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.
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.
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
Two exceedingly miserable spouses go through a messy divorce. Hard to see what they ever loved about each other.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment