The Paul Newman Retrospective: Hud, 1963

This is going to sound bad. Hud is a really good movie and I don't like it, so this entry will be shorter than others. Can you guess why I don't like it? One, a lot of bad things happen to cows, none of whom are turned into steaks or brisket, which I feel is the highest calling of a cow, not that I want to see it happen because, well, I'm a coward. Bad things also happen to some Texas Longhorns and I don't want to see that happen because that's my school mascot. Hook 'em! Then very closely is the fact that in this film Paul Newman plays the titular bad guy and he is damn good at it.



So, there's Hud, his dad, Homer, his nephew, Lonnie and the maid Alma. Basically, Hud butts heads with his dad over his dead brother and some diseased cattle and the fact that Hud is a jerk. No, really. He wants to sell the diseased cattle to someone else and tries to rape the maid, who is later like, "You should have just asked." Okay then.Your Oscar trivia for the day is that Patricia Neal actually won an Oscar for the part of Alma and oh, yeah, Paul lost again. Lonnie is constantly torn between his grandfather's ethics and Hud's charm. Eventually he chooses ethics. Oh, well.



So, here is the classic example of Paul Newman being a character actor trapped in a leading man's body. He is such a jerk in this movie, but audiences still loved him, despite his desire to break the conventions of cinema and leading man roles, which he did get to do, but it was like it never got acknowledged. The film takes no detours to having Hud become a good guy, he just doesn't. The likeability factor could not have been really surprising to the filmmakers, take a look at the poster, they had to know people were coming to see Paul Newman and they probably didn't care what he did. Oh, well, Paul, I guess you can't get everything.

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.

The Paul Newman Restrospective: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, 1969

In the first season of 30 Rock, there is this classic exchange between Liz Lemon and Jenna Maroney which outlines the debate we will be having over the next two editions of the Paul Newman retrospective:

Jenna: Paul Newman or Robert Redford?
Liz: I’ve told you a thousand times, Newman. Because I enjoy his salad dressings and lemonade.
Jenna: Okay. Brad Pitt or George Clooney?


Once upon a time, there were two leading men called Paul Newman and Robert Redford. They would unite with director George Roy Hill for two films that would become classics of American cinema. One of them would go on to age extremely well and create a line of salad dressings. The other would go on to show us he really should have worn sunscreen and found a film festival that would start out independent, then go all commercial.

Butch and Sundance are two thieves in the American west living the dream. They rob banks and trains, they have a gang, visit prostitutes and go for bicycle rides. Then one day, they get hunted by a lawman names Lefors and nothing is the same. The two men have to flee to Bolivia, where they find it hard to rob banks, then find it hard to go straight and then find that eventually you will get shot robbing banks.

This film has one classic scene after another, so just indulge me.

This is where we learn about the rules of a knife fight:


This is where we learn about jumping off cliffs:


And this is where we learn about riding bicycles:


I swear that is a scene you could only get away with in the 1970s. All of a sudden, there's Burt Bacharach and Paul Newman's riding a bicycle and why? I was relieved to watch an interview with Richard Zanuck, who was the head of 20th Century Fox at the time, who related a story about when he first showed the film to the Board of Fox, who basically were like, "What's with that scene with the bicycle?" Okay, so it wasn't just me.

What is important is that this is the perfect film for 1969. The tone is just right, echoing the American discontent at the time without intentionally going cynical, just truthful. Take for instance one of the central ironies of the film: that Butch and Sundance never killed a man until they went straight. It's remarkable. Take the ending, which as I understand it House tried to murder a couple of weeks ago, hence why I stopped watching House like three years ago. That's neither here nor there...



I don't know what that bit tagged on the end is. Take that ending. This movie would suck if somehow Butch and Sundance got out, if we were subjected to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Down Under. It never would have worked. William Goldman said the theme of the film was that times change and if you want to survive, you should change with them. Butch and Sundance can't, won't, remain a relic of a wild past that is fast disappearing in the face of the future. We wouldn't love them if they did change and when they die, we don't feel cheated. It just seems right.

So, what did you think of this movie? By the way, it was nominated for Best Picture and lost to Midnight Cowboy. William Goldman did win for Best Screenplay. So, tell me if you disagree with me, did you understand the bicycle scene? Also, be sure to put your pitches for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Rob Monaco in the comments section.




Another legacy of this film is a philanthropic one. Paul Newman took the name of the gang in the film and founded Hole In The Wall Camps, which is a place where seriously ill children come to act like kids who aren't sick for a short time of the year. Here's an old PSA with Paul and I feel compelled to put a link to them to donate if you are so moved. I suck at making the links work, though, so if you could just copy and paste the address in your browser.

https://www.holeinthewallcamps.org/SSLPage.aspx?pid=425

The Paul Newman Retrospective: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? The Towering Inferno: 1974

Welcome to the second edition of The Paul Newman Retrospective. As promised, I won't shy away from the crap films and this is the first one. This film was nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture. ARE YOU EVEN KIDDING ME???! Luckily, The Godfather Part II came out that year and obviously that won, but the fact that it was even nominated frightens me. Just so you know, I'm not even bothering to learn the names of the characters in this movie, so I'm just going to refer to them with the names of the actors playing them.

So, The Towering Inferno. The screenplay was adapted from two novels about giant buildings that burn down so there is your first sign about the quality of the story. My first sign that this movie wouldn't go well? There's a long helicopter ride during the credits. Anytime, there's a long helicopter ride at the start of a movie everyone is doomed. Also, that's how MASH starts. So, in this film Paul Newman plays the architect of the world's tallest building. He gets off the helicopter somehow managing not to look ridiculous in a deep orange henley. He meets up with the building's owner, William Holden, where we learn Paul wants to retire from making stupid buildings, but he puts it differently. Anyway, he meets up with his lady friend, Faye Dunaway and you can guess what happens. Still, Faye is having problems deciding if she wants to take the promotion at her job or go off to the country somewhere. I was wondering what the hell her problem was until I thought Paul was talking about going to Montana. Gee, Paul, Montana? We couldn't just live wherever Steve Jobs lives, I could commute and you could stay home with the imaginary kids? If you think I thought that too far through, then you are obviously overestimating the amount of intellect required to watch this movie.

Not that there aren't plenty of plots. There's something about a deaf mom and some kids. Robert Wagner tries to run faster than fire. Fred Astaire tries to con a lady and O.J. Simpson rescues a cat. Yes. O.J. Simpson rescues a cat. Oh, and the priest from the Thornbirds buys some cheap wires which make the building catch on fire.

Then, there's Steve McQueen. When the building ineveitably catches fire, fire chief Steve comes to stop it. Good luck. More interesting than the plot of this film is the behind the scenes bitch fest that Steve McQueen had over the size of his part versus Paul Newman. He wanted billing over Paul Newman. Okay?? They settled on diagonal billing so it was like they both had top billing. Also, Steve was mad Paul had twelve more lines than him. Really, Steve, really? And then he had to carry Scott Newman in a scene. Scott Newman plays a fireman, one of his few roles. If you're wondering why you haven't heard about Scott Newman, it's because he very sadly died of a drug overdose in 1978. I know, way for me to bring down the mood. Anyway, if you're bored watching this movie by the time Steve McQueen shows up, I found it entertaining to finish all of Paul Newman's lines to Steve with the word "bitch."

I won't bore you with the other four million things that go wrong with this building and rescuing the people in the building. Let me just tell you how they decide to put out the fire: THEY BLOW UP THE WATER TANKS ON THE TOP FLOOR. First, how can that possibly work? Second, why are the water tanks on the top floor of the tallest building in the world? Does that make any sense?



Per my mom, I'd like you to note the level of badass with which Paul and Steve confront a giant wall of water that could drown them. They're like, "Oh, I'm just a little wet."

Normally, I would try not to give you a video someone made off YouTube, but the song in this film "We May Never Love Like This Again" by Maureen McGovern did win the Academy Award for Best Song that year, so I feel I must share it with you as an example of music in 1970s disaster cinema. Also, this video saves you the trouble of watching the film and I do what I can for my readers. Also, the lyrics are right there at the bottom, so sing and sway and wave your lighters/cell phones.



So, Roger Ebert says this movie does not suck. Therefore, I ask you, have I gotten it wrong? Is this in fact a good movie? Were you worried about that cat O.J. saved too? Did Paul Newman make Steve McQueen his bitch? Tell me any and all of your thoughts about this movie in the comments section. Also, whose brilliant idea was it to build the world's tallest building in San Francisco, the most eathquake-y city on Earth?

Presenting The Paul Newman Retrospective: A Failure to Communicate: Cool Hand Luke, 1967

Well, the Oscars ended and I decided that I liked having a theme. I just finished reading Shaun Levy's Paul Newman: A Life and I thought, "Hey, the Paul Newman Retrospective!"

Here's the deal: I am going to cover every Paul Newman movie I can, even the crap ones, which sometimes in the 1970s he just did a movie because it wouldn't interfere with race season, so he made some crap. Okay? Even Paul has his faults. There is one exception to this though and that is Quintet. All I know about Quintet is that it takes place in some post apocalyptic future where people kill each other because they're bored and it was directed by Robert Altman. I do not do doomsday/post-apocalyptic scenarios because I will not sleep for a week. Also, movies where the aliens invade or say they're here to be our friends. If I had met the Vulcans in First Contact, let's just say it probably would have gone differently. So, I intend to alternate posts between good Paul Newman and crappy Paul Newman. So, I'll take you from his debut in The Silver Chalice to Cars. Yes, I watched Cars.



I thought no place would be better to start than Cool Hand Luke. Two disclaimers. One, the first time I saw it, I did not have a clue what was going on. Two, it is one of my favorite movies.

The story is about Lucas Jackson, who we see in a very bizarre scene at the beginning of the film drunkenly cutting the heads off of parking meters. He can't really answer why he's doing this. He gets sentenced to two years in a prison chain gang. We quickly realize that Luke is unable to deal with any authority from the prison boss to the prisoner structure.



It's not that Luke is stupid, he just seems unable to bend to any rules, even in the interest of self preservation. We get the feeling that he wishes he could just obey rules like other people. Take this scene where he fights the prison leader Dragline and impresses the other prisoners even though he loses, but he never can give up.



Luke becomes a hero to the prisoners through this and a series of other escapades including the famous 50 eggs scene.



Or when he encourages the other prisoners to finish their work early simply to confound the guards.



In these small ways, Luke achieves victories against the system and the man, but these are short-lived. Problems arise when Luke's mother dies. Yeah, like being in a chain gang wasn't bad enough. The prison boss decides to put him in the box instead of running the risk that he will try to escape. Unfortunately, this makes Luke want to escape. And escape he does. This makes him even more of a hero, he sends back a picture of himself with two attractive women. Luke is finally returned to the prison, where the guards endeavour to break his spirit through hopeless tasks and merciless beatings. When he finally collapses and begs them for mercy, the effect is devastating. You feel like Luke has died and you're not quite certain what sort of creature you're looking at. The film carries on with the new, broken Luke and just when it seems like all hope is lost, Luke makes another escape, this time with Dragline. They split up and Luke takes refuge in a church for what is my favorite scene in a movie full of great scenes.



It strikes me as a favorite because it is so universal. Who hasn't asked God or the Universe if you would rather see it that way, what the hell is the deal here? Paul Newman manages to pull this scene off in a way that draws us in, doesn't seem so theatrical and doesn't come off as hokey as the scene could easily do if in the hands of a lesser actor.

Things don't end up well for Luke, like so many literary Christ figures before him. The film concludes with the other prisoners remembering Luke and his exploits, which is what my grandmother claims is the important part of the story. I'm not entirely sure, but it may well center around the theme of defiance in the face of an uncaring world, the uselessness of rebellion. As the prison boss asserts, most of us get used to our chains. Luke doesn't. He can't, so the world destroys him.

shockingly, this movie didn't have a Best Picture nomination. George Kennedy did win a Best Supporting Actor nomination and once again, Paul Newman got nominated for an Oscar but didn't get one. It does have one of the most famous lines in all of cinema, though.



Strother Martin the actor who plays the warden saw the line as something his character would have absorbed with the intellectualizing of the penal system. To me, it feels like such a real line, that could come straight out of the mouth of any southern sheriff.

This is not an easy film, maybe one better watched with some Cliffs Notes. In my mind, that's probably why the film didn't get the recognition it deserved when it came out. On the inane note, two years on a chain gang for vandalism? Are you kidding me? What crappy lawyer did Luke have? Were there no women on that jury? What the hell? Also, if you watch the Special Features on the DVD, you can listen to the other actors tell how they asked Paul Newman how he had a six pack and say things like, "Of course, we didn't call it a six pack back then..." I'm not even kidding.

So, what do you think? Is Paul Newman supposed to be Jesus in this film? Did he really have a great six pack? What do we know about "the man"? Let me know in the comments section!

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 Nominee: The Social Network - 2010

You know the way I love to watch old movies as a way to examine the world that once was? Well, this is the movie our children and grandchildren are going to be watching when they want to understand the world the way it was way back in the first decade of the millennium. By the way, did we ever decide what to call that decade? Because I was confused at the start and feel as if it never really got resolved.

Anyway, I have to admit that I was one of the doubters of The Social Network. I mean, that title's preposterous and it spawned a vibrant field of parody trailers which I will now show you:

The Auction site


Twitter



The Social Network is the story of Mark Zuckerberg who basically pissed off everyone who knew on the way to becoming a Facebook mogul. The movie transports us back to the internet heyday of 2003 (back then, back then...)back to a simpler world where to keep up with their friends people actually had to talk to their friends and not to the world of now, where you know about Facebook. The film is told in flashbacks at the various depositions that Mark Zuckerberg and his plaintiffs give. He sort of steals Facebook from some annoying rich twins who as much as Zuckerberg pissed me off, were pissing me off more: "We're going to row in the Olympics..." Ooh, ahh. No British accent, Winklevoss, so I'm not impressed. He meets up with the Napster founder played by Justin Timberlake in a great manic performance. (By the way, remember Napster? Wasn't that great? I like iTunes and all, but remember FREE MUSIC?!) With JT he manages to cut out his best friend who put up all the money for Facebook. Jerk. Jesse Eisenberg is very good in his role as an offbeat genius, who we never quite know what he's thinking even though he's the character we spend most of the film with him, we see him from the outside. I almost felt something like pity at the end when Zuckerberg keeps hitting refresh to see if his old girlfriend has friended him yet.

Aaron Sorkin's dialogue is sharp and great as usual, making me long for the days of The West Wing before it jumped the shark. Director David Fincher keeps the look of the film is dark and brooding like Zuckerberg himself and not showy at all, in fact relying heavily on Sorkin's words fitting for a movie that is in essence about statuses and words on a screen. Of course, the surprise of The Social Network is that it didn't suck and may well have lived up to the hype. I think it may well be a classic, a movie for future generations to watch and see how Facebook started when they're living in some sort of Tron meets Facebook world.



So, be sure to like this post on Facebook, then share it for your friends to like and tell me what you think of the post in the comments. Also, don't forget to vote in the poll to the upper left of the screen about which movie should win Best Picture.

Best Picture 1961: West Side Story

Are you even kidding me? This is the Best Picture of 1961? As an FYI. this is the same group that brought you Gigi, so I'm thinking payments were made.

In case you didn't know, West Side Story is Romeo and Juliet, but they've added singing, dancing and street gangs. Sound like an unlikely combination? That's because it is. It does not hold up to time at all well. Dancing street gangs? Tell me, when was the last time you saw the Crips dancing up the street? By the way, if anybody can prove to me there were street gangs with names like the Jets and the Sharks in 1961, maybe I'll take this whole attempt to deal with youth violence a little more seriously. Then I will call those gangs punks. The music isn't even all that great and my evidence for this is that with my tin ear, I thought it sucked. I'm not even sure all the actors could actually sing. Here's one who could, Rita Moreno, who won an Oscar for this and with one of the most famous songs of West Side Story, "In America."



Now this may seem to be nitpicking to you all, but I believe Puerto Rico is actually in America. Anyone? The only part of this film that livened my interest was when the Jets attacked Rita Moreno and I thought maybe Chris Keller from Oz would come kill them all.



See? That would have been fun. I wouldn't even have cared if he had sung and danced afterward.

Okay, let's go ahead and look at the nominees that year. Fanny, The Guns of Navarone, Judgment at Nuremberg, which I have previously covered: and The Hustler.






The Hustler starring Paul Newman, Piper Laurie, George C. Scott and Jackie Gleason. Paul Newman is "Fast Eddie" Felson, a pool shark who wants to prove he's the best in the world by beating the legendary "Minnesota" Fats played by Jackie Gleason. He loses badly because of his own hubris and falls in with Sarah played by Piper Laurie, who is some sort of boozing college student with writing aspirations and a limp. I'm not sure why I felt the need to add that, I'm still trying to figure out why the filmmakers added it, she's damaged or something? I don't know. Anyway, Eddie tries to hustle someone and gets his thumbs broken which is bad for a pool player. He heals and gets a new stakeholder, Bert, played by George C. Scott. Bert tells Eddie that the reason he lost to Minnesota was that he had talent, but no character. He's right, which in my mind always make a truly great villain. This is Eddie losing to Minnesota Fats.



Meanwhile, Sarah becomes more concerned about Eddie's drive for success even as she accompanies him to Kentucky where Bert has arranged a game for him. The game turns out to be billiards not pool and Eddie loses. Sarah pleads with him to leave, but he won't because he's driven by his desire to win. Sarah calls his world "twisted, perverted and crippled" and leaves. Eddie comes back and wins, but Bert goes back to the hotel first and sexually assaults Sarah, which we never actually see. She kills herself and Eddie comes back to the hotel to find she's scrawled those same words "twisted, perverted and crippled" on the bathroom mirror.

Eddie goes back to New York to challenge Minnesota Fats. He bets all of his winnings and beats him so badly he has to quit. Bert demands his share and Eddie reminds him about Sarah. Bert relents, but tells Eddie he can never play pool again. It's Sarah's death that finally enables Eddie to see there's more to life than winning and that's how he can finally win. It's only by letting go that he can succeed. I know that must seem convoluted, but that's what actually happens. It's like a whole Oprah "Aha!" moment type of thing.

The cinematography is beautiful, it's black and white, but still so sharp. Paul Newman is as usual, brilliant. Newman was from the first generation of Actors' Studio students and it shows. He had a way of just inhabiting his characters, no matter what he was called upon to do. George C. Scott does menace exceptionally well and conveys it even as he tries to play the mentor figure. Jackie Gleason is great in an unexpected sober performance, where he does so little and much like Newman seems to inhabit his character. Now the stats: Gleason, Scott, Laurie: Oscar nominations. The director, Robert Rossen, got nominated but lost to those jerks from West Side Story. Paul Newman got nominated for Best Actor, but lost to Maximilian Schell. Paul Newman actually finally won a Best Actor Oscar for playing this same role opposite Tom Cruise in The Color of Money, which I used to think was the worst film ever made, but is now just the worst film ever made by Martin Scorsese. Don't believe me?



I'm just like, why? Why did we do that? Still, Paul Newman could kick Tom Cruise's ass any day of the week and make a better salad dressing. So, conclusion about 1961? The movie with Paul Newman in it got robbed. Again.

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 1958: Gigi

1958 was a remarkable year in the history of film. It was the year when Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo came out, along with Orson Welles' Touch of Evil along with Some Came Running. However, none of these films were nominated for Best Picture. Instead, the nominees were Auntie Mame, Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, The Defiant Ones, Separate Tables and Gigi. Now, let's review the contenders. Separate Tables is the story of several couples as they stay at a seaside hotel. Auntie Mame is the story of an orphan who goes to live with his eccentric aunt. The Defiant Ones is the story of two prisoners one black, one white escaped who have to work together. It was also the film that Sidney Poitier was first nominated for an Oscar for, making him the first African American man to get the honor, and only four African American women had gotten any nominations before that. (Dorothy Dandridge for Carmen Jones, Ethel Waters for Pinky and Hattie McDaniel for Gone With The Wind, the only woman among these three to actually win.)



Then Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, my personal favorite of these films. Admittedly, there are flaws to my selection. It is the film that Tennessee Williams famously told people not to see because the filmmakers had to cut out all the homosexual elements present in the play and talk around things. They also had to kind of give it a happy ending. Yet the movie still feels like it's about something and Paul Newman and Elizabeth Taylor both give incredible, tortured performances. Burl Ives also gives a great performance as Big daddy. (Your piece of trivia for the day is also that Burl Ives sings "Holly Jolly Christmas")

So, how the hell is Gigi the Best Picture of 1958?





Gigi was directed by Vincente Minnelli and one of the last musicals to come out of the storied Arthur Freed production unit at MGM. Overall, it's not a bad movie and pretty good so far as musicals about French courtesans go, but Moulin Rouge remains my favorite of the genre. Gigi, played by Leslie Caron, is a young girl being groomed to be a courtesan by her grandmother and great aunt. She enjoys a friendship with man about town, Gaston, played by Louis Jourdan. The friendship unfortunately gets sidetracked by the fact that Gigi is grown up and her family would like to see her put in a comfortable situation. Gigi's grandmother points out to Gaston that Gigi is grown up. He first refuses to believe it and leaves in a huff, wandering the streets and singing. Gaston proposes to Gigi that she becomes his mistress. Gigi rejects him, saying that such a life would only be fraught with misery and scandal for her. Gaston storms out, unable to see that. Gigi calls him back and announces that she would rather be miserable with him than without him. Gigi and Gaston go out to dinner that evening where the combination of Gigi's coquetry and the reaction of the other patrons convinces Gaston that Gigi's original interpretation of her life as a mistress was accurate. Dismayed, he takes her home and wanders the streets of Paris only to return and ask Gigi's grandmother for her hand in marriage.

So, a pretty fanciful story, but it was 1958 so we can't exactly count that against it. It's just in the broad strokes that some things bother me. Take this scene in the opening where Maurice Chevalier sings "Thank Heaven For Little Girls."



Am I the only one thinking old guy alone in the park singing this song equals pedophile? It doesn't help that the plot of this film just about adds up to being about training your granddaughter to be a high class prostitute. The whole concept of this film is creepy. Vincente Minnelli has his usual skill with color and spectacle, it has all the charm of an MGM musical, but there's nothing particularly wonderful or groundbreaking about it, especially when compared with the competition and even more so when compared with the films that got snubbed that year.

So, what do you all think? Fill in the blank in the comments section: "Yo, Gigi, I'm really happy for you, I'mma let you finish but ________ was the hottest film of 1958."

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?

Best Picture 1998: Shakespeare in Love

I think at this time it would be appropriate to have a slight discussion of Miramax and in particular, its Oscar dynasty in the period encompassing the 1990s. Miramax, if you don't know, was founded by two brothers, Bob and Harvey Weinstein. Their intent was to distribute films other studios wouldn't because it wouldn't be financially feasible. Basically, The English Patient. Yeah, I'm talking to you. They were known for auteur works like Pulp Fiction, Clerks, Trainspotting, a lot of Woody Allen junk and oh, yeah, The English Patient. In 1993, Disney bought Miramax and this may not be where the trouble began, it ended somewhere around Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 and the brothers leaving the company. Then Disney sold Miramax in 2010. So, let's call it a brief spectacular history.



So, 1998, Shakespeare in Love. First, some fun facts. Julia Roberts was originally to play Viola, but she wouldn't do it unless Daniel Day Lewis played Shakespeare. Luckily, Daniel Day Lewis had the good sense to stay the hell away from Shakespeare in Love starring Julia Roberts. That was back in 1991, so it was another seven years before the film was completed.

We meet Shakespeare in the middle of a case of writer's block as he works on his new play, Romeo and Ethel, The Pirate's Daughter. He falls in love with Viola played by Gwyneth Paltrow, a rich girl betrothed to Lord Wessex, played by Colin Firth. I just want to say I find this trend of female protagonists in the 1990s not wanting to marry or be married to Colin Firth really disturbing. Long story short, Viola inspires Shakespeare to write one of his his greatest plays. I could go through a turn by turn summary, but frankly, we would get bogged down in minutiae and just listing the cast presents a problem because everybody in the film is good. Ben Affleck puts on a good performance in this movie without resorting to his Boston townie accent which still would have been amusing. The story is predictable, but not devoid of interest at all. In fact, one of the charms of the film is that it is so familiar to the audience with its Shakespeare references and inside jokes. It's not as if you have to be a Shakespearean scholar in order to get it, either, you basically need two to three years of high school, which is what I had when I first saw it. For example, Rupert Everett plays Christopher Marlowe, Shakespeare's rival and openly regarded in the film as the greatest playwright around. Queen Elizabeth I, played by Judi Dench, hides in the audience of the play as a commoner. Shakespeare's parting with Viola leads him to write Twelfth Night.

So, let us move on to the pressing issue. Was Shakespeare in Love really the best film that came out in 1998? Let's look at the nominees. Elizabeth, Life Is Beautiful, The Thin Red Line and a little film called Saving Private Ryan. I think we can safely count out Life Is Beautiful because that film is schmaltzy crap. I didn't used to think so, I cried when I first watched it and then I visited about five concentration camps and now Roberto Benigni pisses me off. The Thin Red Line is about three hours of Terrence Malick doing Terrence Malick things and I have no idea what the point was. If you know, please tell me. Elizabeth was good and Saving Private Ryan is you know, generally regarded as the greatest of the modern war epics. I think it's all down to a matter of taste. Is Shakespeare in Love good? Yes. Is Saving Private Ryan good? Yes. They're just different and only one could win.

This is not really useful to deciding which film should have won in 1998, but I like it. So, here's what happens when Blackadder meets Shakespeare:



Okay, now because I can, here is an entirely different take on the Shakespeare question featuring two actors from this film, Rupert Everett and Colin Firth, written by Rupert Everett, whose Colin Firth crush may be more serious than mine. I'm pretty sure he decided to rip off a movie he was actually in. From St. Trinian's Part 2: The Legend of Fritton's Gold. If you don't know what that is, I think you have to be a British teenage girl.

Best Picture 1996: The English Patient

1996 was hailed by most media and critics as "the year of the independent film." Just look at the nominees for Best Picture: The English Patient, Fargo, Jerry Maguire, Secrets & Lies and Shine. Movies that just about no one had heard of until they got nominated with the obvious exception of Jerry Maguire. It was back before Tom Cruise jumped on couches. I still haven't seen Shine. Apparently, Geoffrey Rush is a crazy guy who plays piano. Don't take that the wrong way, it could be good, I just don't know.

So, The English Patient is the story of Count Almasy played by Ralph Fiennes and his affair with Katharine played by Kristin Scott Thomas. If you're me, you just had to go look that up because all I could remember was that Kristin Scott Thomas is married to Colin Firth in the film and thus, she's cheating on Colin Firth and that just doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense. The interesting thing is that structurally the story takes place in two time periods: the affair happens on the eve of World War II and the part in which the Count tells his nurse his story takes place in its final days.

So, if you couldn't tell the love story is lost on me. The Count seems like a possessive jerk and just stands around spouting a lot of romantic puffery with an accent and somehow gets an Oscar for this when frankly I found Maid in Manhattan so much more compelling. I guess that's because he's so consumed by love or whatever, which I'll admit he was less consumed by love in Maid in Manhattan. Katharine is you know, cheating on Colin Firth, so she must be crazy, right? But in the interests of fairness, here's some scenes that I find gross.




And don't forget the supposedly hot scene where Count and Katharine have sex while Colin Firth is playing Santa Claus. I do not joke. Anyway, the war comes, they have to stop their exploration which is okay because no one actually cared about that anyway if they cared about this movie at all. Because I know I didn't. Colin Firth has also gotten wise and in what some characterize as an insane act of revenge, I call trying to do us all a giant favor. He flies a plane into the Count's desert camp with himself and Katharine on it. I couldn't find a clip of that so here's Colin Firth dancing earlier.



So, Colin Firth dies (the character was called Geoffrey Clifton, I just don't care) and I lose all interest. Kristin Scott Thomas is badly injured and the Count takes her to the cave to protect her from the desert. He makes the journey back to Cairo to try to get help, gets thrown in jail, escapes and comes back to find out Katharine is dead.

So, I could go on about the stuff towards the end of the war with Juliette Binoche which is let's face it, more interesting, but I don't care. There's some stuff with Willem Dafoe seeking revenge, but ultimately this film just didn't hold my interest. So if you feel robbed by me, here's some Rotten Tomatoes reviews.


Meanwhile, the best part of this is the episode of Seinfeld where Elaine feels pretty much like I do about The English Patient and faces ostracism because of it, so here's how that ends up.

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.

Future Classic: The King's Speech - 2010

I have decided to temporarily forego the formality of waiting forty or fifty years for a movie to officially become a classic and report on them in time for this year's Oscars. Today, I am going to discuss The King's Speech, my favorite movie of the year. If I could get through Toy Story 3 without crying, maybe. I'll try to keep it spoiler lite but seriously, you should know how World War II ended by now. Onwards...

If you can't tell by now, I'm a little bit of an Anglophile. I always gravitate towards anything with the royal family and so, Colin Firth as the king, I am there. Let us henceforth refer to King George VI as Bertie, because I like that it reminds me of Jeeves and Wooster. Bertie is the Duke of York, the second oldest son of King George V, which by all accounts means that he's not going to be king, which really works out because Bertie has a stammer. Or a stutter. The opening sequence of the film is one of the best I've ever seen: setting up the stakes, creating tension and creating a great deal of empathy for Bertie very quickly. We see him fumble through a speech of Wembley Stadium in front of a huge crowd and worse on the radio. His wife, Elizabeth, (because I guess they didn't think THAT would get confusing) played by Helena Bonham Carter is desperate to help him and seeks out Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), an Australian speech therapist in order to help him. Bertie goes to meet with Lionel and is convinced that no one can help him. So, we follow Bertie back to Christmas with his dad where we start to get the idea that Bertie's real problem is his decidedly screwed up family. Realizing that Lionel can help him, Bertie returns and starts working at curing his stammer.



In a brilliant montage, Bertie works on the stammering and this is interrupted by the coinciding crises of his father's death and his brother, Edward VIII, taking up with an American divorcee which is bad. It quickly becomes apparent that Edward is not up to the task of being king at all.



So, in the style of the bromance, Lionel tries to explain to Bertie that he can be king just as good as his brother, that he doesn't need to be afraid. Bertie doesn't want to hear it because he doesn't want to be king AT ALL and who the hell would? Even when you get to do whatever you want like on The Tudors, you're still miserable and beheading wives left and right. They break up for a while until Bertie is about to be crowned and Bertie is finally ready to understand what Lionel tried to tell him.

We follow them through the coronation and to the opening of the Second World War and everything ties together brilliantly. I really loved this movie and the elegance of the storytelling and the way director Tom Hooper was able to set the mood. Colin Firth gives an inspired performance, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter are also quite good in their roles. Rush manages to make the role of an Australian in the King's Court somehow not comical and is compelling as a man who slowly begins to realize he's playing a role in history. Bonham Carter is quite good as the slightly offbeat future Queen Mother and you really believe the chemistry between her and Firth. (You might be thinking, how hard is it to have chemistry with Colin Firth? Watch Uma Thurman fail at it in The Accidental Husband. And Helen Hunt.) Also, Guy Pearce as Edward is really great at playing a jackass. In conclusion, it is an intimate story that changes the course of global events. Some deride it as being too feel good, but I think it's struck a chord in people, wanting to believe that we can be more than we think we are. So, screw you, negative people who don't want to feel good.


In the part that's not important, I failed to notice that Jennifer Ehle played Lionel Logue's wife. Probably because they made her look really old and it would have gone like, "Mr. Darcy!" "Miss Bennet, you've aged horribly." Try to imagine some mashup of these two.






So, I'll keep you updated with some other commentary on Best Picture nominees and also some opinion on past winners.

On a completely superficial note, how much do I love this poster?