Oscar Season: '1917', 'Once Upon A Time in Hollywood', 'Marriage Story'

We'll be doing our final round up of all the Best Picture nominees for this year's Academy Awards. This week: 1917, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Marriage Story. 

1917

Plot

War happens. People die. Things explode. It’s an age-old tale.

Paul says

The best war films are the ones that tackle the topic from a fresh and unexpected perspective. This is what Christopher Nolan failed to do with Dunkirk, but what Sam Mendes succeeds in doing ten-fold with 1917. The one-track shot idea is pretty much its only selling point, but, as it turns out, it’s the only selling point it needs! This technique draws attention to the scale of the war, and the dramatically-changing landscape that this brutal conflict created.

Having the camera continuously moving around, in front of, or just behind the main characters makes the whole thing feel like a 3rd-person video game. The characters encounter a series of episodic adventures, each more dangerous and drastic than the last. These episodes are interspersed with appearances from various famous faces which act as the video game’s cut scenes, prodding the characters into the right direction. And like all great video games, it throws the viewer right into the melee. You can almost smell the blood from the corpses. 

The plot is extremely simple, and actors such as Colin Firth, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch barely get more than a few minutes each, but all of this doesn’t matter. This is an awe-inspiring, immersive and heart-stopping experience, rivalled only by a trip to the battlefields themselves. A deserved front-runner for the Big Prize.

Mark: 10/10 

Doug says

Ladies and Gentlemen, the winner of the 2020 Academy Award for Best Picture. That’s right I’m calling it. It ticks every box that the Academy loves. It’s about white male soldiers. What more could they ask for? 

Thankfully, it is actually very good. Sam Mendes has been honing his cinematic craft and this feels somewhat of an apex. The one-shot technique from Birdman successfully revived but in Mendes’ hands igives the film a more frantic, constantly uncertain feel. And with this film following two English soldiers as they stumble through No Man’s Land and into the Germans’ territory, that feel becomes vitally intwined with the plot. 

It features a whole host of great actors popping up for cameos and yet none of these feel grandstanding but are more underplayed, letting the story of these two foot soldiers take precedence. No actors are nominated and that feels fair, as it’s the recreation of No Man’s Land (frighteningly realistic, complete with dead horses), the bombed out churches (and a chance to employ the one female actor in the film) and the desperate uncertainty of the times that shine. Good work Mendes, and a sure-fire winner that isn’t as offensive as the dire Irishman winning. Don’t let me down Hollywood. 

Mark: 10/10

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Plot 

An ageing actor and his friend/stunt double/bitch end up embroiled in the Manson family’s pursuit of Sharon Tate.

Paul says

The problem with Once Upon A Time is its lack of coherence. Unlike most Tarantino films, it jumps around between scenes with more franticness and speed, unlike the dialogue-heavy set-pieces that he usually creates. For many directors, this would be a step into something new and exciting. For Tarantino, it’s disappointing. I see a Tarantino film for his idiosyncratic direction- I don’t want him to change! 

Yes, the usual habits are all there. The hysterical characters, the steady pacing, and climactic violence. But the film doesn’t seem to progress. It’s just a series of scenes or compilations that tackle such themes as Hollywood’s obsession with youth, the changing face of American cinema throughout the flux of the '60s, the fakery of iconic Hollywood movie heroes who were all a bunch of prissy divas in real life. But all this skims the surface, as does the presence of the Mansons and Sharon Tate and then suddenly Tarantino throws in a bit of violence towards the end.

Even more frustratingly, DiCaprio and Pitt have both been nominated for acting awards, but neither are as dynamic as they usually are. Margot Robbie is wasted a bit on a handful of lines and smiles. 

I would argue that this is his weakest film of all, more so than the second Kill Bill volume. Hopefully his tenth and, allegedly, last film will be something better to look forward to. For Tarantino rookies, I would start elsewhere.

Mark: 3/10 

Doug says

What I love about Tarantino is that he weaves together a plot - and strands that you didn’t think were important become increasingly urgent till the whole film climaxes in a way that you didn’t expect. See The Hateful Eight for a perfect example of this. 

So I don’t know what Tarantino was doing when he wrote and directed this. Whole tributes are made to the ‘golden age’ of Hollywood, including a bizarre tribute to Bruce Lee. Character development falls by the wayside and the whole Manson family / Sharon Tate murder storyline becomes convoluted, especially with the ending changing which I’m assured is prescient in Inglorious Basterds but didn’t hit home for me. If Tarantino chose to tell the story of Sharon Tate, then by switching out the ending, it feels odd - as if the master of gore couldn’t take that this was a story in which the baddies actually did win - for a while. 

However the one cracking scene where Brad Pitt wanders around the Manson’s enclosure is brilliant Tarantino at his best, and for a moment it feels like the film has found its feet. Sadly, it lost them again.  

Mark: 4/10

Marriage Story

Plot 

Two exceedingly miserable spouses go through a messy divorce. Hard to see what they ever loved about each other.

Paul says

This is basically Kramer Vs Kramer for the 21st century. Two people divorce, they have a children which complicates things, they live (or want to live) on opposite ends of the States, and both act pretty hideously. Adam Driver (who is going through a bit of an Adamaisance right now after Star Wars and BlacKkKlansman) is controlling, more focussed on his theatre company which his wife helped him start up but he never allows her to direct anything, and a bit of a naff father. Scarlet Johansson (who is going through her own Johannaisance with her TWO Oscar nominations this year) starts off as the victim but becomes increasingly vindictive and vengeful, which may be justified, but soon realises that her son and her bank balance may end up suffering as a result.

As a character study, it’s competently written and acted. Indeed, the scene in which both scream at each other and Driver punches a wall (both idolised and lambasted on Twitter) is quite a hefty climax to their relationship. But as a piece of entertainment, I found it a bit of a slog, and lacking in drive and originality. Laura Dern brings superb humour to her role as the Alexis Carrington of divorce lawyers, and has made herself almost a dead cert for Best Supporting Actress, but most other attempts at humour fall flat. In particular, Julie Hagerty (best known as the lead actress in Airplane!) overacts badly as Johansson’s suffocating mother. Her character suits the sort of critically-panned rom coms that Ryan Reynolds or Jennifer Lopez (pre-Hustlers) might star in.

While 1917 was heavy on direction and style, this is heavy on character work and acting. It’s not bad, but I wouldn’t say I was involved. It doesn’t have the spirit of Little Women or the incisiveness of Jojo Rabbit, no matter how many big speeches Johansson manages to deliver.

Mark: 4/10 

Doug says

I think that writer/director Noah Baumbach intended the audience to see these two flawed people equally. He failed. While Scarlett Johansson’s mother is perhaps a bit flighty, Adam Driver’s father is full out abusive. As someone who works in the justice sector, his behaviour is frightening to watch, full of controlling manipulation, gaslighting and sudden bouts of aggression. What we’re witnessing is the moment at which a man, egotistical and self-involved, loses the things he’s been ignoring, and becomes aggressive. Two women a week are killed by their partner in the UK, and it is usually at the point of leaving that their partner becomes aggressive. While it doesn’t quite escalate to that point here, it’s worryingly close. 

There are excellent moments - the social worker figure who observes the dinner is acutely observed. Again Baumbach seems to invite us to laugh at her stony-faced attitude, and again as someone who works in justice, I thought she behaved entirely appropriately, using non-judgemental tactics and practicing professional curiosity (essentially asking the right questions). 

But ultimately this is Laura Dern’s film, and her flinty, false-friend lawyer is a joy to watch. Dern dominates the screen and her matey tactics crossed with her professional steel makes every scene jump off the screen. Give her the Oscar! 

Ultimately - a good film about divorce but not as balanced as I think it was intended to be. 

Mark: 6/10

Oscar Season: 'Little Women', 'Jojo Rabbit', 'The Irishman'

We'll be doing our final round up of all the Best Picture nominees for this year's Academy Awards. This week: Little Women, Jojo Rabbit and The Irishman.

Little Women

Plot

The March sisters in Civil War America gradually discover that they are no longer little girls.

Paul says

The tough part of adapting Little Women is that there are 3 other highly-regarded adaptations already made in 1933, 1949 and 1994. So how does one make it fresh and appealing and not just a re-hash? Well, writer-director Greta Gerwig has nailed it. Little Women is magnificent. She has re-vamped it by not telling the story chronologically, and flitting between the concluding stages of the sisters’ lives, and the first character-changing events. This constantly connects up the characters’ “before” and “after” stages, and maintains a snappy pace. Gerwig very subtly alters the lighting, and the actresses alter their manner very slightly so that when the scene changes, we know instantly what stage of the tale we are at. This is immensely thoughtful directing, and it’s a travesty that Gerwig hasn’t been nominated.

Thankfully, the acting has had more traction. Saoirse Ronan has been rightfully nominated for Best Actress for her spirited performance as Jo, but for me it was Florence Pugh (who has been nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as Amy who stole the show. Pugh skilfully ensures that Amy’s vengefulness does not overshadow her intellect and likability, and she thoroughly deserves the Oscar. Eliza Scanlan manages to inject loads of charm into the rather thankless role of ailing Beth, and the oft-criticised Emma Watson actually makes Meg interesting- and achievement in itself! The male performances also deserve note, my favourite being Chris Cooper as the kindly but grieving Mr Laurence. 

Even though I knew exactly what was going to happen, I was enthralled by Little Women from its lively start to its meta-theatrical finish. It goes beyond the female-centric themes of the original novel to create a universal film that addresses community, family, fiction and coming-of-age with great power. A deserved hit!

Mark: 10/10 

Doug says

The real question of the 2019/20 Oscars will be ‘why do the Oscars hate Greta Gerwig?’ She has failed to have a Best Director nomination despite delivering fresh, exciting work that reframes old stories, tells new stories and puts women squarely in the heart of the narrative. Little Women matches her astonishing debut Lady Bird in that it feels compelling, important and so - so - clever. By messing about with chronology she gives us moments such as Beth’s two illnesses - and the differing results - in the space of a few minutes. And yet somehow these grandstanding techniques never get in the way of her cast’s subtle, intriguing performances. Laura Dern, who is having quite the Dernaissance, is fab and as Paul says Florence Pugh steals the whole thing, making us understand and like the volatile, passionate Amy. 

I also loved Gerwig’s nod to Louisa May Alcott, (Gerwig also wrote this). We see a split ending for Jo, one where the author publishes and is a single, happy woman, and another more conventionally correct ending where she marries a nice man and is also happy. Gerwig’s playfulness with the writing and filming of these split narratives is wonderful to witness and leaves the audience with more interesting thoughts and questions than the original novel might provoke. 

But lastly, we all know the true marker of how good this film is. Yes, it’s Meryl Streep. Meryl sitting in a carriage! Meryl wearing a funny lace hat! Meryl delivering speeches about things! You know when Meryl’s involved that it has to be good. And so in this case, as ever, it is true. Cracking! 

Mark: 10/10

Jojo Rabbit

Plot 

A little boy called Jojo in Nazi Germany starts to realise that his idol and imaginary friends, Adolf Hitler, is not what he is cracked up to be.

Paul says

Here’s a delightful little surprise that tackles Nazi Germany in a very new and original way. How they managed to get such tasteful humour into this, I do not know. Jojo Rabbit is essentially the tale of the rise and fall of Hitler but told through the eyes of a boy who sees Hitler as his imaginary friend. Hitler begins as friendly, empathetic, ditzy and encouraging, but as time goes on and the flaws and evils of his regime come to light, he becomes bullying, coercive and aggressive. The changes in this imaginary “Hitler” parallel the changing perceptions of the man himself, from every German’s best mate and rock star (the opening credits are actual footage of Nazi rallies with a Beatles song played over) to the ultimate symbol of hatred, oppression and evil. 

The acting is wonderfully lively, with many laughs being got from Scarlet Johansson, Sam Rockwell, Rebel Wilson and Roman Griffin Davis, and especially from Archie Yates as Jojo’s best friend, who nails every punchline he’s given (“Our only friend right now are the Japanese and between you and me, they don’t look very Aryan”).

A minor quibble is that the dynamic direction and alternative style of story-telling isn’t always maintained. Some scenes, particularly between Jojo and Elsa (a Jewish girl he hides in his house) are less interesting, and heavy on dialogue and sentimentality. But the film swiftly returns to its unpredictable and sardonic nature, so Jojo remains a funny and haunting addition to the nominees and a damn strong candidate for winning too.

Mark: 8/10 

Doug says

This film could so easily have gone wrong. A film about a member of the Hitler Youth whose imaginary friend is Hitler. My friends all said from the trailer that they thought it looked bizarre. And bizarre it is. Scarlet Johansson is a wise-cracking mother who puts on a fake beard to instruct her son, the Jewish girl hiding in the walls steals all of Jojo’s knives, and Rebel Wilson delivers monologues about how Jewish people all have tentacles. Oh and Sam Rockwell and Alfie Allen have a homoerotic vibe as two jaded leaders of the Hitler Youth. It’s mental. 

What the film does brilliantly, is that it presents this world (the fall of Hitler) as almost comic, so that when darker moments happen, they’re jarring and almost unrecognisable. The SS turn up at his door, and while they’re tall and gangly (Steven Merchant in inspired casting), the menace of them soon seeps out, leaving viewers uncomfortable without any real reason why given. Similarly as Jojo begins to make friends with Elsa the Jewish girl, ‘Hitler’ stops being funny and goofy, and actually (in a brilliant turn by director Taika Waititi) starts to feel like the screaming, hysterical figure  that we recognise from archive footage. In essence, he becomes more real. There’s a very specific scene when I noticed that the entire audience had stopped laughing. A difficult feat to pull off. 

I think the film suffers from this lackadaisical style though. An important death comes out of the blue and to be honest doesn’t feel as impactful as it should. And while the ending is sweet and well acted by both leads, you still feel there was an element of the story that was skipped over. But overall, an enjoyable film and one certainly worth the nomination. 

Mark: 7/10

The Irishman

Plot 

A truck driver called Frank Sheeran tells the tale of his involvement with mobsters and dodgy politicians….

Paul says

….and that’s pretty much it. The Irishman is 3.5 hours of Italian-American men allying, betraying, murdering, and manipulating each other. The problem I have is not so much the length. Yes, 3.5 hours is pretty gargantuan for a film, but I’m sure we’ve all binged 5-10 hours of the latest HBO drama in one go. 

The problem is the quality of the story-telling. There is such a large number of mobsters, all of which get a moment, but even in 200 minutes the script is spread so thinly across these characters that I found it impossible to care about what they’re doing let alone why or when. The story makes incredible jumps in pace and will go from lengthy pieces of exposition to rattling through important bits of political info, which left me disengaged many times. And while De Niro, Pacino and Pesci give very strong, accomplished performances, they’re pretty much playing the exact same stock characters that they are known for playing. Did I care about the outcome of any of them? Hell no. 

There’s also nothing very new here. If you’ve seen The Godfather, Goodfellas, or, hell, even Some Like It Hot, you’ve seen all of this before.

Scorsese is a bloody awesome story-teller. The Wolf of Wall Street is a ferocious attack on life in the stock market, while Gangs of New York is an exuberant thrill-ride. Critics are interpreting The Irishman as Scorsese looking back over his own life and career, paralleled by Frank Sheeran’s own look back over his eventful life. But The Tempest this ain’t. I would say Wolf, Gangs and Goodfellas are better examples of Scorsese’s panache. Meanwhile, The Irishman doesn’t so much provide a climax for his career, but rather a limp tumble over the finish line. 

Mark: 1/10 

Doug says

Oh my god, Scorsese needs to calm down, soothe his ego and hire an editor. For the first hour of this gangster film, I was thoroughly engaged, and by 2 1/2 hours I was just wishing it would stop. As we launched into hour three, I was barely watching.

It’s a confusing tale of some real-life Mafia types and their adventures, and using remarkable new technology, Al Pacino and Robert de Niro are able to play younger versions of themselves. It’s very convincing. But perhaps it’s not my cup of tea, or perhaps they really aren’t that amazing any more - I didn’t really feel engaged in the story or their characters. 

Ultimately I can’t say more than this. It’s nicely shot, but the fact that Scorsese got a nomination for this overlong, confusing film that at times feels like a Pacino/de Niro shrine, is just bizarre. Why not hire other actors to play their younger selves? What is the point of this whole thing? Why is the Academy so quick to fawn over whatever Scorsese churns out? 

Nothing to say except - I stopped watching. I preferred Cats.  

Mark: 2/10

91. Green Book (2018)

Plot Intro

In 1962, classical pianist Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali) employs Frank “Tony Lip” Vallelonga (Viggo Mortensen) as his driver and bouncer during a concert tour of the Southern states. Vallelonga’s job is to ensure that the rampant racism and prejudice that exists in these states does not prevent Shirley from attending his performances.

Paul says...

This was a real shocker of a winner last year. Not because it’s particularly terrible or unpopular, but more because this was our “middle of the road” nominee. The “filler nominee” that ticks a few boxes because it tackles socio-political issues, tells a (allegedly) true story, and has a couple of well-renowned actors in it. Whilst the list of nominees was a bit lacklustre generally, Green Book unexpectedly defeated much more noteworthy entrants such as female-driven The Favourite, the overblown A Star is Born, the confrontational BlacKkKlansman, the innovative Roma, and the action-packed Black Panther. So Green Book’s win was a curve ball that I certainly didn’t see coming. 

To its credit, it’s competently made from a technical point of view. The story has enough meat to it to keep you interested and never loses focus; it has lovely moments of charm and humour; it successfully celebrates Shirley’s work; and it provides some pretty complex, if not particularly subtle, character work. Mortensen and Ali provide excellent performances and Ali nabbed a deserved second Best Supporting Actor trophy. Both are playing spectacularly different characters to their most well-known past roles (see Moonlight for Ali and The Lord of the Rings for Mortensen) so the film solidifies both of them as two of the most versatile actors around. 

The major problem with Green Book, however, lies in two tricky issues. Firstly, around the time of the film’s release, the surviving members of Don Shirley’s family went to the press, and vehemently claimed that they were never consulted or interviewed as part of the writers’ research. The writers (one of whom is the real Vallelonga’s son), and Mahershala Ali himself, have apologised and claimed that they had no idea there were family members still out there. This seems a farfetched counter-argument. Modern technology makes it pretty easy to track someone down these days, so the implication is that the writers just didn’t bother. Shirley’s family have made further claims that events have been misrepresented, namely that Shirley was not as distant from his family as Green Book makes out, and that the relationship between Shirley and Vallelonga was not nearly as close. Of course, all period dramas are going to obfuscate real history to some extent, but Green Book claims to be a true story, and loses a lot of integrity because the makers evidently didn’t do enough research.

The other issue is around the presentation of racism, and there have been many articles dissecting this since last year. The arguments against Green Book are that it suggests that racism is a thing of the past, and only existed in the Southern states, and that it’s yet another “white saviour” film showing wonderful, heroic white people protecting people of colour from evil racists. Both of these are pertinent points to be explored, but my main issue with Green Book is how simplistically it depicts racism (an issue that 2005’s winner, Crash, suffered from to a much greater extent). Throughout Green Book, Shirley is subjected to both acts of violence, and acts of injustice. At one venue, he is greeted as an honoured guest with a parking spot right by the front door, but is forced to use a disgusting outdoor privy rather than the main toilets. At another, he is again greeted as an honoured guest but is not allowed to dine there. When Vallelonga gets arrested for punching a policeman, Shirley is also arrested even though he has done nothing. These are, indeed, all acts of racism that probably did happen and sadly still do. But if you were to watch Spike Lee’s BlacKkKlansman, you’ll find that Lee had much bigger, more groundbreaking things to say about why people are racist, the effects of racism, the important difference between the movements behind “Black Lives Matter” and “White Lives Matter”, and even connects it up to the Nazi riots in Charlottesville in 2016. 

Lee goes to great pains to show us that racist oppression is not a thing of the past, and there is still much work to be done. Green Book makes no such effort and while it’s an interesting tale, and has some things to say about how to cope with confrontation and oppression, it feels more like a vanity project for Vallelonga’s son. It’s nowhere near as incisive and surprising as Spike Lee’s work, and doesn’t develop the international dialogue around racism when, quite frankly, it could have done.

Highlight

The scene in which Shirley helps Vallelonga to write a more poetic letter home to his wife is charming and funny. For all the film’s faults, you do end up liking these characters very much.

Lowlight

The lack of proper research is quite shocking, to be honest. It would not have been hard and it might have thrown up some more insightful story-telling and thoughtfulness for the writers.

Mark

4/10

Doug says...

We are now in the era when we saw these films in the cinema as part of this project (meta or what?!) and Green Book was an interesting one at the time. It was interesting because I heartily enjoyed the film with its seductive, chocolate-box atmosphere, satisfyingly conclusive ending and well drawn characters who learn from each other. 

It was only then, as we walked away from the Brixton Ritzy and boarded the 333 back home to Streatham, that I began to wonder about some other elements of the film. Suddenly elements that had seemed cosy became troublesome. Suddenly character developments and the sweet, uplifting ending felt problematic. 

It’s for this reason that I don’t think Green Book should have been made, let alone crowned with one of the jewelled headdresses of the cinematic world. It’s insiduous. Through well-plotted storytelling, compulsively enjoyable characters and beautiful cinematography, they manage to make swathes of their audience believe (even for a moment) that racism is dead and gone. It’s one of those regrettable moments where once again white men have written, directed and produced a story about black oppression. 

There are tropes that I have recently learned about, including the White Saviour trope (where a white person - usually a man - swoops in to save a black person from racist attacks), and also the Magical Negro trope (where a black character acts only to provide wisdom and guidance to the main white character - think Whoopi Goldberg in Ghost - for which she also won an Oscar). Both these tropes have a history in Hollywood of being liked and rewarded with praise, awards and financial success. This is largely due, argue black critics, to the fact that the black characters are being relegated to their “rightful” place of supporting cast, while the film as a whole is lauded for upholding diversity. 

Green Book isn’t as simple as these two tropes - the film is as much about Don Shirley as it is Vallelonga, although the latter has more screentime. And the two characters save each other in - I would argue - fairly equal amounts. The actors are all excellent, and Mahershala Ali’s Oscar-winning performance was justified, even if some reviewers felt he seemed a little embarrassed at collected an Oscar for what was - even by that point - felt to be a deeply problematic story about race. 

What troubles me most of all about this film, with its slick storytelling (make no mistake, that the film, as factually incorrect as it is, is gripping and doesn’t drag) and saccharine ending, leaves audiences beaming as they file from the auditorium, secure in the knowledge that the fight for equal rights is all over now that Vallelonga’s family have accepted a black man to join their dinner table. Spike Lee, whose own film about race Blackkklansman was far grittier and with a darker, more urgent story, reportedly stood up and left the Oscars ceremony auditorium when the winner of Best Picture was announced. One can hardly blame him. In that instant, the Academy - comprised of some of the most important and influential people in the artistic business - chose to blind themselves to the issues that people of colour face today, and instead reward a well-made film that nicely made out that all their problems are over. 

So when assessing it again, I could see the taut script, the beautiful camera work and the excellent performances with ease. But what emerged more clearly this time was the insiduous (if unintended) messaging that is damaging to a huge percentage of our population. What’s most gutting - if I’m honest - is that there are moments when this film promised to be something more intricate, articulate and ground-breaking. But those moments were never seized upon. 

Highlight

One of those moments is when Shirley leaves the car while Vallelonga fixes a burst tyre. He sees black workers in the field who gaze at him in his suit and finery, and the looks they exchange of confusion, of two worlds far apart, belong to a better film, minutely examining the class struggle within Shirley’s own life.

Lowlight

The overly sweet ending which implies subtly that race struggles are now a thing of the past, and that audiences can just relax. 

Mark

3/10