The Paul Newman Retrospective: The Sting, 1973

Welcome once again to the Paul Newman Retrospective and to the second part of our Robert Redford back to back. This time we have the film that actually won Best Picture of 1973, instead of me lamenting that it didn't.

Confession time: I have a hard time understanding what's going on in this movie. In fact, the first time I watched it I based my understanding entirely on the King of the Hill Episode that's a take off on this film, "The Substitute Spanish Prisoner." I don't have any clips but if you go to Netflix, it's on Instant Viewing under Season 6. I was trying to find some and found an article by a guy who said The Sting wasn't that great because he saw a King of the Hill episode with that same premise. You idiot! It's a reference, you moron! Get your facts straight! Then I found another post on his blog that said Paul Newman would have never had a career if James Dean hadn't died and I decided this guy was a total freaking idiot. Sacrilege. So, let's discuss The Sting, another George Roy Hill film, another Newman-Redford partnership. Comparisons to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid are inevitable. Take the trailer even: "This time they might get away with it." I have to say, though, the characters here are different, deeply cynical and world-weary.

Robert Redford plays Johnny Hooker, a small time grifter who works with Luther, played by Robert Earl Jones. If you're wondering why Luther is vaguely familiar, it's because he's James Earl Jones' dad, but apparently they didn't see much of each other. Anyway, they grift some money that really belongs to Irish gangster, Doyle Lonnegan, who is just no damn fun. Also played by Robert Shaw who insisted he get his name before the title along with Newman and Redford. Really, Robert? You think you're as important as Newman and Redford? Anyway, Luther tells Hooker to look up Gondorff so he can learn the big con. Hooker doesn't want to, but is forced to when Lonnegan's thugs kill Luther.

Hooker finds Henry Gondorff living in a brothel with a carousel, which somehow Paul Newman makes seem cool, like why doesn't everyone live in brothels with carousels? Anyway, Hooker wants revenge on Lonnegan and convinces Gondorff to help him. What follows is an extremely elaborate plot and unlike the Ocean's Trilogy, you don't end up feeling cheated at the end. I'm mostly thinking of Ocean's Twelve. Did that piss off anyone else? If Tess looks like Julia Roberts, why doesn't Danny just walk around with George Clooney's credit cards instead of trying to rob casinos?

The other thing is that this is a decidedly unique film. It's broken into segments separated by title cards that look like Saturday Evening Post covers. The soundtrack is all ragtime music and you will end up with "The Entertainer" stuck in your head after you watch this movie. I don't think that movies get a chance to be this unique now. You don't even see Paul Newman for the first segment. Imagine a movie without the the headliner in it for the first part. Also, Redford seems much more self assured in this one probably owing to his elevation in status following the success of Butch and Sundance.

I also love the world that the film takes place in, with a whole other world of con artists and thieves. Oh, let's face it: George Clooney and Brad Pitt wish they were Paul Newman and Robert Redford in this movie. I wonder if Steven Soderbergh wishes he were George Roy Hill. That does seem unlikely. I just don't know any other film quite like this one, which is no doubt why it won Best Picture. It also set the standard for all caper movies to follow. As I have alluded, there have been many imitators, but not successful. I wish I could explain it better, but I just can't. It has something to do with the chemistry of Newman, Redford and Hill combining to make the perfect con movie. So, go watch it.

So, am I wrong? Did the end of Ocean's Twelve make sense to you? Or how about this, which is better Butch Cassidy or The Sting? What do you think another Newman-Redford collaboration would have looked like? Tell all in the comments.

Future Classic: Toy Story 3 - 2010

In 1995, Toy Story came out and frankly, I thought I was too old to like it. I did anyway because it did what all Pixar films do and that is strike at a truth that we all know to be true. In this particular case, that when we were little we totally thought our toys were alive and did stuff when we left the room. Toy Story 2 was actually an incredible sequel especially for an animated film because we all know those usually turn out to be a bunch of crap. (Shrek 4, anyone?) Toy Story 3 was the first movie of 2010 that I knew I HAD to see.

Story. We find the toys languishing as Andy is nearly grown up and hasn't played with them in years. Andy is going to college and the toys are struggling with what this means for them. They decide to try life at Sunnyside Day Care, against Woody's wishes as he feel ardently that they are Andy's toys and should go wherever Andy wants them to. Here is a clip from some of their tour:



I have to say that the whole Barbie/ken storyline is one of the greatest parts of the film and maybe the most obvious/clever thing ever. Woody decides to go back to Andy and gets sidetracked when he's picked up by a little girl named Bonnie. Life at Sunnyside is not what it's cracked up to be.



I called this when Lotso Huggin' Bear came onscreen. I turned to my brother and said, "This whole thing is going to turn out like Cool Hand Luke." I give you night in the box.



That was Cool Hand Luke obviously and not Toy Story 3, but this is what YouTube makes available to me. I do promise someone does spend a night in the box. Woody gets to know Bonnie and her toys, where we discover all dinosaur toys are tech savvy and Woody gets to experience what it's like to be played with again, which breathes love in him and puts a crack in his stoicism about being Andy's toy. Also, Timothy Dalton gives probably the best performance of his career as a Shakespeare-inclined porcupine toy. Inspired. Yeah, I'm still bitter about his two Bond movies.



Woody makes his way back to Sunnyside where the toys have gone all Lord of the Flies and Buzz has been reset to think yeah, he's a spaceman. The toys try to fix him.



Anyway, the toys have to escape. They make their way home in ways that I don't want to ruin and nearly gave me a heart attack. But they get home, resigned to their fates. Woody overhears Andy and his mom talking. Andy's mom is upset and Andy reassures her that she'll always be with him, even when they're not together. Woody realizes that Andy no longer needs him, that's he is already a part of him that he will carry for the rest of their life and Woody is finally able to let go. We see him scribble something on the box the toys are in and then he joins them.

The note leads Andy to Bonnie's house, where he gives Bonnie the toys. As he does so, he describes each one of them and in doing so, we realize that he is describing parts of himself. No more so is this evident that when he is surprised to discover Woody at the bottom of the box and for a second, we see just a kid who doesn't want to give up his favorite toy. But he does and he and Bonnie play with the toys before he drives off to college.

We see some of the toys' life with Bonnie and get to see the toys at Sunnyside. And finally I stop crying along with everyone else in the theater.

The reason that this movie hits you so hard is that it draws on the nostalgia of childhood, places you don't usually delve into so when you do it's powerful. I would say that most movies depend on flash and new technology and while Toy Story 3 has those it doesn't RELY on them other than to technically get the story across. I was at the Austin Film Festival this past year and one of the decided highlights of the festival was a panel with the screenwriter of this film, Michael Arndt, who also wrote Little Miss Sunshine. He spoke about something which I never heard discussed in film school, which is the philosophical stakes of a story, that in order for your story to succeed it has to be about something other than a flashy, glittering surface. For instance, in this movie it's about what is the role of a toy? Is Lotso right or is Woody? Or does Woody have it wrong?

Anyway, of course we know this movie does not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning Best Picture, but it was still one of my favorites of the year. I still marvel at the emotional effect that it has on people. I know people are starting to sneer at Pixar but that's only because everything they do is so good and when you're good, you're a target. This is the rare case when the last part of a series has left me satisfied, content to leave it where it is, to never want to go back. Hear me, Pixar? Don't revisit this! You'll kill it! Shrek 4, anyone?

Best Picture 1939: Gone With The Wind

Oh, yeah. I'm going there.

Gone With The Wind was the biggest movie ever without aliens in it. There are a couple of Yankee carpetbaggers in there, though. Anyway, it still holds the record for having sold the most tickets of any film ever. It runs 3 hours and 44 minutes and has a 15 minute intermission. It was produced by David O. Selznick who was making long movies that ran well over budget long before James Cameron ever latched on to the idea.



The film was a popular culture phenomenon before its release, its basis on a successful novel and the epic nature of its production having been in the news for some time. Gone With The Wind continues to live on in pop culture and as far as I can tell remains part of a rite of passage for young women from the south, myself included. Watch the movie, read the book and decide if you actually like Scarlett or not.

If you don't know the story, where the hell have you been? Okay, I'll humor you. It follows Scarlett O'Hara the daughter of a wealthy plantation owner in Georgia. Let's get to the point, either you like Scarlett or you think she's the biggest bitch ever. The latter by no means hinders your enjoyment of the film. She is in love with Ashley Wilkes who is set to marry his cousin, Melanie (insert southern inbreeding joke here). She's rejected by Ashley at a barbecue on the eve of the Civil War where she meets Rhett Butler, played by Clark Gable. Oh, my God, I just realized how long it will take to explain this story. This may come off as lazy, but here's a 30 second version with bunnies that is pretty accurate:



The script was compressed from the novel which is twelve hundred or so pages long as I recall it. It had multiple writers and a lot of the lines in the film were lifted directly from the novel. Scarlett has two other kids in the book that just get completely dropped in the film. Oh, nobody will miss you Wade and Ella. Also, the film had multiple directors: First, George Cukor, then he got fired. Victor Fleming and then Sam Wood took over for a couple of weeks when Victor Fleming was too exhausted to direct.

The film is an accomplishment simply because of it's length, but also because of its detail. Selznick spared no expense in making as lavish a production as possible. I am particularly fond of the expressive use of color, in depicting the splendor of the antebellum south, the terror of war, the hardship of Reconstruction and ultimately in the fog used in the Scarlett's realization. Also, just look at a sequence like the burning of Atlanta or Scarlett walking through the war wounded. Or even a lighter sequence like the dance at the bazaar. You're going to have to go to YouTube and search for those things because someone over there decided to disable embedding.

There's also Scarlett O'Hara, one of the most memorable film heroines ever and also one of the most divisive. Leigh's performance is a very committed one and she evokes either a love or hate response. On the one hand, you can admire her will to survive. On the other, she is obsessed with a love for Ashley Wilkes. How much can you like someone that is still hung up on the guy she liked when she was seventeen? It's this that hinders her and she never has a real clue about this until the very end of the film. She never figures out that it is not just the acquisition of something isn't the only thing, there's also how and how you treat people. She never examines anything.

How bad ass is Clark Gable in this movie? He's the only one that seems to realize what a bitch Scarlett is, which is ironic since he's in love with her. He gets to be a rogue, gets all the best lines and even what I, along with the American Film Institute, would call the best line ever. You'll have to settle for this clip someone clearly recorded off their TV because once again people are embedding disabled happy.



You know what I've never understood about this scene? I swear Rhett must still be in the front yard when Scarlett starts in on the, "I'll think about it tomorrow" thing. Is she just a hopeless procrastinator? Just walk out there, you idiot! We've all been watching this movie for four hours! GO AFTER HIM, DAMN YOU!

Let's also not forget Olivia de Havilland as Melanie, who gives one of the most compelling and varied performances of the film, somehow managing to portray gentleness, grace and a quiet inner strength as a a foil against Scarlett.

I have to discuss the portrayals of the African American characters in the film. This is the movie that Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar for, the first African American to do so. The characters are portrayed as largely one dimensional, mostly unintelligent and somehow loyal to the white people who enslaved them after the war. I would just think that Mammy would take emancipation as an opportunity to get the hell away from Scarlett. Mammy is not as bad as the part of Prissy which is just a groan inducing part. I was just thinking as I watched the film recently that she had to have to some kind of mental disability. There were hardly any african Americans in films, these were the parts to be had and it does suck that Prissy has to be one of the ones available.

I think Mammy's character, which is worth examining, is best understood as someone who has an emotional investment in the O'Hara family. Why not? She's cared for Scarlett since she was an infant. She cares for her as much as her own mother and in some ways is even wiser than her mother as regards Scarlett's true capriciousness. She's just powerless to deal with her, just as most of the other characters in the film are, save Rhett Butler and eventually he just gives up on her ass. Take one of Mammy's lines when Rhett comes calling: "Captain Butler's here. I told him you was prostrate with grief." Mammy is going to voice her displeasure, even though she can't do anything about it. One of the bits I've always enjoyed in the film is the camaraderie between Rhett and Mammy. Mammy disapproves of Rhett and he wants to win her over, calling her "One of the few people whose respect I'd like to have." I recently found out that Clark Gable was actually friends with Hattie McDaniel before the film and put her up for the part.

On a lighter note, here is the famed Carol Burnett show parody of Gone With The Wind.

Best Picture 2001: A Beautiful Mind

For this post, I am asking a question that I am somewhat afraid to know the answer to? Was A Beautiful Mind the best movie to come out in 2001? Keep in mind the competition was pretty stiff. Gosford Park, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and Moulin Rouge! (Which actually has that exclamation mark at the end of the title)



A Beautiful Mind if you don't know by now is the story of mathematician John Nash and his battle with schizophrenia. Nash is played by Russell Crowe who completely managed to transform himself from Gladiator the year before. And he toured with his band the same year, which is another story that you are not interested in. Josh Lucas plays a mathematics rival of Nash's, Jennifer Connelly as his wife and also Christopher Plummer as a psychiatrist. It also costars Paul Bettany as a friend of Nash's from Princeton and Ed Harris as a mysterious government agent who wants Nash's math skills to fight the Russians. Now, SPOILER ALERT, those last two characters along with a little girl, Marcee, who's meant to be Bettany's niece are not real, which is a brilliant turn of events that Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman manage to pull off. This is done so well that the first time I saw the movie, I was halfway through when I asked, "When is he going to go crazy?" Nash's character is always a little bit off, driven by a quest for mathematical innovation so you never really suspect anything when he does something strange. You're taken in by the delusions so much that later when Nash realizes it's not real, you're in as much disbelief as he is. Howard always establishes the delusions with a clue: you always hear them speak before you see them. This isn't just a dramatic device, but also a reference to the fact that schizophrenics don't actually see their delusions, but they hear them, but this is a movie so you need something on film. There's a clue that I didn't catch until the second time I saw the film. Marcee runs circles through a flock of pigeons and the pigeons don't move. It sounds obvious, but if you're not looking for it, you won't even notice it or think about the birds. This is the type of film that will make your head hurt if you think about it too much, which is a great and a wonderful thing and I love this movie.



That said, was it the Best of 2001? Let's look at the competition. Lord of The Rings. Okay, it's not really my thing and I don't get why if the freaking Elves are so wonderful we all have to walk to Mordor and I don't like how the guy from the Matrix is their leader. Whatever, it's an accomplishment and I can appreciate that. I'll call it a contender. Gosford Park is amazing Oscar bait with its intricate plotting and the delicious dialogue. In The Bedroom, I've never heard anyone try to make a case for it. If you would like to make a case for it, that is what the comments are for. Then we have Moulin Rouge! directed by Baz Luhrman starring Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor.



Now, how do you see that and not want to throw some Oscars at it? This movie singlehandedly revived the movie musical and brought us Chicago, Hairspray, Dreamgirls and Nine. I'm also going to credit it with Glee because I don't think that show would exist without this precedent. I get that the story is a little conventional. Boy meets prostitute, boy and prostitute fall in love, are almost torn apart by creepy rich guy, but love perseveres, prostitute dies of tuberculosis and boy goes off to fight the dark side. That last bit may not have actually happened. But remember it also gave us the timeless adage: "Never fall in love with a woman who sells herself. It always ends bad."



The magic of A Beautiful Mind can only happen once. If you know the trick with Nash, you can't be fooled again. The magic of Moulin Rouge! can happen again and again, you're always sucked back into the characters and I get verklempt watching the finale. In fact, knowing what happens may well increase the emotions involved.



Has anyone else ever wondered what the audience in the theater is thinking at the end of Moulin Rouge? Like, "Why did the male lead just change actors? Not complaining, the new guy's hot." or "Is that bald guy with the gun in the play?" Or even, "Wasn't this place a brothel last month?"

So, any thoughts? Moulin Rouge or A Beautiful Mind? Or have I totally gotten it wrong and you would like to pull a Kanye for Lord of The Rings?

Classic Or Not? Best Picture 1997: Titanic

So, as part of my continuing Oscar coverage, I've decided to discuss the current nominees and some of the past winners for Best Picture and particularly their merits, whether or not they deserved Best Picture and do they hold up to the brutal test of time? Which brings us to Titanic, the Best Picture of 1997.

I will now confess something. In 1997, I was 15. Specifically, I was a 15 year old girl. This may not have been of interest except of course that in 1997, Titanic came out. Now, I can at least have the dignity of saying that I wasn't there waiting at the theater with bated breath and frankly, I've never found Leonardo di Caprio attractive. see, Titanic came out on December 18, 1997 and I remember that day because it was the day that the latest James Bond movie, Tomorrow Never Dies, came out and I had to see that. I saw it twice, actually. At some point, I did get around to seeing Titanic and I saw that in the theater four times. The only other movie that I have seen four times in the theater is Die Another Day and that's because I am still not over the scene with James and Moneypenny.



So, I've seen Tomorrow Never Dies every Thanksgiving since (my family celebrates the holiday by watching every James Bond movie usually excepting Never Say Never Again) and I must say as films go, it holds up pretty well. Sure, the technology is dated as the characters don't seem to know what GPS is and the internet still seems new and people read newspapers, but I'm always good for the ride. I'm drawn in by the characters and the adventure and except for a few Desperate Housewives jokes about Teri Hatcher, it's back to 1997.

Titanic has not held up as well and somehow it was the Best Picture of 1997. I think this can possibly be explained by considering the competition that year. The other nominess were:

As Good As It Gets
The Full Monty
Good Will Hunting
L.A. Confidential

Now, these were all good movies and with the exception of L.A. Confidential, they are not exactly what might typically be considered Oscar movies. Grumpy Jack Nicholson? Check. (By the way, does it annoy anybody else that Helen Hunt got an Oscar for that? Please tell me in the comments if it does.)Quirky British film? Check. Film written by two guys we've never heard of from Boston? Check. Now, if I consider it, I think the reason L.A. Confidential didn't win is that compared to Titanic it feels somewhat insular and also, it may just have been too hard to follow. Also, the end was pretty depressing.

So, for those of you who don't freaking know already, Titanic is about a big ship that's going to crash into an iceberg, but first Kate Winslet gets on board in the part of Rose, a rich girl set to marry Billy Zane who plays Cal, who I just had to look up. Cal is rich and Rose's family is depending on the match to solve their financial problems. Basically, Rose is on a prison ship to a life sentence. Also getting on board is Leonardo di Caprio, who just won his ticket, barely got on board (which is admittedly contrived after a few viewings) and he's a poor Irish artist who's got joie de vivre and so forth. Also, Kathy Bates comes aboard playing Molly Brown and she may be the only part of the film I can still stand.

So, not too long after Jack gets on this scene happens and it may be the primary reason that this movie dated very quickly.



See? Anyway, not too long after this, Rose tries to kill herself and Jack saves her. Rose's mom forbids her to see him and she does anyway because they're in love or something. There's the famous nude sketch scene which relates back to a part with Bill Paxton and Old Rose that I haven't bothered to tell you about because no one cares and it's just sort of a lame excuse for starting the story because they didn't think that it was strong enough to stand on its own. I'm just guessing. Here's a love scene that seems really interesting the first four times you see it and then loses its lustre. I don't know that, I'm just guessing that's probably what happened. Or James Cameron wanted some weak excuse to use the leftover diving equipment from The Abyss.



See what I mean? So, into every life some rain must fall and every time somebody says something can't be sunk, you know that sucker's going down. So, Rose leaves her family, there's some arguing about lifeboats and by now, if you've gone to this film with someone with a Y chromosome, they want that frigging ship to sink. And so it does, Jack saves Rose, eventually becoming a big popsicle and it goes something like this if you happen to be interested:



Does Jack's knowledge of physics strike anyone else as odd and not inherent to the character? Anyway, Jack dies, Rose never lets go, she goes on and lives a great adventure of life, then is the old lady and we wrap up to an ending that goes like this.



Okay, that's the scene that can still evoke a tear in me. I'm all verklempt now, so I'm thinking that ending must be what guilted the Academy into voting for that. You also have to consider the scale of the thing which was huge and that everyone thought it would be the biggest disaster and it turned out to not entirely suck. Oh, and let's not forget THE SONG. Because this was the nineties and every half decent film needed a song by a pop diva. And a music video to go with it.



Now, possibly why this merger of song and cinema seems to have fallen out of favor is that everyone gets sick of the song and then you're sick of the movie. Do I still know the words to this? You bet. Did this film deserve Best Picture? If it did, just barely and probably due to lack of competition. Just be glad that Avatar came out in a year with much more serious competition or James Cameron would have another Oscar. Be glad.