CRASH (2005)

CRASH (DIR: PAUL HAGGIS) (SCR:HAGGIS & BOBBY MORESCO)

The televised Oscar broadcast on March 5th. 2006 presented one of the few truly dramatic and exciting Oscar races ever:when Paul Haggis's CRASH was announced, there was an audible gasp from the audience, and presenter Jack Nicholson looked positively stunned.  Haggis's film was a controversial choice not only for its subject matter (the always tricky issue of race in modern day America), but also because of  the film that  it beat, Ang Lee's BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.  Even before its release, Lee's film had been both lionized by liberals and attacked by conservatives because it was an epic love story between two men (and not just any men, cowboys, who had always been seen as the ultimate in American masculinity). And the fact that BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN was a box office and critical success that  was nominated by the Academy for 8 Oscars seemed to be more than just a reflection of its quality; it also felt like an open defiance of the presidency of George W Bush, who had, just one year earlier, won reelection partly on the strength of his stated desire to add an anti-gay marriage amendment to the constitution.  So, for once there was genuine tension (and a decidedly political tone)  on Oscar night, as the question was raised; would the mostly older Oscar voters actually call a  gay love story the best film of the year?  The political tone of the awards was set almost right away, when SYRIANA star and best supporting actor winner George Clooney gave an acceptance speech in which he eloquently defended Hollywood's progressive views, a veiled reference to Lee's film.  At first it looked like it was BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN's night, as it won three awards, including one for its script and another for director Lee.  But then CRASH  snuck in and "stole" the award, which lead to a strong backlash against the film, and to this day it's often called the worst best picture choice ever (which is way over the top, did these people see 1956's THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH?!).  Also, another reason that CRASH won may simply be that the Los Angeles setting of the film struck a chord with the Academy voters who mostly reside there.
Forgetting all the controversy and just looking at CRASH by itself, I think the film is actually quite good.  It's use of interlocking stories is always interesting (if sometimes implausible), and Haggis is to be applauded for tackling such difficult subject matter.   While I don't think it was the best film of that year, it deserves far more credit than its poor reputation gets.

Haggis first had the idea for the movie after he was carjacked while returning some movies to a video store.  He later wondered what the carjackers would think of the videotapes  of European art films that they stole with the car.  This eventually led him to write a script with Bobby Moresco about the different ways that people of different ethnicities interact in Los Angeles.  Bringing in respected actors like Sandra Bullock and Don Cheadle (who also co-produced) help him raise the money for the film, which was made on a tiny budget (by Hollywood standards)  of around  $6,000,000, and shot in a brisk 36 days. Haggis even  sometimes shot scenes in his own home and car  to help reduce costs.  The film went on to make over $53,000,000, and while that was certainly an impressive return on its investment, it was also the lowest money making best picture winner since THE LAST EMPEROR IN 1987.

Terence Howard

CRASH's ambitious script attempts to tell multiple stories in a specific place and time to try to catch the tenor of that place as a whole; it's a style similar to excellent films like Spike Lee's DO THE RIGHT THING(1989), Robert Altman's SHORT CUTS (1991), and  P T Anderson's MAGNOLIA(1999).  When done well, as I think it is here, viewing this kind of film can be a thought provoking and innervating experience, one that does not fall into the usual predictable Hollywood formula. For a film like this to work, casting is essential; because no one in the film is a lead character, we have to accept them all right away and see them as well rounded people in just a few short scenes.  Thankfully, Haggis's cast are solid down the line; Mat Dillon, playing bigoted cop turned hero John,  was the only cast member to be nominated for best supporting actor, but really any of them could have been. Terence Howard is a real standout as Cameron, a successful TV director who suffers a series of racially motivated injustices and slights that slowly push him to the edge.  Sandra Bullock is also very good, as a high strung rich woman who can't control her prejudices.  And I really enjoy the interplay between rapper Ludacris and Laurenz Tate playing thieves and best friends Anthony and Peter; Anthony's long winded discussions about race are equal parts truth and paranoia,  giving him some of the film's most thoughtful and funny lines (and in a great in joke, he refers to rappers as "mumbling idiots"!).  Occasionally the dialogue feels too didactic, especially when, late in the film,  political figure Flanagan (William Fitchner) launches into a racial speech in front of a cop that only pertains slightly to what they're talking about.  But for the most part, the actors are all right on the mark, and Haggis even gets a good serious performance from Tony Danza as a TV producer who has an uncomfortable conversation with Cameron.

 The film opens with Cheadle, playing police detective Graham,  who has just gotten in a car accident, talking aloud about the unique nature of LA, and he ends with the words "we crash into each other, just so we can feel something", and while the poetic nature of his speech seems a heavy handed way to start a film, it does  hit on a harsh truth about a city where many residents only interact with people they don't know during car accidents,  and where, despite its enormous diversity, people live in mostly segregated communities.  As the film shows, this segregation makes nearly every interaction with people of other ethnicities difficult; it's often hard to begin without making assumptions about others, and sometimes those assumptions are true.  This is effectively shown early in the film when Bullock's character is clearly intimidated by Anthony and Peter,  two young black men walking towards her.  Moments later the two men car jack her.  Later, she assumes that a Latino locksmith (Micheal Pena) working at her house is a gang member, but he turns out to be a perfectly nice guy.  The world of the film is peopled with characters who are neither entirely good or bad, and even when bad things are done, there's always some reason behind the actions.  And while the film does have some uplifting moments, and shows that even the most prejudiced of people can overcome those prejudices, there are still no easy answers.  This is clearly shown by the juxtaposition of images at the film's end: first we see a young Asian man, who has never seen America before, awed at the number of choices available to him in a store, reminding us how, even with all its flaws, the US is still a desirable destination for people all around the world.  But this idyllic sight is quickly followed by yet another car accident, which results in people spewing racial stereotypes at each other as the film fades out.  The best and the worst of America fully displayed.

Larenz Tate & Ludacris

I mentioned earlier than no one in the film is entirely bad, but actually, that's not completely true; the only Asian people we see for any length of time is a married couple (Alexis Rhee and Greg Joung Paik)who turn out to be part of a human trafficking operation.  This caused some anger, given that  in a film that strives so hard to show even handed, complicated characters of different ethnicities (even including  mostly positive portrayals of Middle Eastern people), would allow Asians to only be represented by criminals.  I think this is a good point, and that Haggis should have found some way to work in another  Asian character or two to provide some balance.  This leads to a broader problem I have with the film; I think it's too short.  While just under two hours is plenty of time for most movies, here the film's broad canvas leads to some parts of it feeling under developed.  For example, Cheadle's character investigates a possible racially motivated shooting that becomes far more complicated than it would first appear to be; there's enough meat in this story for an entire film of its own, and here its resolution feels too quick and neat.  Still, criticizing a film for being too ambitious seems unfair, and I imagine its length has something to do with its low budget,  so I don't consider that much of a failing.

Many people have criticized the film's use of coincidence to link the characters together; this appears mostly in the connection between Dillon's cop character  John and Cameron's wife Christine (Thandie Newton).  Early in the film, after seeing Christine and Cameron engaging in a sex act while driving, John pulls them over and molests Christine while frisking her.  The very next day, John comes to the rescue at a car accident, and finds himself saving Christine from a burning car.  The notion that these two people could run into each other twice in such a short period of time in a city as big as Los Angeles
is hard to swallow, but so what?  Although CRASH is often realistic, it's clearly not intended to be taken as a documentary; as with almost all movies, some suspension of disbelief is necessary.  And the scene works as an extension of one of the main themes of the film: that people can surprise you.  That a stereotypically racist LA cop can also be the kind of guy who will bravely dive back into a burning car to save the life of a black woman. Furthermore, along with fitting into the film's larger point, I find the scene exciting, dramatic and extremely well played by both actors.
The other almost inevitable criticism of the film was that, despite its attempts at taking a harsh look at racism, it is itself racist.  Things get even tricky because Haggis himself is caucasian, which may make his writing and directing of non white characters in racially charged situations suspect in some people's eyes.   Generally, I don't think it's fair to say that writers and directors can't create characters of different ethnicities  than their own, not to mention that actors can always put their own spin on the characters, as the cast does in this film.  As for CRASH,  I think that the film hits at some hard truths, showing that race relations in America are indeed often difficult and that stereotypes persist because they sometimes have a grain of truth to them.  So what if many of the nonwhite characters in the film have flawed or outright criminal  behavior, the white characters suffer from the same kind of flaws, nobody in the film is perfect.  So, excepting the aforementioned Asian characters, I think Haggis's film is honest in its portrayals and well intentioned in its message that race is an inescapable factor in America today.

 SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

I think it's clear that I'm a somewhat big fan of this film, but I don't think that it's a better film than BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN.  But I think the best film of the year was yet another film that was controversial: Steven Speilberg's outstanding MUNICH, one of his more underrated but better films.

MILLION DOLLAR BABY (2004)

MILLION DOLLAR BABY (DIR: CLINT EASTWOOD) (SCR: PAUL HAGGIS, BASED ON THE SHORT STORY COLLECTION ROPE BURNS:STORIES FROM THE CORNER BY FX TOOLE)

Clint Eastwood's MILLION DOLLAR BABY was his second win for best picture after 1992's THE UNFORGIVEN, and it's also the third sports picture to win ever (the first was ROCKY in 1976, and then CHARIOTS OF FIRE in 1982; interestingly, two of them are boxing films).  Like its scrappy heroine, the film's history had a nice underdog quality to it, going from a long term unmade project to a surprise hit and best picture winner (not without some controversy, which I'll talk about later).  But, while I find much to admire in the film, it's often heavy handed characterizations and story make it fall far from greatness in my book, and I think several better films were made that year.

The movie began as a short story collection written by former boxing trainer Jerry Boyd under the name FX Toole in 2000.  Movie star Angelica Huston loved the book and took it to producer Albert S. Ruddy, hoping to direct it herself, but by the time he got the rights she had moved on to other things.  The project bounced around for several years, and eventually Paul Haggis, who had mostly worked in TV at that point, wanted to write and direct it.  He thought that Clint Eastwood would be perfect for the role of the grizzled fight trainer Frankie Dunn, and Eastwood liked both the role and the script so much that he asked Haggis to allow him to direct it, which Haggis quickly agreed to.  Sandra Bullock and Ashley Judd were both considered before Hilary Swank was chosen for the role of Maggie Fitzgerald, while Eastwood's former costar Morgan Freeman was cast as Frankie's partner, Eddie Dupris.  Despite Eastwood's name and prestige, the film still had trouble getting financed, but eventually a deal was struck in which the Warner Brothers studio would put up $15,000,000 and the smaller Lakeshore Entertainment studio would throw in around the same amount.  Eastwood shot the film quickly, in his customary fashion, and buoyed by mostly positive reviews and word of mouth, it would go on to make around $100,000,000.

Clint Eastwood & Hillary Swank

It tells the story of Maggie Fitzgerald (Swank), a waitress from Missouri, who longs to become a boxer.  She begs long time boxing coach Frankie Dunn (Eastwood) to coach her.  He at first refuses, but eventually, after some prodding by his assistant Eddie Dupris (Freeman), he agrees.  Maggie goes from one victory to another, but tragedy strikes when she badly injured in a title bout and winds up paralyzed  in a hospital bed.  Grief stricken, she asks Frankie to help her commit suicide.

Eastwood and cinematographer  Tom Stern used stark, harsh lighting to give the film a gritty, realistic look that works well for the story.  Even the fight scenes avoid flashiness, using slow motion only once, during the final, fatal blow that poor Maggie takes.  The non glossy style keeps the movie from lapsing to overt sentiment, even towards the end when the story gets sadder and sadder.  I also like the way that Haggis's script uses Eddie's voice over narration, which never tells too much and is often poetic in nature ("sometimes the best way to deliver a punch is to step back... but step back too far and you ain't fighting at all.").  And while perhaps overlong, (a subplot about dim witted boxer Danger Barch [Jay Baruchel] befriending Eddie doesn't really add much to the film) the movie builds nicely to a moving climax.
Unfortunately, it falters in some of it's characters:  I dislike the way that the champ, Billie "The Blue Bear" (Lucia Rijker), is portrayed as such a horrible villain who openly cheats, and Eastwood indulges in one of the film's more excessive moments when Billie arrives for the title fight by rising up from the shadows like some kind of demon while scary music plays. That moment also telegraphs the tragic end of the fight too obviously, and I personally think that that  ending would have been more powerful if it just happened in the normal course of a fight instead of coming from a cheap shot; the first time I saw the film I just knew that the fight was going to end badly, because Billie's cheating had been so clearly established.  I would have preferred to have been surprised.  And even worse than the champ character  is the portrayal of Maggie's mother Earline by Margo Martindale, a ludicrously broad stereotype of a poor, lazy, white trash, welfare cheat, who has literally gotten fat off the government. (Clearly, Eastwood's conservative politics played a role here).  How unlikeable a woman is she?  The first time we see her, she yells at her daughter for buying her a house.  The second time we see her, she puts off seeing her ailing daughter to go to Disneyland, and then proceeds to try to get her  to sign her money away.  She even goes out of her way to remind Maggie that she lost her fight!  And along with her mother, Maggie's brother in law is a thuggish ex-convict and her sister a baby toting dimwit, adding to the white trash stereotypes. Even though they only appears in two scenes, these ridiculous characters hurt the film as a whole; although they are supposed to show everything that  Maggie  is striving to avoid becoming, I think it would have been better for her to have had no family at all, or at least not have them all be such monsters.

Morgan Freeman

Despite these reservations, I find much to enjoy in the film: the three central characters of Frankie, Eddie and Maggie are all so likable, and so well played by their respective actors, that I find myself completely on their side and cheering every victory for Maggie, even though I'm not a sports fan.  It's great to see Eastwood and Freeman working together again twelve years after THE UNFORGIVEN, and they immediately have a humorous macho chemistry; thankfully, Freeman is given a much meatier role here, (he won a best supporting actor award for it) and is wonderful in the scene when he recounts for Maggie the fight that lost his sight in one of his eyes, accepting his fate without regret.  But the film's central relationship is between Maggie and Frankie, and while I think perhaps there is a little too obvious symmetry in their lives (he has an estranged daughter that returns his letters unopened, she still misses her father who died when she was a child), they have such a natural and winning chemistry together, the aging tough guy and the feisty tom girl, that it's impossible for me not to be moved by it.  Swank, who won her second best actress award (her first was for 1999's BOYS DON'T CRY) meets the first criteria for the role by looking like a believable boxer (she clearly trained hard for the film), but beyond that, she makes Maggie a sweet, good natured but determined character, who eventually gets Frankie to train her through sheer force of will. Swank is also very good after Maggie is paralyzed, accepting her fate the same way that Eddie did, with no regrets; she even underplays the moment when she first asks Frankie to end her life, talking in a forceful but quiet tone, knowing full well what she's asking. At first, Eastwood seems to be playing yet another of his standard tough guy roles, full of crankiness and glaring.  But as he gets closer to Maggie, he shows a genuinely tender side of himself, and he even cries as he admits to his priest (Brian O'Byrne) that he's considering giving in to Maggie's suicidal wishes.

Now, as to the final scenes in which Frankie kills Maggie, they sparked much controversy, with conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medvid claiming that they were essentially endorsing the idea of euthanasia; oddly enough, these arguments were launched as "liberal Hollywood does it again" despite Eastwood's conservative views. In any event,  however one feels about that issue, I think it's unfair to characterize the film as propaganda, seeing as how Maggie is not even paralyzed until ninety minutes into the film, and even then, she only first asks Frankie to kill her twenty minutes after that.  Maggie's handicap and suffering is really just one part of the whole film.  That said, the film clearly sees Frankie's actions as an act of mercy, and he and Maggie share a tender moment in which he finally tells her what the nickname he gave her means ("Mo Chuisle", gaelic for "my darling, and my blood"), and kisses her on the cheek before giving her a lethal injection.  Personally, I find the scene moving and well acted (even if it's absurdly implausible; there's no way that Frankie could get away with that in a hospital), and I can understand both of the characters motivations, even if I don't necessary agree with them. Therefore, I think it's an ending that is true to the characters and the world they live in, and I have no problem with it.

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

Despite my mostly positive feelings about the film, I don't think it was the best of the year, not when better films like THE HOTEL RHWANDA, THE INCREDIBLES and my favorite, THE ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, were all released.  But, MILLION DOLLAR BABY is  a good pick, mainly thanks to the excellent interplay between the leads.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (2003)

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (DIR: PETER JACKSON) (SCR: JACKSON, FRAN WALSH & PHILIPPA BOYENS)

The Academy's choice of Peter Jackson's THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING as the best picture of 2003 is significant on several levels: it was the first win ever for a film in the fantasy/adventure genre, the second win for a sequel (the first being GODFATHER II in 1974), and the first for a third film in a series, and it was also the first film since 1997's TITANIC to top the box office for the year while also winning best picture.  In many ways, its victory seemed inevitable because it was the last chance to give a best picture award to a film series that obviously impressed Oscar voters from the very start (the first two films in the series, THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and THE TWO TOWERS had already won six awards between them).  Personally,  I find all three films highly entertaining, and really about as good as big budget main stream Hollywood filmmaking can get.  And while I don't think that THE RETURN OF THE KING is the best in the series, it still an exciting and great looking adventure movie, with effects that still impress  years later.

It all began in 1936 when English Oxford professor JRR Tolkien published a book that he had initially written only for his own children called THE HOBBIT.  Its success with both children and adults led to the inevitable sequel, the massive, and much more serious novel,  THE LORD OF THE RINGS.  (When it was originally published in 1954,  the book publishers demanded it be cut into three separate novels, THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, THE TWO TOWERS, and THE RETURN OF THE KING).  Influenced by  the ancient poem BEOWULF, his own Catholic beliefs and European mythology in general, the books became massively successful, and they have never stopped finding an audience, becoming some of the most widely read novels of the twentieth century.
Given their popularity, a film version of the novels would seem inevitable, and the film rights of the novels were purchased by United Artists as far back as the late 1960's, but the enormous difficulty of bringing a fantasy world full of magical creatures to the screen seemed insurmountable.   In 1978 animator Ralph Bakshi made a feature length animated version that covered the entire first book and half of the second, but the film was a disappointment (although Jackson has admitted to using some of its imagery in his films).  A made for TV followup in 1980, not worked on by Bakshi, was far worse, reducing the story to a simple kiddie film.  Finally, in the 1990's, it looked like special effects had advanced to the level where Tolkien's middle earth could finally be brought to the screen properly. At least that's what New Zealand born director Peter Jackson thought while making the 1996 horror comedy THE FRIGHTENERS, especially because he had just formed a special effects company called Weta, and Tolkien's novels seemed like an ideal challenge.  So, Jackson and his writing partner Fran Walsh began trying to sort out the rights for the film; it took so long that at one point, it appeared that Jackson was going to make his dream project, a remake of KING KONG, first. (He would eventually make that  film in 2005). But, finally, at New Line pictures, Jackson got what he wanted: three separate films, to be shot in New Zealand,  mostly all at once,  with each film being released a year apart.  It was a massive undertaking, with Jackson pressured to produce a film series that would satisfy both long term fans of Tolkien and a new generation of movie goers who may never have even heard of the novels.  Along with that, the films would have to have huge budgets, requiring numerous location shooting, thousands of extras in full costumes and makeup and of course cutting edge special effects.  (It was such a massive undertaking that there were often four or five separate film units shooting footage simultaneously) Fortunately for New Line and Jackson, the first film, THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, was a huge hit from the get go; its popularity led to New Line allowing him to film more scenes  and add effects for the second and third films, making them even more visually impressive than the first.  By the time THE RETURN OF THE KING was released in 2003, its success was guaranteed, and it would go on to make almost four hundred million dollars in the US alone.  (Its global box office would top  a billion!).  It would also get 14 Academy Award nominations, winning 11 in all, tying it with TITANIC and BEN HUR for most overall wins.

As the film opens, Frodo (Elijah Wood)  Sam (Sean Astin) and the treacherous Gollum (Andy Serkis) are making their way to Mordor to destroy the evil Sauron's  ring of power that Frodo is carrying.  Meanwhile, their friends Aragorn (Vigo Mortinsen) and Gandalf (Ian McCellen) work to defend the castle of Gondor from the orc hordes of Sauron.

Elijah Wood & Scott Astin

Jackson has often referred to all three films singularly as "the film", and if one watches all three films together in a marathon viewing, you can see his point.  The three films really do function as one big movie, and if the scope of the films grows, with more characters and settings, along with big battles leading to even bigger ones, it seems like a natural progression.  And Jackson gets so much of it right, from the casting to the effects, that the films have gone beyond just being hits of their era to timeless movies that new generations of fans will gladly grab on to, not unlike George Lucas's original STAR WARS trilogy. And like Lucas, Jackson really created a lived in, detailed fantasy world.  And the effects not only looked great, they created real characters, like Gollum and Tree Beard.  In finding the right actors for the films, Jackson went with the right performers instead of trying to find big name stars, and every role rings true; you're never reminded that these are actors responding  to green screens and computer generated monsters. From Ian McKellen's wise Gandalf to the likable comic relief of Merry and Pippin (Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd), the film is fully of immediately recognizable and likable characters.   And while the dialogue occasionally seems a bit stilted, ("So passes Denethor, son of Ecthelion.") the actors clearly respect the material and play it straight, with good results.

The battle of  Gondor

Of all the various subplots and characters that run through all three films, the one that really holds the story together is the charming relationship between Wood's troubled Frodo and Astin's ever faithful Sam; yes, in movies full of epic battles and monsters, the real heart and soul of the story lies in the sweetness of these two unlikely heroes.  Astin seems to almost radiate goodness and decency as Sam, and over the course of the three movies we will see him follow Frodo anywhere, bravely fighting off orcs and (in one of the most exciting moments of the entire series) a horrifying giant spider; if the script gives Sam  one too many speeches about how much he loves and misses the Shire, Astin delivers them well enough to never lose the audience's affection.  And at one point, when Frodo wrongly believes Gollum over Sam,  and pushes Sam away, it's probably the most moving moment of any of the films.


While I have much praise for the films overall, looked at individually, THE RETURN OF THE KING is my least favorite.  THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING has some charming scenes in the Shire and introduces the main characters nicely, along with having the memorable image of the demonic balrog creature.  THE TWO TOWERS brings in the wonderfully pathetic character of Gollum, along with the lovable tree like ent creatures.  And while all three films have their slow moments (too much time is given to the dull love story between Aragorn and the pallid elven woman Arwen [Liv Tyler]), the third really drags towards the end, with one fake ending after another. Even the film's final image, that of a small round door being shut, seems like a lame way to end a big epic tale. And while the big battle of Gondor  in THE RETURN OF THE KING is exciting, it pales in comparison to the great battle of Helm's Deep in THE TWO TOWERS.  Also, Christopher Lee's wonderful villain Saurmon is sorely missed in the third film, with the glowing eye of Sauron making far less of an impression.  (Oddly, the extended DVD version of THE RETURN OF THE KING has a nice scene early on where we see the final fate of Sauron, which was strangely cut from the theatrical version.  Why Jackson cut this effective scene when he had so much more he should have cut seems crazy to me).  Also, even as a child reading the original book, I have a problem with Frodo and Sam disguising themselves as orcs so easily while travelling in Mordor (the hideous orcs make great villains, but just how dumb are they?). Still, THE RETURN OF THE KING has a lot of great things in it, from Sam's aforementioned run in with a giant spider, to the gloriously shot final moments of Gollum as he slides into lava while still grasping at the ring.  So it's still a good ending to the story, false endings and all.

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

Even if THE RETURN OF THE KING is the least of THE LORD OF THE RINGS films, it's perfectly understandable that the Academy wanted to reward Jackson's work on all three films by naming it best picture.  And while other, quality, smaller scaled films like AMERICAN SPLENDOR and LOST IN TRANSLATION were also released in 2003, given that it was the last chance to reward Jackson's epic, I'm certainly not going to argue with the Academy on this one.

CHICAGO (2002)

CHICAGO (DIR: ROB MARSHALL) (SCR:BILL CONDON)

CHICAGO was the first musical since 1968's OLIVER! to win best picture, and its victory marked the full blown return of the once all but forgotten genre of the Hollywood musical.  And while the film certainly owes a debt to the classic musicals of early decades, its darker tone and unlikable characters  (not to mention its more realistic way of introducing the musical numbers) marks it as a decidedly different kind of musical.  As a fan of musicals, I'm glad they made a comeback, especially in such the  high kicking style of this enormously entertaining film.
The history of Hollywood movie musicals is definitely an interesting one: for decades, they were often box office gold for the studios.  From the Astaire-Rogers films of the 30's all the way to the smash hit GREASE in 1978, they seemed unstoppable.  But in the '80's, they all but disappeared; part of this may have been because 1982 saw the release of ANNIE and the inevitable GREASE sequel, GREASE 2,  both highly promoted films that tanked at the box office.  Another reason may have been the rise in popularity of MTV, which brought new music and singing (or lip syncing) stars right into people's homes, saving them a trip to the theater. To a new generation of film goers, the idea of paying to see a musical in a movie theater seemed silly.  Oh sure, films like FLASH DANCE (1983) and FOOTLOOSE (1984) would feature lots of music and dancing, but there would be no spontaneous bursting into song, none of the sudden break with reality that the old musicals featured that now seemed passe'. In 1992, the Disney studio tried to revive the musical with NEWSIES, and the result was another flop. (Ironically, NEWSIES would eventually become a successful broadway show). Except for the singing in animated films,  the musical seemed dead in Hollywood.   That changed in 2001 when Baz Luhrmann's wild, lurid MOULIN ROUGE! was a box office success.  Meanwhile, a revival of Bob Fosse's CHICAGO was a huge, surprise hit on Broadway.
The story of CHICAGO began as a stage play back in 1926; written by Maurine Watkins, it was based on real life murder trials covered by Watkins as reporter for the Chicago Tribune.  It became a silent film in 1927, and then another movie called ROXIE HART in 1942, featuring Ginger Rogers in the title role.  In the 1960's, Gwen Verdon, wife of  legendary Broadway director and choreographer Bob Fosse, read the play and suggested he adapt it as a musical.  The show eventually opened on Broadway in 1975, but its initial run was seen as a disappointment.  Fosse planned a movie version in the 1980's, but his death in 1987 ended that, and it looked like the show would be forgotten.  But when that 1996 revival of CHICAGO was a huge success, becoming the third longest running show in Broadway history,  Hollywood could resist musicals no longer.
It was Miramax studios that was considering an adaptation and looking at various directors; Rob Marshall, a choreographer who had directed a well received TV version of ANNIE in 1999, pitched to the studio heads the idea of making most of the musical numbers in the film take place in Roxie's imagination, thereby making the transition from people talking to people singing more natural to modern audiences.  The studio loved the idea, and Marshall got the job, with screenwriter Bill Condon hired to adapt the film.  Renee Zellweger, flying high after her starring role in 2001's BRIDGET JONE'S DIARY, was hired to play Roxie Hart, despite her lack of musical training.  Catherine Zeta Jones, who began her career onstage in British musicals, was cast as Velma Kelly.  After Hugh Jackman turned down the part of shyster lawyer Billy Flynn because he felt he was too young for the role  Richard Gere was cast.  Although Gere had done musicals before, dancing was new to him, but he and Zellweger worked hard getting themselves in shape for the film, and they both had no trouble winning audiences over.  Made on a budget of around $45,000,000, and buoyed by almost universally positive reviews,  CHICAGO would go on to make a healthy $170,000,000  in the US.

Catherine Zeta Jones

Set in 1924, the film is about Roxie Hart (Zellweger), a young wannabe singer, who shoots and kills her lover Fred (Dominic West) when she finds out he's been lying to her about getting her career started.  While in jail, she meets Velma Kelly (Jones), a famous singer who also shot and killed her husband and sister after catching them in bed together.  Meanwhile, Roxie's sad sack husband, Amos (John C Reilly), hires corrupt lawyer Billy Flynn (Gere) to defend her, and Flynn immediately gears up a media campaign to get Roxie off.

The American jazz age of the 1920's has always held a certain fascination for later generations, with its cool clothes, bathtub gin, cameras with popping flashbulbs and speakeasies, and that fascination goes especially for the city of Chicago, with its infamous levels of corruption; the film nails all of that right from the start, with a exciting performance of  the song "All that Jazz" from Catherine Zeta Jones in a loveably seedy jazz joint.  Along with capturing the clothes and styles of the flapper era, the opening scene also establishes how we will see most of the movie's musical numbers inside of Roxie's imagination, (Roxie pictures herself taking Velma's place on stage).  It is immediately apparent just how right director Marshall was in making that decision; not only does the imaginary nature of the music  make watching a musical more accessible for a modern audience, it fits the character of fame obsessed Roxy perfectly; she certainly would see her life as a big on stage show with her, of course,  as the star.  And the cutting between the real world and Roxy's fantasy world is often imaginative and exciting, especially when the hanging execution of female prisoner Hunayak  (Ekaterina Chtchelkanova) is contrast with Roxie picturing the same woman on stage performing a disappearing act with a rope.
Really, I find this film  just a joy to watch; it practically  bursts with  beauty and  excitement and  it's never far from another gorgeously shot production number full of dancing and wildly colored costumes.  And the numbers all have wonderfully realized images, like Billy literally using Roxie as a ventriloquist dummy to mislead the press, whom he also plays like puppets, or Billy leading Roxie into a court room seen as a three ring circus with him as a glittery ring leader.    The songs (with music by John Kandar and lyrics by Fred Ebb) are all catchy and memorable, and each performer, from the leads to the supporting roles, delivers them excellently. My personal favorite number is the "Cell Block Tango", in which the music builds slowly from sounds Roxie hears in her cell into a full blown song; it's sung  forcefully by the six female prisoners, with its memorable "he had it coming!" chorus, and  it combines Fosse's trademark sexy choreography with dark humor ("You know, some guys just can't hold their arsenic.") into a classic scene.

The Cell Block Tango

All of the performances are good, and I especially like Richard Gene as the slippery Billy Flynn; he's not only sings and dances well, but he terrifically embodies Billy's slick hustler style; I love the way that he has Roxie recount her life story while he spells out exactly how he will spin it for the press, or the way he scoops up the money Amos offers to him to pay for Roxie's legal fees after initially rejecting it.  The fact that Gere was not even nominated for an Oscar for the role is surprising, especially given that Jones, Zellweger, Reilly and Queen Latifah all were (Jones won).
If the film has a flaw, it's that its dark and cynical tone goes too far; after all, the film ends with two unrepentant murderers gleefully finding fame and fortune! It is interesting to note that in the other two versions of the film, Roxie's fate is quite different: in the 1927 film she is freed from jail, but forgotten by the press and cast out of her home by her husband.  The movie ends with her seeing a paper with her name in the headline washing down the drain.  And in 1942's ROXIE HART her character turns out to be innocent.  Here, there is no such comeuppance or vindication.  There is really only one character in the film that is sympathetic, and that's Roxie's hangdog husband Amos (Reilly's stand out performance of the heartbreaking "Mr Cellophane" is the film's most emotional moment), who stands by Roxie even as he learns of her unfaithfulness, even raising every penny he can to pay Billy, only to have her leave him flat at the end.  Yes, this is a story of ruthless characters, who only care for themselves,(this is the rare musical without a love story, save perhaps for Roxie's love of fame),  from the bribe happy prison matron Mama to the lecherous sleaze bag  Fred that Roxie shoots without compulsion.  But we can't help admire their intelligence and determination: Billy's a corrupt lawyer, but he can play the press (and a jury) like a harp.  And Roxie is smart enough to know when to have a fainting spell and fake a pregnancy to keep media attention on her.  I think the point of the film (and the musical) is that in a violent, corrupt town like Chicago in the 1920's, where, as Billy tells Roxie, "murder is a form of entertainment", looking out for number one is the only way to succeed.  So, Amos's kindness is his downfall, while all of the other characters get what they want though sheer toughness and using what gifts (Roxie and Velma their looks and talent, Mama her position of authority over the prisoners, and Billy his law degree and media savvy) they have to get ahead.  So the film's dark tone seems just right for the film's setting: in a dog eat dog world, Roxie and Velma are the top dogs.

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

Obviously it's clear how much I enjoy this movie, and  for it's place in helping the return of the movie musical, it's victory seems apt.  The only film I think that gives it competition is Peter Jackson's THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS, the second, and in my opinion the best, of THE  LORD OF THE RINGS films. But I couldn't take away an award from CHICAGO, especially since Jackson's turn would come soon...

A BEAUTIFUL MIND (2001)

A BEAUTIFUL MIND (DIR: RON HOWARD) (SCR: AKIVA GOLDSMAN, BASED ON  THE BOOK OF THE SAME NAME BY SYLVIA NASAR)

At first glance, the Academy's choice of Ron Howard's A BEAUTIFUL MIND for best picture made perfect sense: it was a handsome looking biopic about the trials and tribulations of a brilliant man, played by Russell Crowe, one of the world's biggest stars,  who had just won an best actor award for GLADIATOR, the previous year's best picture winner.  Furthermore, director Howard was a popular figure in Hollywood, having made the transition from successful TV star to film director smoothly years earlier.  But, like so many biographical films, A BEAUTIFUL MIND was criticized for perceived inaccuracies in the life of its subject, and it's victory may have had more to do with a multimillion dollar public relations push by it's studio, Universal, than any real merit the film had.  Now, it's impossible for any biographical film to be completely accurate, but I do think Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman may have taken one liberty too many here (more on that later).  In any event, I think this overlong film falls far from greatness, with its predictable moments of uplift hitting all the obvious beats, and its glossy, almost too pretty cinematography by Roger Deakins that practically screams "Oscar"!

It all began in 1998 when writer Sylvia Nasar published A BEAUTIFUL MIND, the unauthorized biography of  John Forbes Nash Jr., a Nobel prize winning mathematician who had struggled with schizophrenia for much of his life.  Producer Brian Grazer liked the book and bought the rights and convinced Howard to direct.  Screenwriter Akiva Goldsman convinced them to let him write the script, partly because as a child both of his parents were psychologists, and it was he that came up with the film's central twist, that Nash's insanity would be portrayed from his point of view, with characters the audience assumed were real turning out to be figments of his imagination.  With Goldsman's script set, Howard considered many actors for the lead role in what was becoming a hot property; finally  Crowe was picked for Nash, and  Jennifer Connelly cast in the important role of Nash's wife, Alicia.  Crowe researched the role by watching videos of Nash delivering speeches, and he eventually met Nash himself on the set of the film.  The film was shot mostly on location, with several trips made to Princeton university, and Howard shot almost all of it in sequence, despite the added cost and difficulty, to make the character's changes in the film more natural for the actors.  Upon the film's release, it received mostly positive reviews, despite the aforementioned controversy, and it would eventually go on to make $170,000,000 on a budget of around $78,000,000.

Russell Crowe

Beginning in 1947, it tells the story of John Nash, a socially awkward but brilliant Princeton student.  While in school he befriends his English roommate Charles (Paul Bettany), and after graduation he does research and teaches classes at MIT, where he meets and falls in love with, and marries Alicia (Jennifer Connelly), one of his students.  He is eventually sought out by government agent Parcher (Ed Harris) to help  break secret Russian codes.  The more he helps, the more he becomes convinced that Russian spies are trailing him and Alicia; soon his paranoia takes over his life and he is institutionalized for schizophrenia.  While in the institution he realizes that both Charles and Parcher were just figments of his imagination.

The interesting thing about this film is that it's almost two films in one: the first film combines a love story about a socially awkward man with a spy thriller, complete with a car chase.  And then, once John is diagnosed, it winds up feeling like a classic tale of overcoming addiction; almost a remake of Billy Wilder's THE LOST WEEKEND (1945) with schizophrenia substituted for alcoholism.  Really, Goldsman's script hits almost all of the notes found in an addiction story: at first, John is in denial that he even has as a problem, and is forced into an institution, where he is helped out by a tough but supportive doctor (Christopher Plummer), then he hits rock bottom, seems better, relapses, and finally slowly builds his way back to normalcy, aided by a faithful, long suffering wife.  Of the two halves of the film, I prefer the first part, especially in the early scenes at Princeton, where it's refreshing to have a story that values intelligence in its hero, and the visualizations  of his thought processes are well handled. I also like the fact that it is clearly John's intellect that attracts Alicia to him; it's lovely how, on their first date, he finds shapes for her in the stars.  I start having trouble with the film when we first find out that Charles and Parcher are both imaginary; it hurts the plausibility of the film because he spent so much time with both of them, and on repeat viewings it becomes impossible to know just how many scenes are real or just in John's head.  It's also one of the big breaks with the real story that the film takes, in that the real John Nash's hallucinations were only auditory, and while I understand that just showing John react to voices in his head wouldn't make for much of a movie, I think the film errs in making his imaginary characters seem so real and giving them so much screen time; it would have worked better if Charles and Parcher remained in the shadows more.  I also think that both Bettany and Harris (normally fine actors) often over play their roles, especially in their later scenes when he know they're not real (That said, I think this film handles the imaginary characters reveal better than the overrated FIGHT CLUB).  And the second part of the film drags on for too long, with John's inevitable relapse and recovery slowing things down considerably (I also object to the moment where John almost accidentally drowns his infant son; putting a baby in danger is an easy way to get a jolt of out an audience, but  I don't think the story here warrants it).  Even worse, the film takes so long to get to John winning the Noble prize that it seems like an afterthought, and I would have liked to have known more about just what he did to win the award.

Jennifer Connelly

Russel Crowe may have based his performance on the real John Nash, but at times it feels more like he's imitating Dustin Hoffman in RAIN MAN.  Crowe stammers, shuffles, avoids eye contact when talking and wears a vacant stare long before we find out he's schizophrenic; I think he overdoes these mannerisms to the point where his ability to function at all before his breakdown seems unlikely.  And Crowe's muscle bound torso seems out of place on a college professor.  Still, Crowe does manage to make John likable enough to keep our interest, and the obvious pain he feels on discovering his that Charles and Parcher aren't real is palpable.  Jennifer Connelly won an Oscar for best supporting actress for her work here, and in many ways she has a tougher role than Crowe in that Alicia is both his and the audience's main link to reality.  More importantly, she really shows the hardship and difficulty of loving and living with a man as troubled as John is effectively; she has a strong scene in which she  vents her anger  by smashing a mirror, but we always see that she realizes that John's troubles are not his fault.  In the real world, Alicia divorced John for several years and then remarried him, but since Howard and Goldsman want this film to be seen as a love story, that break with reality  doesn't bother me.

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

I think it's clear that I have mixed feelings about this film, and in all honesty, I think all four films that were also nominated for best picture  (THE LORD OF THE RINGS:THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, IN THE BEDROOM, MOULIN ROUGE, and GOSFORD PARK) are all better.  I also preferred MOMENTO and THE ROYAL TANNENBAUMS.  So no, I don't think Ron Howard's pleasant but unspectacular movie deserved to win. 

GLADIATOR(2000)

GLADIATOR (DIR: RIDLEY SCOTT)  (SCR: DAVID FRANZONI, JOHN LOGAN AND WILLIAM NICHOLSON)

In an interesting bit of irony, the Academy started the new millennium off by awarding Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR as best picture,  which was a conscious throw back to filmmaking of a different era.   In the 1950's and '60's, when Hollywood was competing with television, the studios often used big budget spectacle to lure audiences into theaters, leading to what would be known as sword and sandal films.  Usually set in ancient Rome (like GLADIATOR), movies like BEN HUR and SPARTICUS featured epic battle scenes and casts of thousands.  Unfortunately, GLADIATOR is also like many of those films in that it doesn't hold up well and goes on for too long; while generally well made and acted, it is  a reasonably entertaining movie with some good action but I think far better films were made that year.

Screenwriter David Franzoni first came up with the idea in the 1970's after reading the book THOSE WHO ARE ABOUT TO DIE, a history of the Roman games, by Daniel P Mannix.  In 1997, while working with Steven Spielberg on ARMISTAD, Franzoni pitched the idea of a film about a Roman gladiator to the director, who got the film green lit through the DreamWorks film studio. (Given the film's inevitably big budget, co-financing was provided by Universal Studios).   Franzoni wrote a script that combined fictional characters (the hero Maximus) and historical ones (the villain Commodus) while the  studio approached veteran director Ridley Scott to helm the film; eventually producer Douglas Wick won Scott over by showing him a copy of the 1872  gladiator painting "Pollice Verso" by Jean-Leon Gerome.  Mel Gibson was offered the lead role of Maximus, but he felt he was too old, and eventually it came to Russell Crowe, who at that point was best known for starring in serious dramas like 1999's THE INSIDER, for which he was nominated for an Oscar.  But the choice of Crowe proved correct, as the role both won him an Oscar and established him as a credible action hero.  As the other roles were quickly filled in with both newcomers (Joaqin Phoenix) and vetereans (Richard Harris, Oliver Reed) the film went into production.  At first, Scott caught a lucky break when a section of woods that set to be deforested anyway could be burned down for the film's opening battle scene.  But then trouble began: first, it took months to build a one third replica of the Roman Colosseum (which would be augmented with computer effects in the film).  And then Crowe's legendarily difficult behavior reared its head, as he began to complain about the film's script.  Scott, who had already had writer John Logan rewrite Franzoni's original screenplay, brought in yet another writer, William Nicholson, to appease Crowe.  But the star was still unhappy, sometimes walking off the set when he didn't get his way.  At one point Crowe was quoted as saying to Nicholson "Your lines are garbage but I'm the greatest actor in the world and I can make even garbage sound good."(!)  To top everything off, Oliver Reed died of a heart attack before finishing the film, so a body double and more computer effects had to be used to cover for him, adding to the cost of the film.  Despite all of this, GLADIATOR would become a sizable hit, returning around $187,000,000 in the US on a budget of around $103,000,000.

Pollice Verso

Russel Crowe

Set in 810 AD, it's about Maximus (Russell Crowe) a great Roman general, who, after  leading  his army into victory against the barbarians in Germania, wants nothing more thatn to return home to his wife and child.  But Roman leader Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) wants Maximus to be the next leader of Rome; when Marcus's son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) hears of this, he kills his father and orders Maximus's family killed and Maximus executed.  Maximus escapes and eventually becomes a gladiator; after winning fame, he eventually heads to Rome and an inevitable conflict with Commodus.

GLADIATOR may resemble the sword and sandal films of the 50's and 60's in its story and location, but Scott clearly wanted to make a more gritty view of the past than those films portrayed; so, gone are the scenes of Roman leaders drinking wine out of huge goblets while slave girls hold grapes over their heads, instead, taking full advantage of an "R" rating, Scott gives us brutal fight scenes with decapitations and stabbings that could never have been shown in older films.  (Interestingly, Scott mentioned Steven Spielberg's  SAVING PRIVATE RYAN as an influence).  Clearly, the director realizes that modern audiences, like the Roman audiences of old, expect plenty of action in a movie called GLADIATOR, and so he gives it to us, cramming in numerous combat scenes in the film's two and half hours; from the opening huge battle scene to one on one sword duels to arena melees featuring snapping tigers and chariots, Scott delivers.  And all of  the scenes are well staged and exciting, letting us see Maximus use both his fighting ability and his leadership skills.   Unfortunately, it is when it's out of the arena that the film sometimes falters; while beautifully shot (Scott's films always are) it's simple plot sometimes feels overly stretched, and the completely serious tone of the proceedings, with dialogue often delivered in a stentorian style, can also get a bit wearing. To the film's detriment, and despite its historical setting, the story often feels like one from a  modern action film, with it's improbably noble (and practically indestructible) hero and cliched revenge plot.  Still, those violent scenes are undeniably rousing, and Scott understands that the build up to the action is as important as the action itself, especially in the lead up to Maximus's debut in the arena, which is given a big drum pounding lead in as we see the nervous warriors preparing for battle.

I've already mentioned that Crowe won a best actor award for the film, but I personally don't think it was deserved.  Oh sure, he's a more than credible action hero who seems right at home slashing away in an arena, but there's not much range to his character: when he isn't fighting, he mostly glowers and sulks.  In many scenes he merely reacts to other actors expressing more emotion than he does.  Really, I prefer Crowe's performances in other films, like 1999's THE INSIDER, over the work he does here.

Joaquin Phoenix

As for Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus, well, actors often say that it's more fun to play a villain than a good guy, and Phoenix certainly seems to be having a blast here!  (Phoenix also won an Oscar as best supporting actor).  Commodus is cowardly (he doesn't show up for a battle until after it's over), perverse (he lusts for his sister), and a tantrum throwing brat, and yet Phoenix gives him just enough humanity to make him often more pathetic than outright evil, especially when he admits to his father Marcus (Richard Harris) that he has fallen short of the old man's  expectations; he's almost likable in his honesty, until he has his hands around the emperor's throat.  I love the way that Phoenix absently spins a sword in his hand like a bored schoolboy while listening to the Roman senate, or the way that he chillingly threatens the life of his nephew while telling the young boy a story in front of his deceitful sister.  The dead eyed stare Phoenix gives his sister is memorable enough that he probably won his Oscar on this scene alone. The rest of the film's cast are all solid, despite the film's self serious tone,   and I especially like Oliver Reed as the warrior trainer Proximo; Reed may not have known that this was his final role, but he goes out on a high note, playing the character with full flinty vigor.  

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

As a straightforward piece of entertainment, GLADIATOR delivers with exciting action, but I don't think it ranks as the best film of that year. I'm far more impressed with Steven Soderburgh's TRAFFIC, which took a long hard look at the drug war and may be that rare movie that could actually change the political attitudes of the viewer.  I'm also a big fan of Cameron Crowe's ALMOST FAMOUS and Ang Lee's gorgeous martial arts fantasy CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON.  Still, GLADIATOR is an enjoyable film,  and therefore not a bad choice.

AMERICAN BEAUTY (1999)

AMERICAN BEAUTY (DIR:SAM MENDES) (SCR: ALAN BALL)

The Academy's decision for best picture of 1999 was a bit of a surprise: Sam Mendes's AMERICAN BEAUTY is no sweeping epic or period piece, instead it was the first modern dramatic film to win best picture since 1988's RAIN MAN.  It's also a dark, satirical and often hilarious look at modern American suburban life, not the stuff of most Oscar winners.  Even more surprising, both director Mendes and screenwriter Alan Ball had never worked on a feature film before.  Personally, I think it was an excellent, perhaps even bold choice, and I assume the Academy responded to the fact that the film is multilayered and open to a number of interpretations, along with being highly entertaining.

Ball began working on the script, which he originally intended to be a play, in the early 1990's, and he based it on the then media circus that was surrounding teenager Amy Fisher and her obsessive love for a middle aged man.  He shelved the idea for a few years while he worked as a TV sit com writer.  Frustrated with the limitations of television, he decided to try pitching movie ideas, and revived and rewrote his play.  The script bounced around for a while before the Dream Works studio decided to buy it.  Many directors, some of them big names like Robert Zemeckis  and Mike Nichols, were considered.  Meanwhile, veteran theater director Sam Mendes was looking to break into films, and when Ball's script wound up in a pile on his desk, he immediately was drawn to it (ironically for such an American story, Mendes was born in England).  It turned out that Ball had seen Mendes's theater version of CABARET and thought he would be a good choice.  Together they convinced Dream Works to hire him.  Despite the studio's desire for a big star like Bruce Willis for the movie's lead role of Lester Burnham, Mendes had already decided on Kevin Spacey, who was known mostly for supporting roles in films like THE USUAL SUSPECTS and GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS.  Mendes also cast Annette Bening as Lester's wife Carolyn, and young unknown actors Thora Birch, Mena Suvari and Wes Bentley for the teenager roles.  Because the film's setting is never identified, it's anytown feel  was captured mostly on Hollywood sound stages, with a few exteriors done in Sacramento, California.  The production of the film went quickly, and it's final budget was a modest $15,000,000.  After an initial limited release, strong reviews and word of mouth would propel it to gross over $150,000,000 in the US, a rare feat for a drama lacking big stars.

It tells the story of Lester and Carolyn Burnham, a middle aged suburban couple with a high school aged daughter, Jane (Thora Birch).  Their marriage is mostly loveless and their daughter is alienated from them.  Lester becomes sexually obsessed with his daughter's cheerleading partner Angela (Mena Suvari).  While pursuing her, Lester also quits his job, starts smoking pot and buys a new car.  Meanwhile his daughter finds herself drawn to next door neighbor (and pot dealer) Ricky (Wes Bentley), and Carolyn starts an affair of her own.

The film is narrated in a funny, cynical tone by Spacey's character Lester, who blithely mentions right away that he is speaking to us from beyond the grave; it is a tribute to Ball's excellent script that the narration is used sparingly, mainly at the beginning and end of the film, without falling into the usual trap of "over explaining" that film narration often does.  And it's appropriate that Lester's narration is only sporadic in that this film is not just about one man facing a mid life crisis, but a whole group of interconnected people facing their own problems.  And what problems we see!  Ball and Mendes rip the facade of bland suburbia away and shows the lies and desperation underneath: from infidelity and drug use to repressed homosexual urgings and dysfunctional families.  And all of the characters feel true, like people we all know, without being wholly good or bad, and with layers that aren't readily apparent.  (He even gets the teenage characters right!) For example, Wes Bently's Ricky seems creepy and odd when he first appears videotaping Jane without asking her, but we eventually see him as a gentle, poetic soul who videotapes things because he sees the beauty in everything around him and wants to remember as much as possible. 

Wes Bently

Spacey won a best actor award for his performance, and it's easy to see why; although his Lester never shows big emotions (he seems calm even when hurling a plate at the wall), we always know what he is thinking, and Spacey makes his transformation from pudgy shlub to buff dynamo more than just a physical one.  The film's attitude towards him always seems complicated: while it's hard to condone his lust for a teenage girl, it is that lust that reawakens something in him, making him a better man, pushing him to leave his boring job and stand up to his overbearing wife, often in hilarious fashion. (I love the way he yells "I rule!" after telling his wife he's bought a new car.)  While he may seem silly as a 42 year old man trying to act like a 22 year old, his attempt to recapture his youth at least makes him happier, so it's hard to condemn.  The real make or break point comes for him at the film's end, when he finally has a chance to have sex with Angela and she tells him that she's a virgin, and then he realizes the absurdity of the situation and calls it off; but the realization that he can't be young again doesn't depress him, indeed it seem to push him into a state of serene acceptance, one in which he is glad to hear that his daughter is in love and reminisces of good times with his wife .  It is the film's final act of cruel irony that Lester's final moment of bliss comes seconds before he is shot and killed.  But, is this a happy ending or a sad ending?  His narration from beyond the grave is clearly coming from a better place, so did his final moment of realization prepare him for the after life?  Was it a revelation that made him a better man at the best possible moment, gaining him a trip to heaven? By resisting temptation, was he made holy? It almost looks like he's is praying as the gun appears behind his head. There are no easy answers given, in fact the last lines of the film clearly imply that only death can truly explain everything ("You have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm sure." Lester intones, "but don't worry... you will someday."), but the fact that such thought provoking questions are even being raised is a rare and wonderful thing in a Hollywood film.

Kevin Spacey and Mena Suvari

Along with Spacey, every other performance in the film is excellent, with even minor roles being filled out by good actors.  Bening is very good as Carolyn, as she finds a sympathetic side to a cold, perfectionist woman who could come across as just a shrew.  I love that way that she gives herself  a pep talk when trying to make a real estate sale ("I will sell this house today.") and then cries and slaps herself when she fails, showing that she is just as hard on herself as she is on others.  And then there's Chris Cooper as Col. Frank Fitz, perhaps the film's most tragic character, a repressed gay man who's outwardly homophobic to cover his own self loathing; although his actions are terrible, as when he beats his son, we still feel sorry for him when he makes a clumsy attempt to kiss Lester, and Cooper sunken, beaten expression in that moment movingly conveys the tragic sense of longing the character feels.  Also memorable is Alison Janney as Fitz's wife Barbara; even though she only has a few scenes, she perfectly shows the years of being trapped in a loveless marriage in her almost catatonic eyes.

Yes, this is a great and though provoking movie, and I can't really find any serious flaws in it; even Conrad Hall's cinematography expertly captures the suburban locations in cool, stark and almost colorless beauty ( a look that contrasts nicely with Lester's fantasy sequences, which almost burst with color), while Thomas Newman's unusual, electronic score fits perfectly. It's an both a unlikely Oscar winner and an unlikely Hollywood movie in general, the kind of film rarely made, and rarely made right.

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

1999 was a very good year for Hollywood, with a surprising number of good oddball films like Spike Jonez's BEING JOHN MALKOVICH and PT Anderson's MAGNOLIA somehow getting made, and while I certainly enjoyed those two films, I think AMERICAN BEAUTY holds up as a modern classic that people will watch years from now to see how Americans in 90's lived.

SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (1998)

SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (DIR: JOHN MADDEN) (SCR: MARC NORMAN, TOM STOPPARD)

When John Madden's SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE was announced as the winner of best picture of 1997, it caused some controversy in Hollywood: Miramax, the studio it came from,  aggressively courted Oscar voters in trade papers (with ads that have come to be known as "for your consideration" inserts).  While this was common practice, the lengths that Miramax studio head Harvey Weinstein went to were seen as excessive, and some contended that he had essentially bought the award, stealing it away from Steven Spielberg's popular war film SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.  Controversy aside, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE was the first film in the much maligned  romantic comedy genre to win since 1977's ANNIE HALL, (and the fact that it was a prestigious period piece about an acclaimed historical figure probably helped).  Personally, I feel that it didn't need any kind of boost from Weinstein since it's a wildly entertaining, funny, romantic, great looking and exciting film that's a shameless crowd pleaser (along with the romance and comedy, there are some exciting sword duels) that can satisfy both fans of the famed play write and novices alike.
Its long journey to the screen began in the 1980's when screenwriter Marc Norman first got the idea of writing a script about William Shakespeare while talking to his teenage son.  He decided to portray Shakespeare as a frustrated writer who had to deal with the same production headaches modern screenwriters have to, while also adding a love story to inspire the creation of the play ROMEO AND JULIET.  After finishing the script, he sold it to Universal in 1991; play write Tom Stoppard, a Shakespearean scholar who had famously toyed with HAMLET in his play ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDERSTERN ARE DEAD, gave it a rewrite, adding several characters.  At one point it was in production with Julia Roberts to star, but she wanted Daniel Day Lewis to play the lead, and when he demurred, so did she.  Although the film appeared dead, it found a champion in Weinstein, who loved the script and eventually bought it for Miramax.  English director John Madden was signed to direct and Gwyneth Paltrow to star.  After reading with hundreds of actors, Madden cast Joseph Fiennes to play the title role.  Except for some reworking of the ending that was done just weeks before release, the shoot for the film went well and the film was an enormous critical and commercial success, making over $100,000,000 on a budget of around $40,000,000.

Set in the year 1593, the story deals with William Shakespeare (Fiennes), a young, struggling play write, who is working on his latest play, ROMEO AND ETHYL THE PIRATE'S DAUGHTER, to be produced by Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush)  at the Rose theater. Meanwhile, Viola (Paltrow), a wealthy young woman who loves the theater, dresses as a boy and auditions for a part in the upcoming play (women were not allowed to appear on the stage then).  William is impressed by her acting, and eventually discovers her deception and falls in love with her.  Unfortunately, she is set to marry the stuffy Lord Wessex (Colin Firth), and if that weren't enough, the play is beset by money troubles.

Joseph Fiennes and Gwyneth Paltrow

The film opens with a beautiful tracking shot of an empty Shakespearean theater that comes to rest on a handbill for ROMEO AND JULIET lying on the ground, literally plunging us into the world of the play; then for a nice contrast we immediately cut to theater producer Philip Henslowe  literally having his feet put to the fire by angry creditors, reminding us that the commercial aspects of storytelling were as important in 1593 as they are now.  This sets the tone of the film right away, announcing that this would be a portrait of Shakespeare that would be both reverent and irreverent, that would show him as just another struggling writer, but one who was capable of great things.  So, the first time we see the man who would become the most famous writer in the history of the English language, he is suffering from writer's block and distractedly practicing his signature on a piece of paper.  And we also see that he was not above lifting ideas from people around him, picking up plot points from rival writer Christopher Marlowe(Rupert Everett) or stealing a line from a roadside preacher ("A pox on both your houses!").  The film is filled with in jokes for fans of Shakespeare, like when Henslowe begs him to "speak prose",  and the plot has the kind of gender bending deception that pops up in so many of the bard's works.  There's even a moment when Viola asks him if he is the author of Shakespeare's plays, a veiled reference to the long standing theory that Shakespeare's work was ghost written. And yet, despite the often playful tone,  Joseph Fiennes in the title role wisely never becomes a parody, he is instead completely earnest and honest in the role, turning a character who could have been too romanticized or stiff into someone relatable and likable, even if he does at one point sell the same play to two different producers.  

Our first image of the immortal bard

Along with being about the creative spirit and the romantic muse, the movie is also a good natured valentine to theater folk and artistic people in general.  Although the various colorful backstage characters often fight over creative differences and have egos to be stroked (Ben Affleck is well cast as a pompous leading man, ridiculing his own image), they all wind up feeling  passionate about the play and are willing to come together to make it the best it can be.  I love the way that the thuggish money lender Hugh Fennyman (Tom Wilkinson) winds up being one of the play's staunchest defenders, and how even rival theater owner Richard Burbage (Martin Clunes) allows Shakespeare and his company to use his venue when their's is closed down by the government.  It all leads to a great, inevitable climax when ROMEO AND JULIET is finally performed with Shakespeare and Viola playing the lead roles, the story echoing their own passion for each other,  and it works as both as excellent recreation and a romantic extension of the story.

Gwyneth Paltrow won a best actress award for performance as Viola, and, like the film's best picture victory, there was a certain backlash to her victory, which I find unfair; true, I think part of the reason she won is because she plays such a likable character (a plucky proto feminist who defies convention out of her love for the theater), Paltrow definitely brings intelligence and poise to the role, and her love of both Shakespeare the man and the play write shines through, not to mention that she and Fiennes show real heat in their love scenes.  If her character is a little too perfect, and her feminism a little too anachronistic, I'm alright with that, after all, to be the romantic muse of William Shakespeare leads to some inevitable idealization.  

Another controversy about the film arose when Judi Dench won a best supporting actress award for playing queen Elizabeth, even though she is only in the film for six minutes.  And while her character exists mainly to move the plot along and provide some comic relief, Dench plays her with such sly wit and sharp intelligence that she steals every scene she's in, brief as her performance is.  (Interestingly, she played Queen Elizabeth one year earlier in the film MRS BROWN, which was also directed by Madden).  

While some historians have criticized the film's inaccuracies, especially concerning Shakespeare's inspirations, the film is so lighthearted and joyful that is clearly not intended as a history lesson.  Instead, it plays wonderfully as a clever, romantic period piece that does its title character proud, and it may have even opened a whole new kind of viewer to the joys of Shakespeare's plays, certainly no small thing. 

SO DID THE ACADEMY GET IT RIGHT?

While it's clear that I love this film, I have a hard time choosing between it and Gary Ross's  far different satirical fantasy PLEASANTVILLE (which, sadly wasn't even nominated).  And, while I think I lean towards Ross's film because of it's innovative (and gorgeous!) use of black and white and color, it's a close call between these two excellent films, and so I can't argue much with the Academy.