And The Loser Is... #3- More, More, More

Born in London in 1478, Sir Thomas More was one of Henry VIII's most trusted councillors, advancing to the position of Lord Chancellor of England. He lost favour in court when he refused to give his blessing to the king's divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and marriage to Anne Boleyn; more specifically, the split from Rome, and the birth of the Church of England.

More is also the subject of the very first film I watched specifically for this project, and thus the first to be reviewed in this blog, A Man For All Seasons.

Directed by Fred Zinnerman, and released in 1966, the film is based on a play (of the same name) by Robert Bolt, and begins briefly before More rose to the position of Lord Chancellor. The film was showered with awards, including the 1967 Best Picture Oscar, and an award for Zinnerman's direction. Paul Scofield was named best actor for his portrayal of More, and he plays the man as someone with integrity and strong convictions, and who is respected and well-known throughout the land. The key traits of More's character are established very early in the film- his honesty, generosity and piety. We see him refuse to help a friend, Rich (a young John Hurt, in a meaty role), find a job in court, as he knows that the young man would not be able to act with integrity in the position. He himself is offered bribes by the families of men who stand trial, but turns each one down, offering instead the promise of a fair trial. We also see More as a loving family man, but most of all his devotion to the Catholic church is made clear. The first time we see him he is leading friends in prayer, and a little later he refuses to allow his daughter to marry a man who has turned his back on religion.

Shaw and Scofield in A Man For All Seasons.

The big issue of the time was Henry VIII's proposed second marriage and, while most of the members of the king's court were scrambling to find ways that the marriage could be justified under God's law, More held true to his belief that the marriage should not be allowed to take place, and that Anne Boleyn should not be recognised as the queen of England. There is a wonderful scene, maybe the best of the film, in which Henry comes to visit Sir Thomas at his estate, and the two argue of the matter. Henry is played with great vigour by Robert Shaw, who was nominated for his supporting performance, and will be best known to more casual film fans as Quint from Jaws. Henry is a boisterous man, full of good humour, but with a terrible temper, and demands that More, whom he respects deeply, give his blessing tot he union. More though, proves a more formidable opponent than the great white shark, and refuses to buckle.

Eventually, More is brought to trial for treason and it is young Rich who plays Benny Blanco to More's Carlito Brigante, getting revenge for his earlier snub and condemning Sir Thomas to death. The scenes in which More's successor as Chancellor, Cromwell, tries to coerce More into signing the pro-Church of England treaty are brilliantly written. You see, More knows that as long as he doesn't outwardly say that he disapproves of the king's actions, he can't be found guilty, and thus begins a game of cat and mouse with Cromwell trying to trap him, and More always one step ahead. Indeed, the whole film is full of this sharp, often witty, repartee, delivered with great aplomb by the strong cast which, I should mention, also included Orson Welles in one of his great grumpy old man roles- alas all too brief.

This is an intelligent film which succeeds on a number of levels, but I think works best in the context of the relationship between Henry and Thomas. Henry himself appears only fitfully throughout, but always there is the shadow of this deep mutual respect between the two men, and the pain that this argument is causing both. In one great later scene, Henry celebrates his marriage to Anne Boleyn, and his face lights up when he sees soemone he believes to be More at the celebration. When he finds he is mistaken, his face sinks. This, for me, is the story of the film; More was so respected that even the king of England on his wedding day feels his absence.

Of its rivals for the Best Picture award, to date I have only seen Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, another film based on a play. This is comfortably better, and I give it 5 stars.

Moving forward now, I want to talk about the 1999 Best Picture nominees. 1999 is the first year for which I've seen all 5 nominees. I'm slightly embarrassed by this, as I thought for sure that would have happened at some point during the 1970s. However, there is a sense of poetic justice to this, as 1999 was the year I really got into film on a serious level. I was at college, and my best friend was already becoming a big film fan, and it was he who got me interested in the medium. Everyday he's bring me in a different video to watch- I remember The Shawshank Redemption, Goodfellas and Casablanca being amongst those early films he lent to me.

The 1999 Best Picture category is an interesting one, if not one of the stronger years. We have in there two World War II films, two Elizabethan-era period films, and a rare foreign language film in the mix. First, the winner.

Shakespeare in Love (Dir: John Madden, 1998)- I like this film a lot. People talk about it being a weak winner, which may be true, but it's a film of pure fun and, looking at the other nominees, it's hard to argue with the Academy's decision. The film is a fictionalised account of Shakespeare's writing of 'Romeo and Juliet', and shows the playwright, played by Joseph Fiennes, as a young man, penniless and suffering from writer's block until he meets the beautiful Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow), a young woman from a high-ranking family who loves the theatre. Viola dresses as a man in order to act in Shakespeare's newest play, and the two fall in love. The performances in this are just so funny, particularly Geoffrey Rush, Martin Clunes, Colin Firth as Viola's betrothed, and Ben Affleck as a pompous actor. The chemistry between the leads is believable, and the script bristles with humour. Madden's direction keeps things moving at a fast pace, and his vision of Elizabethan England, with its bustling market places and taverns, matches this. 4 stars.

Blanchett as Queen Elizabeth.

Speaking of Elizabethan England, Shekhar Kapur's Elizabeth is an altogether different film about the era, focusing on the queen herself, her rise to the throne against great opposition, and her doomed relationship with Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes popping up again). The title role is taken by the amazing Cate Blanchett, and she gives one of the best performances of her career. Not only does she give the queen the requisite formidable strength that we associate with her, but also excels at showing a softer side, one plagued by doubts and insecurities. This is also made possible by the choices of Kapur, an Indian director making his first English-language film. For example, in one scene we see Elizabeth practising an important speech, striving to remember the wording and find the right tone of delivery. She does this while looking directly into the camera, so it gives the appearance of an actress giving a screen test. It is little moments like this, combined with the performances (Rush, again; Christopher Ecclestone; Vincent Cassel; bizarrely, Eric Cantona) and the high sense of intrigue involved with the politics and double-dealings of the queen's court, that elevate this above your typical period piece. And just to tie in with the rest of this blog, Elizabeth was, of course, the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. 4 stars.

Saving Private Ryan (Dir: Steven Spielberg, 1998)- I always felt this film was overrated, and is hurt terribly by the awful wraparound segments showing the elderly man looking back on the events of the film. I have no idea why any filmmaker utilises this technique, because it very rarely works. The Normandy Beach sequence is brilliant, an exhausting experience which puts you right in the heart of battle, but the film fails to live up to that early excitement, and the Tom Hanks character, who is leading a troop to locate the missing Private Ryan, came across to me as a caricature of the brave soldier battling his personal demons. This kind of loose characterisation and formulaic storytelling weighed down the film, to the point that I can only give it 3 stars.

The Thin Red Line (Dir: Terrence Malick, 1998)- Malick is one of my favourite directors, but I feel this is the weakest of all of his films, and am unsure whether his poetic style of filmmaking really lends itself to a World War II film. To be fair, it has been a long time since I saw this, and I'm having a hard time remembering much about it. What one can't forget is the incredible cast that Malick put together for this- from Sean Penn to George Clooney to John C. Reilly to John Travolta, Nick Nolte, John Cusack, Adrien Brody. It really is ridiculously star-studded. Maybe I'll revisit this at some point, and I'll certainly be talking more about Malick's filmmaking in a future blog. For now, 3 stars.

Life Is Beautiful (Dir: Roberto Benigni, 1997)- This is really an odd film, from an odd man. Benigni stars as a Jewish man, Guido, who romances a beautiful woman and starts a family with her. He has the perfect life, but it is all taken away when the family are moved to a concentration camp. However, Guido refuses to let this experience spoil his son's childhood and take away his innocence, so he goes to great lengths to convince the boy that they are just playing a game. This is a comedy. About the Holocaust. That seems to be a big criticism of this film, and it's certainly valid. Watching a comedy about the Holocaust, you should feel somewhat uneasy. The thing is, Benigni's sense of the wonder of life is just so damn infectious, that you can't help being charmed by it. Or, at least, I couldn't. He really gives a magnificent performance of non-stop motion and chatter, and it is that that carries the film. He was rewarded with the Best Actor Oscar, in what is one of my favourite moments in Oscar history. This isn't a great film, and your enjoyment of it really will live and die by your tolerance for Benigni's schtick. If you can handle it, this is a funny, if cloying, look at the power of imagination and positive thinking. If not, erm.. It's a comedy. About the Holocaust. 3 stars.

That's all for this time. In ATLI... #4 I'll be looking at the Oscar successes of my favourite filmmaker. Until then, here's looking at you.