it is a rather fine Best Picture winner. Which is very weird because it was the only Oscar it took home that night, and it remains the 3rd and final film to win Best Picture and nothing else. I'm actually quite curious as to the film's competition that year, because from what I've heard, 1935 was a seriously contested year. I say, even with some of it's problems, I personally wouldn't blame the film for them. I would recommend a this film to anyone, especially film buffs. I would give this film a rating of 8 out of 10.
It Happened One Night (1934)
Frank Capra helps sets the standard for acting in Talkie pictures
For those of you who have been keeping track of my Best Picture retrospective, Hollywood movies had been heading towards a downward spiral since adapting the then-gimmick of talking pictures, and most of the previous BP winners were really lackluster (particularly Cavalcade). This film helped save talkie pictures and audible performances, and helped put Director Frank Capra, as well as stars Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert on the map. With that aside, I never really thought it was that funny.
Don't get me wrong; it has its place in cinematic history, and it is an important step in the branching path in the evolution of cinema as an art form. But I never particularly found that much to be funny about this movie, and while it is subjective, the film is a Comedy, and humor is a key element of any given Comedy. There are a few scenes that worked though, particularly the hitchhiking scene. Essentially, Clark Gable was trying to hitch a ride for him and Claudette Colbert to this large group of cars driving by, and Gable tries everything in the book to signal them, and they all ignore them. And then when Colbert gives it a try to another passerby, she shows off her bare leg to him, and he stops and picks them up. There's more that follows later in that scene, but I don't want to spoil the rest because it is a pretty ridiculous series of events.
Speaking of spoiling the movie, what is it about? Well, Claudette Colbert is a spoiled, rotten little rich girl named Ellie Andrews that runs away from a wedding to a rich aristocrat and goes out on a ram. Meanwhile, Clark Gable is second-rate reporter Peter Warne that found himself out of work due to the lack of news stories. The two cross paths as passengers on a bus, and he recognizes her because her escapade made headlines (a Frank Capra trademark; absurd news headlines). Unfortunately for her, Ellie loses all of her money and possessions, and is forced to stick with Peter. Seizing the opportunity, he makes a deal with her: he gets to escort her cross country so that she makes a new life for herself, and he gets to chronicle her escapade in detail. To avoid life broke and on the streets, she agrees, and high jinks ensue.
Now, let me be frank; while I do not consider this film to be that funny, I still enjoy this movie a great deal. There is a reason why this film works so well: A blend of witty writing, direction that takes full advantage of the medium, and the excellent chemistry between Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert, audible or otherwise. In fact, back then, not only did this film set the record for most Oscars ever won, sweep or otherwise, but it was the first of only 3 films to have won The Oscar Grand Slam: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay (Adapted or Original), Best Actor, and Best Actress; and it shows.
Now if there is one thing to gripe about this game, it is essentially what spawns all the common Romantic Comedy clichés, particularly the bad ones; they start off not getting along, they eventually start developing feelings for one another, a misunderstanding occurs, they go their separate ways hating each other, and then a friend convinces them to return to one another, and it usually ends at an airport (not this movie) where they fall in love again, get married, and live happily ever after.
This film though did it much better than almost all of these other movies, because it was new at the time, and it was actually believable; some contrivances here and there, but mainly for comedic effect. They didn't hate each other when they first met; they simply teased each other. They develop a relationship with one another, but we can actually believe it. There's a misunderstanding involved, but they didn't hate each other for a while. Peter ran off to go publish his story in the city and to buy an engagement ring, while at the same time, the hotel owner recognized Ellie from the earlier headlines, and called the police while he was gone. For a while, neither of them were happy, but that was because they were missing each other's presence and not fully aware of it. They both had friends that convinced them to run off again, reunite together and, a recurring gag that bears symbolic relevance, take down the curtains.
Overall, even though it introduced a dangerous number of bad RomCom clichés, I will not count it against this film as what followed is irrelevant to the qualities of this film. Besides, I think the positive legacies of this film easily outweigh the negative. Still, I wish this game was a little bit funnier, but I'll let it slide a bit. With that said, unless you really hate Frank Capra, I highly recommend this film to anybody. I'll give this film 8.5 out of 10, rounding it up to 9 out of 10.
Cavalcade (1933)
Obviously, sentimentality and lifelessness do not mix
For those of you keeping up with my retrospective on all the Best Picture winners up to now, you will know these writers, directors and actors were still not accustomed to the transition to talkies, but they were slowly getting the hang of it. And on top of it all, they were even taking advantage of the visual medium. The sets, the ability to shoot on location, the cinematography, the lighting, and down the road, the color of the film itself all helped contribute all kinds of creative ways for these filmmakers to either make the impossible possible, or reliving the past. King Kong, a film that came out in 1933, is one of those films that accomplished this task and so much more.
But unfortunately, we're not reviewing King Kong today because it didn't win Best Picture. It wasn't even nominated. What won instead, unfortunately, was a film that made no attempt at all to take advantage of what film as a medium has to offer; Cavalcade. Yeah, they adapted one of the drollest of plays into a feature film, and people actually loved it.
What's the story? It's the life of an English couple from the New Years Eve of 1899 up until then-present day 1933 as they experience historical events include the Second Boer War, the death of Queen Victoria, the sinking of the Titanic, and World War I among many other things. And within the now-reasonably short running time of 110 minutes, then that means the film's going to be either exciting or rushed. This film is anything but exciting; it's dull as a rock. There is absolutely no soul in this picture at all.
And the picture is indeed rushed. These events are just glanced over for no good reason other than to show that they lived through them, and they never seem to show how much they impacted them or the world around them. There's nothing interesting about these characters or this story whatsoever. And what's worse is that these events don't seem to impact the viewer in any way because those scenes are executed in a manner identical to those of a play; you never see these events happen. Come, on! We already had 2 War films win Best Picture in the past; where's the budget? Where are the calamities? For a sentimental film, this film sure does feel devoid of any real emotions.
And that's why I call this film dull and soulless; there's no logic or reason, no critical thinking, not even pure sentimental hogwash. At least all the previous nominees had a semblance of a soul; this film doesn't. This film is completely static and unmoving to say the least. The acting is boring, the characters are boring, and the story is boring. There is nothing positive to say outside of the fact that the premise had promise. More extravagance (to help these events leave a bigger impact), about 20 or 30 more minutes added to the running time, and more interesting characters. That is all that is needed to make this film any good. So while the film is pretty bad, it is salvageable. I would just skip it if I were you. 2.5 out of 10 rounded up to 3 out of 10.
Grand Hotel (1932)
Nothing is odd. Nothing is random. And nothing happens at the Grand Hotel.
At the time this film came out, it was a very prestigious picture. It had the biggest All-Star cast at the time; MGM invested a ton of money into this picture; it was based on a prestigious play and like the play itself, this is a very weird film. These characters, these interwoven story lines, the acting, even the very idea of the premise are odd. This was one of the earliest mainstream films that actually used the setting to exploit several unrelated stories together rather than to establish a character study or an overall plot, and while a humble beginning to it all, it really shows.
What's the film about? Well, the Grand Hotel of course. As Dr. Otternschlag says, "People come, people go. Nothing ever happens." It's pretty self-explanatory I think. But the individual stories themselves are an odd collection: Greta Garbo, Wallace Beery, John and Lionel Barrymore, the list goes on. I don't want to give anything away because let's face it; you probably want to know how their day goes.
So where do I fault the film? Well, as strange the premise is, the film is just okay. It probably would have been better as splice-of-life or a comedy, but the film doesn't meet these expectations. The acting is okay, the writing is okay, and the stories are okay. There's just not all that much worth talking about aside from the All-star cast, the premise itself, and what it did for films in general. And let's face it; there's a ton of films that followed suit with this film that aren't worth anybody's time or effort sitting through (recent examples include Valentine's Day and New Year's Eve).
Ultimately, I have no idea what to make of this film as a whole though. A lot of people seem to love it, so maybe there's something in this picture that I'm just not seeing. So maybe I'm just a little thick-headed, maybe not. I can't seem to recall anything about this film that I hated though, but neither do I love anything about it.
But this is an oddball film through and through; right down to the Oscar ceremony around it. Not only was this the 2nd of 3 films to have Won Best Picture and nothing else, but this was the only film to have won without a single other Oscar nomination. I have no idea what went on with the voting proceedings back then. Maybe the votes split somewhere; maybe the All-star cast helped contribute the votes to this picture; or maybe the Academy just loved the idea of this picture, but felt the rest was just okay. Even though at the time, they created a couple more categories (The Shorts, Adapted Screenplay, and Sound Recording for the talkies), there were mainly 3 nominees per category whereas Best Picture had 8. Either way, this film is nothing more than an oddity at the Oscars rather than a straight-up classic like All Quiet or The Godfather to name a few.
Overall, it's passable, but otherwise nothing special. I'd give it 7 out of 10.
Cimarron (1931)
Too scatterbrained, but it had potential
This is the oddball of the early Oscars. Considering their growing rise to popularity, I'm kinda surprised that we didn't see more Westerns taking home the Oscar for Best Picture. Heck, they wouldn't honor another one until Kevin Costner made Dances with Wolves in 1990 (but I'll get to that one much later). It kinda baffles me because; they were historical epics, they were big money-makers, and they were cheap and easy to make to boot. I say that had all the makings of a Best Picture winner.
But then when you finally see it, you kinda understand why the Academy practically gave up on Westerns in general
with a few exceptions of course (I'll get to those when I get to those). This movie was just far too big for the filmmaker's own good that what he was trying to get at when making this movie just never fell through.
The story actually isn't a story so much as it is the life of a restless Jack-of-all-trades, Yancey Cravat as he claims a spot of land during the Oklahoma Boom, and the rest of the film is the rest of his life afterward. This was definitely an interesting and ambitious turn in movies as it focused more on somebody's life rather than a coherent story. That, I have no problem with
if the character of Yancey was anything interesting, and he's not. He's completely boring and forgettable. Heck, he's not even a consistent character. The things he does in this film are spur-of-the-moment, and we don't get to know him enough as to why he would do any of these things. It's essentially a character-study where we do not even get so much of character so much as random personality quirks. And this wouldn't be too bad if the point of view was from other perspectives (like in Citizen Kane, a film I plan to cover down the road).
But I guess that's a plus side to this movie; the point of view isn't always on Yancey. And when it isn't, it's on his wife, and what she has to go through when Yancey is away is quite interesting. In fact, this film should have been told entirely from her point of view instead; that way, we could have a very interesting dynamic. An ambitious husband that does whatever he wants and nobody understands why, and the wife he leaves behind. If the film stuck entirely from her POV, this film would have been a lot better, and we'd have a central character we could sympathize with.
Not to mention that for an early talkie, the acting in this picture is passable. I don't recall any of the characters being unbearable or anything. In fact, the church scene where Yancey is preaching is actually pretty hilarious. And while my memory is a bit foggy regarding this, I'll give the film the benefit of the doubt; it's one of the few films that actually demonstrate what an actual Christian baptism is. Ain't that something? There are a few cheesy scenes and moments here and there too (as if anybody can fire bullets in the air rapidly and without dire consequences), but it's nitpicky at best, and I'll let Hollywood logic slide as they aren't all that bad. And while the plot is random to the point where we, the audience, will be left in the dark at times, I do think that area of the writing could have worked if done right
if it was entirely from the POV of the wife. That way, it would make total sense for us to not know what is going on, because the wife doesn't either (I say doesn't because that's actually true).
I guess when it comes down to it, the film is only half-good; the half involving the wife. The half from Yancey's point of view, however, is far too scatterbrained to the point where we don't even care about him or what he's doing. I'm guessing that because Westerns were very popular because we got to cheer for our favorite heroes (no serious; they were the 1930's-1950's equivalent of today's Superhero movies), they decided to add Yancey's POV to attract that kind of crowd. But this is an example of a film where one must draw a fine line between art and popularity, and when it came to our established protagonist, they definitely crossed that line when making this movie. As an aspiring writer, I find it pretty insulting. But at the same time, I view it more as a cautionary tale; to be ready to identify that line and not to cross over into popularity if it meant jeopardizing the quality of my art.
Overall, Yancey pretty much keeps this film from being good, but his wife at least preserves some dignity with this picture. Take it for what it's worth, I'll rate it a 5 Out of 10.
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
Not the best Anti-War Film, but arguably the best demonstration of War.
Okay, now we are getting into the Best Picture winners that a ton of people are familiar with. This one is frequently regarded as one of the best War films, if not one of the best Anti-War films ever made. And I'll be frank with you, while it is arguably the best Oscar winner up to this point in time, I got to say, it's a tad overrated.
***Contains Spoilers**************************************************
The best way I can review this film properly is to tackle what it aimed to accomplish: Demonstrating the terrors of war from a realistic point of view. In other words, it's an exploitation film. What that is, is a film that relies heavily on shocking imagery in order to try and get its point across. What point is it? Well, that war is terrifying. It's not something one should just jump at the chance to be recognized as a hero; you got to really think about your decisions while also consider what these soldiers are really going through.
So what is the story? Following the advice of their teacher, a couple kids in Germany decide to sign up to fight during The Great War in order to have the chance to become recognized as heroes. Upon entering, they come to realize that war isn't all that's cracked up to be; it's dark place to be where people all around you die, and your number could be up at any moment.
The problems I have with a story like this is that under the wrong mindset, it could be viewed as a way of showing that war is bad and we don't need it in our lives. And maybe if these characters were awful human beings, they would most definitely be correct. But it is called an exploitation film for a reason; it shows the experience rather than preaches anything, leaving one to make the proper interpretations out of this film.
But no matter how one interprets this film, it is definitely a reality check (especially under the right mindset). Rather than glorifying (quite the opposite) or criticizing it, what you see is what is really going on out of the battlefield. It ultimately works because it's real. Right down to the characters themselves serving as blank slates for the audience to slip into their shoes.
The atmosphere in this film is just perfect. There's very little to no music in this film at all, and the only sound you hear are, not to sound melodramatic or anything, the sounds of war. You don't even hear anybody talk. And you know what? Focusing all the sound on the battle around them rather than on the characters talking or the background music makes it quite an effective direction. It actually ties in with the horrors and the suspense around these soldiers. And there's a point to be made here; this is the first Best Picture winner to have won Best Director, a trend that closely ties the 2 categories for the remainder of the Academy's history.
But what this film does for me the most is enforces me the belief that we need to be more supportive of our military than we have been. And I don't mean that we got to keep them out of war as much as possible; but rather, sympathize with why they ultimately go into battle and are willing to risk their lives for our freedom. This film doesn't tell us at all that war is wrong or these people are bad; they are simply doing what they believe is right, and as the people sitting out, we should support and encourage their choices until the bitter end.
But regardless, this is an exploitation film anyways; it's not preaching what I'm saying at all; it's just giving us the experience. And that's what this film is; an emotional experience. And unlike something like Sunrise or Platoon, it actually works because what we see is very much what the battlefield is really like. It's a film that makes us understand reality, but allows us to make our own judgments. The only reason why I felt this film's a tad overrated is because it's frequently regarded as one of the best Anti-War films ever made. It's not. It shows us the realities of war; this film makes absolutely no interpretations whatsoever.
But to be fair, it isn't all that logical either, but it doesn't have to be. Sometimes, it's best to show us for what it really is; not a place for heroes, but a living Hell. I'll give this film and 8.5 out of 10, and round it up to 9 out of 10.
The Broadway Melody (1929)
1929 was a very ugly transitional period from silent to talkies
This is yet another Best Picture winner that would come to define Oscar as being style-over-substance, except the Musical Genre's no longer as popular as it once was (okay, Chicago did win, but that's for another review). This, however, is an interesting piece.
For starters, during the eligibility period of the 2nd Academy Awards (late 1928-mid 1929) was a period in time where Hollywood was transitioning from silent to talkies. Thanks to some advancements in technology, we got the speakers, the recorders, and sound stages, many of which due to Broadway. And speaking of Broadway, what better way to show off the talkie trend than to give us a Broadway-like musical? Only Broadway Melody went a step further and even introduced Technicolor for the very first time in cinematic history (though only in a limited number of musical sequences, many of which didn't survive).
So where does this film fall? Well, for the time, it certainly had a lot more to brag about for its accomplishments than most talkies did. But like a ton of other films from that time period that made the technological leap, it suffers from several of the faults that Hollywood was just not accustomed to at the time. The acting became uncomfortably awkward, the Technicolor looked really grainy and hideous-looking, the sound quality was very poor, and it simply became a lavish luxury.
The story and the characters are completely forgettable as well. I just saw this movie on NetFlix, and I can't remember a thing about anybody or anything that went on. This is a primary example of giving us a half-baked story with cardboard cutouts as a means to showing off its technological advancements.
So yeah, while its history is interesting, the movie itself is just an embarrassing bore. A lot of people may defend this film by saying that it simply didn't age well, and to "try viewing it from when it first came out," but this excuse simply isn't going to fly. Maybe if the story and characters were engaging, even with the embarrassing performances and dated technology, I may cut the film some slack. But the intent of the Oscars that year speaks for itself; Best Picture was the only Oscar it won that year, and it won for the spectacle alone. Even if that was because there were only 7 categories, the Oscar ceremony in subsequent years (with only 2 exceptions) will prove that there's no excuse for its lack of quality.
It may not be the worst film to win Best Picture, but again, I can only recommend this film to those that are interested in learning of the Academy's humble roots. If you don't care about Oscar, then I'd seriously skip it. I will give it a generous--yet deserving, 4 out of 10.
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)
The self-indulgent sentimental equivalent of Wings
***Contains Spoilers*************************************************** Okay, maybe that was a little too harsh. But like how Wings would help define The Oscars from a technical standpoint, this film helps define the Academy Awards for overindulgent sentimental mush. Nothing happens in this film that comes close to a speck of a rational thought.
For example, the Man and the Woman are a happily married couple living on a farm with a kid and a dog. One day, a city woman comes and essentially wrecks havoc on this family. At first, the Man is seduced by the City Woman to the extent that he is willing to kill his Wife just to be with this Woman, but is quick to take back such a thought and try to rekindle the already troubled relationship.
Now, I take issues with this movie for 2 reasons. First of all, if our two stars were such a happy couple, why is their relationship so fickle like this. It's one thing if The Wife was concerned over her husband's strange behavior, but she is in despair within the span of one day. One day! And on top of that, and this transitions into my second reason, she is quick to lose all hope for her husband after a non-incident boating trip, and the simple sound of church bells within the same day (notice a pattern here?) is all it takes for them to fall in love all over again. The rest of the film is just them having fun with a last-minute perilous situation.
Now the second reason I take issue with this story is that if our two leads are such a happily married couple, why would the husband ever contemplate killer her wife? It'd be one thing if his happiness was just a rouse to prevent his family from feeling uncomfortable, but no. There is no depth in any of these characters (they're not even 3-dimensional enough to have names, though this may have been a Silent film kind of thing), let alone enough depth that would justify why killing his Wife would be such a temptation.
But what is great about the film? The Art Direction and the Cinematography (nominated for the former; won the latter). The artistic presentation of the film is just stunning. I can seriously see filmmakers like Walt Disney, Ridley Scott, and Terrence Mallick taking a lot of visual influence from this picture. The titular Sunrise at the end of this film looks holy, as if God blessed this relationship as divine love. And to be fair, this is more of a sentimental journey--what we want to happen in real life--rather than a reality check, and while it has flaws with that, it still does its job well.
Overall though, this film was just a well-shot piece of brainless sentiment. Only recommend to the most die-hard of romance enthusiasts and film buffs. Otherwise, it's not worth repeat viewings. 6/10
Wings (1927)
The first film to ever win Best Picture is typical Oscar flair
Now what do I mean by that? It's got everything in it that the Academy Awards would go on to love in future award ceremonies. The spectacle, the triumph, it is a war film; friendships are jeopardized; epic romances, the whole 9 yards. This was back before sound films began to take over Hollywood, but the acting in it is quite subtle for the time, and for a silent American film.
The effects are spectacular, even today. Not only do they rely exclusively on props, but the planes themselves are real. These actors are really flying the planes in this film, and it is both a bold and a mind-blowing experience. Very little of this film, if any of it, is over a blue-screen, and as there is no sound, there's very little to no reason that they ever had to film on a stage.
The acting in this film was back in the day where it was all visual. They rarely talked because the subtitles got in the way. But at the same token, the acting from Hollywood back then tended to be quite over-the-top in order to compensate for the lack of audible dialogue (as well as to help cut down on the subtitles); that's partially why actors like Charlie Chaplin were so big back then. The acting here though, is quite subtle, and everybody reacts and behaves like normal human beings.
The story, however, is standard. It is typical of Hollywood to make films like this, even today. They're the ones that are going to attract a ton of attention and make a ton of money. And we will go on to see films like this in the form of Star Wars, Spider-man 2, and Rocky among many other features down the road. I don't know if I'd go so far as to credit this film for starting this trend, but the Academy's decision, then a new organization, to award this film the then-equivalent of today's Best Picture Oscar was what helped popularized it.
Overall though, it is a rather good piece that would help define what the Oscars are really all about (alongside the next few films). For the longest time, this film was thought to be lost until a few years ago when it was found in a vault and fully restored. I recently saw this film off NetFlix, so if you have it, and you are a die-hard film buff, I'd recommend you check this film out for, if any reason, mainly if you're curious of the Academy's roots. I give it 8 stars out of 10.