Braveheart

Braveheart, 1995
Directed by Mel Gibson
Nominated for 10 Oscars, Won 5
Up Against: Apollo 13, Babe, Il Postino: The Postman, Sense and Sensibility

Braveheart is the story of William Wallace and his fight for the freedom of Scotland, and his people, from the British. When William was a little boy, King Edward I, or also know as Longshanks, of England, invades Scotland. Little William see's tons of men in his village hung in a hut where they were promised a meeting to make peace, and William's father and brother die. William goes to live with his uncle, is educated, and returns to his village a grown man. He falls in love with a woman he knew when he was young, and they court in secret, and marry in secret. They marry in secret because Longshanks grants his noblemen land in Scotland, and also something called "Primae Noctis", which means noblemen have the right to sleep with a Scottish women on her wedding night. William and his wife meet in secret, hoping to avoid this. However, when a man tries to rape William's wife, William injuries and kills many of the noblemen, and the two try to flee, but his wife is captured and publicly executed in the village before William figures out what has happened. William and the entire Scottish village wage a war on the noblemen staying there, killing them all, and executing the sherriff. William Wallace is now on a crusade for Scotland's freedom, and as his name and legacy spreads, his builds an army. But with all this comes a cost.

Braveheart is a film about bravery, and about living (and dying) for what you believe in. This movie is nowhere near historically accurate, nor does it really try to be, though is set with real people as characters, in a real war. What I loved about this movie straightaway was the score. And right away I could tell it was by James Horner. He has such a distinguishable sound to him (but so did John Williams, back in the Star Wars/Jurassic Park days, and as does Hans Zimmer, John Powell, and Alexandre Desplat), but the score was superbly Scottish, and was very beautiful. Additionally, the sets and costumes were really stunning. The scenery was gorgeous, and filmed so well (it won Best Cinematography). The Art Direction, set design, make-up, just looked really great too. Besides Best Picture and Director, the film won Cinematography, Make-Up and Sound Editing. All these awards were rightfully deserved. And it rightfully earned nominations for Score, Costume, Editing, and Sound Mixing. However, the thing I wasn't so keen on was the pacing of the story.

The story of William Wallance, his childhood and the secret wedding and murdering of his wife took up the first hour of the movie. The next two hours were battle scenes, cliche scenes of Scottish citizens overtaking the English Noblemen, and The Princess of France (married to Longshank's son), and Robert the Bruce (aspiring to take the throne of Scotland) supporting William Wallace inwardly, while those around them do not.

While the movie was acting very well, had great effects, and achieved well in the art and tech areas, this movie was a little stop-and-start in pacing, and was just so simply average. The story was cliche, with nothing all that new or original to boast about. It was exceedingly inaccurate, and was just like any other period piece war movie. Additionally, I found things were drawn out too long, and the movie could've been significantly shorter than the 3 hours that it is.

I don't mean to crap all over this movie. It was a decent film, with some good acting, beautiful scenery and great costumes and great music. However, this film isn't all that original, is a wee bit too long for it's own good. Oh, and it was up against Apollo 13 that year.

6/10

The Bridge on the River Kwai

The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957
Directed by David Lean
Nominated for 8 Oscars, Won 7
Up Against: Peyton Place, Sayonara, 12 Angry Men, Witness for the Prosecution

Sorry for the hiatus, friends! It's crunch time at school as I write my final exams and finish up my college education in 2 weeks! But I found a little free time to watch a long movie. So here we go!

The Bridge On the River Kwai is set in WWII. It's the story of British soldiers who surrended to the Japanese army and are now in a prisoner of war camp in Burma. When the Japanese Colonel Saito commands that all the British prisoners ("not soldiers!") participate in building a bridge over the River Kwai, which would be an addition to the Burma-Siam railway and help advance the war by feeding the Japanese soldiers. He commands that the Officers are also expected to participate in the manual labor. Captain Nicholson flat-out refuses. The Geneva Convention (which he pulls out a copy of) states that Officers should not be used for manual labor in POW camps. Saito uses the Geneva Convention against him and slaps him with it, and puts him in a tin hut ("the oven") where he sits for days and weeks until Saito, who knows he will have to commit hari-kari (ritual suicide) if he fails to build the bridge in time, realizes he needs Nicholson and his officers to help boost the working pace of the prisoners, who are not working quickly at all. After this, Nicholson takes on this project obsessively. He and other officers take over the bridge project, moving it down stream after they realize the original bridge is in a very bad location, as it's too muddy. Clipton, a military doctor, suggests that others may think they are committing treason, and aiding the enemy by building this bridge as best they can, but Nicholson insists they are setting an example. And he does it for his own pride, forgetting the larger picture that they are, in fact, helping the Japanese, and hurting their own side. Additionally, we get the story of an American soldier named Shears, who, by a miracle, escapes the camp and is enlisted by the British Army (after spending time in a medical center to recover) to return to the camp to blow the bridge up with several men, and we see their journey into the jungle, with Asian women aiding them, in their plans to attack.

This movie is an interesting one. It's so different from all the other WWII movies I've seen. It's not action packed nor is it bloody or violent. It had an interesting message. And it's quite a unique story. Colonel Nicholson is played by the brilliant Alec Guinness. It's a war epic of a different kind. While the story was drawn it, it never felt too long or boring. Interestingly I was kind of enraptured in the story, having no bloody clue how anything would end.

Colonel Nicholson, from my perspective, was a bit of a crazy guy. He was rigid and an old-school soldier. He believed in integrity, and for standing up for what is right. When approached about escape plans, he uttered that they shouldn't because they had surrendered so technically they would be breaking some sort of war/prisoner rules, even though they all knew they would die in this camp.

And then we have Colonel Saito. He is just as rigid and stubborn. He refuses to cave into Nicholson's requests, and the two are constantly going head-to-head, and both are quite mad. Saito insists all the officers work. He is to commit suicide if this bridge fails or isn't complete on time. And that scares him. We also see a scene of Saito weeping privately after Nicholson and his Officers take over the project, in which he was directly in charge of. He is ashamed.

This plot becomes ever complex as we realize what building this bridge means, and how much pride Nicholson takes in it. We feel so many mixed feelings as Shear and the 3 other soldiers arrive to blow up the bridge and the ammunition train.

Alec Guinness is fantastic in the role, and rightly won an Oscar for it. Japanese actor, Sessue Hayakawa, who played Saito, was also nominated, though did not win. The 2 had fantastic adversary chemistry, and were fantastic enemies who come to understand each other in a way. They were fantastic in their respective mad characters.

Additionally, this cinematography was fantastic. There were some great shots, and it showed off the jungle landscape so well, and really hit all the right spots. The costumes were great, and it overall had a great look. The music was used very sparsely, but what we did hear was very good too. Honestly, there's not much to complain about in this movie. I can't really think of much at all. WWII have been incredibly overdone in the past 75ish years since it concluded, with stories about German soldiers, British soldiers, Americans, Canadians, etc, etc. And while this story did include British and Americans, it took a look at the Japanese soldiers, and the name Hitler was not uttered once. Nor was Germany spoken about.

The movie was an interesting look at 2 different people, who were, at the same time, quite similar. Saito comes from a country where you cannot dishonor your family. You should kill yourself rather than bring shame. He strives for excellence so as to not bring shame, and to appear great. Conversely, Nicholson does not come from a country that upholds honor in the same way, though he comes from an Upper Class society (being a colonel), and wants to uphold the laws and regulations that his society holds up. Both want to maintain their reputations and neither will break. But eventually both do.

The ending is so interesting, and really made me think. I won't spoil  it for you, as it's so unique. But it made me think, what's more important: your personal pride and accomplishments, or the country you're fighting for and the pride and duties to your army? I'll leave it there.

Thinking I was going to find this movie boring, I was surprised when I actually loved it. My 3 choices of movies were Braveheart and The Best Years of our Lives (both war movies, the latter also about WWII soldiers), I was glad I chose this one. It was a thought-provoking and truly epic masterpiece. It was never too long, too boring, or cliche. It struck things in all the right places, and made for an interesting and insightful watch into a different aspect of WWII. Something other than Hitler.

8/10

Winner Breakdown: Best Cinematography

Cinematography:- The Artist
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- The Tree of Life
- War Horse


Once again, another solid category. While this may have been a weak year for really good films (is that just me?), but it's a strong year for the arts in movies, between Makeup, costumes, art direction, cinematography, etc. All 5 nominees here have great cinematography (while I haven't seen TGWTDT, the trailer alone showcases the bleak, Swedish landscapes, and I already knew it would likely be nominated). Hugo, which people are saying has been revolutionizing 3D, the sweeping shots of the train station, and of Paris, included. The Artist perfectly captured the time period of the film, and also filmed it in such a way that many films used to be shot, including aspect ratio, and capturing the light perfectly (light/shadows being a large focus in the film). War Horse has sweeping shots of the beautiful British landscapes, gorgeous shots that completely swallow Albert and Joey, and the scenes of war. All were so effective. And then there's the Tree of Life, the film that many people argue is the obvious winner. And I'd have to agree. While I was firmly on War Horse's side prior to watching ToL, I am now a convert. The Tree of Life perfectly captured so many things. The sun shining through the trees, Jessica Chastain walking (whether on the street, or through the woods, or on a beach), and following the character through the film, rather than having the characters follow the cinematographer. While I still would love War Horse to win, simply because the cinematography was beautifully overwhelming, The Tree of Life was both subtle at times, and so obvious at others that it's the clear winner. And yes, it won the top prize at the American Society of Cinematographers Awards.

Will Win: The Tree of Life
Could Win: War Horse
Dark Horse: Hugo
Who I Want to Win: War Horse

The Tree of Life

The Tree of Life, 2011
Directed by Terrence Malik
Nominations Inlcude: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography


Yes, I've finally watched this movie. I find it a little ironic that the very first BP nominee to be released was this film, way back in May. And it was the very last nominee I needed to watch. 


I had heard so many different things about this film. Going on the iTunes page for renting it, you either had people saying it was very boring, and wishing they could give it 0 stars, and those who loved it, and gave it 4 or 5 stars. I was under the impression that regular movie-goers didn't like it, and film buffs loved it. Therefore I wasn't too sure what to think. I knew there wasn't a whole lot of "plot" (I got this from the very vague synopsis I read on iTunes and IMDB), and from hearing about the long creation scenes, I figured I was settling in for a movie that was more art than story. 


I'm glad I went in with the mindset I did, because had I been expecting plot, and character development, and dialogue, I'd be extremely disappointed. But even from the trailers that came out around this time last year, I didn't really expect an ordinary movie. And that's definitely not what this was. 


This movie revolves around a young boy named Jack, and the idea of the way of nature and the way of grace. The way of nature, Mrs. O'Brien explains via voice-over in the beginning, is self-seeking and only willing to please itself, which is what society teaches us. But the way of grace, is the way of God, loving those around us, and looking to please others before pleasing yourself. While Jack starts off as an innocent child, we see him lose his innocence in a number of ways. Through seeing his friend drown at the local swimming pool, to dealing with his father, who reigns their family with an iron fist, and, fro Jack's view, doesn't seem to love his children. Jack is trying to choose between the ways of grace, and the ways of nature, his parents both embodying one (his mother, grace, his father, nature). 


What I found interesting was there was very little dialogue in the film. A lot of it was whispered voice-overs, through montage scenes. We get some perspective from each character in the film, and learn what they are really thinking. 


The film gets off to a little bit of a bumpy start, jumping back and forth between scenes, time periods, and character views. But the things that gets the ball really moving is the 25-minute creation sequence. We see everything from shots of the universe (dust clouds), to the collision of 2 planets creating Earth, molten Earth, cell formation and dinosaurs, all while hearing sparse whispered prayers from Mrs. O'Brien (Chastain). It isn't exactly clear why this is included, but reinforces the fact that we are but a very small speck in the span of space and time. We live a hundred years (if that), while the Universe has existed for thousands (or millions) of years, and will continue to exist long after we are gone. And how small and insignificant our lives are compared to the vastness of the Universe. Very impressionistic. 


After this, we focus on the lives of the O'Briens'. We see the parents in love, the birth of their children, playing wit their children, teaching them lessons about their lives, and just their general lives, the insignificant things, like going to bed at night, or eating dinner, or playing ball on the street. Jack, the eldest son, is innocent of the evils of the world. 


But as Jack is getting older, he starts realizing more and more things. He see's a friend drown at the local pool, and another friend has their house burn down, his friend suffering burns. He's learning that his parents are 2 very different people, his mother kind and loving, while his father is strong and ruling with an iron fist, and is starting to realize he's more like his father than his mother, which he isn't happy about. And he questions how he can get back what his brother's have. Their innocence. 


This film was incredibly well acted, and I'm surprised it didn't get any nominations. Hunter McCracken, who played young Jack, was so magnificient in his debut film. He expressed everything with such ease, I felt like Malik was almost filming him, playing with his brothers and parents, with hidden cameras, it was so natural. He really held the film on his shoulders, and supported it with surprising ease. He conveyed all the emotions so well, and his whispered voice-overs were haunting. 


Brad Pitt, also was so good. He was so subtle, but plays his best roles when he plays a parent (Moneyball, and this). He has such good fatherly instincts in his acting, and connects so well with these boys. He is utterly convincing as the rigid father who has a temper. 


But Jessica Chastain is the one who truly, truly shines. This is only the second film I've seen her in of the many that were released in 2011. She gave such a beautiful performance, embodying the 'way of grace'. She was graceful and loving always. Just the way she walked, and talked was grace embodied, 100%. She was just so lovely, and so different from her portrayal of Celia Foote in the Help. I felt this performance was far superior to hers in the Help, but love that she is getting recognition, though she won't win. Jessica Chastain has proved how versatile she really is, and this performance was utter perfection. 


And I retract my comment that if War Horse doesn't win Best Cinematography I might throw a hissy fit. The Tree of Life completely owned War Horse. It was a subtle cinematography at most times, simply following characters around, not having characters stay within the frames. And then there were the lovely shots of creation (does those count as cinematography, or visual effects?), and the shots of those on that beach in the last scene. And just everytime Jessica Chastain walked, it was beautifully shot. It's definitely a deserving winner, though i still have so much love for War Horse's cinematography. 


Overall, I found myself insanely interested, though there wasn't a whole lot of plot or dialogue. I was interested and invested in this family, and I found I cared about all 3 sons, and the parents, and their relationships. I found them interesting, even though they showed me the mudane things about their life. While I felt it went on a little too long (my interest starting slowing around an hour and 45 minutes), it was an interesting film. It wasn't my favourite film of their year, but it was certainly an impressive film, that gives us things to think about. I can understand why a lot of people didn't like it, however. It's not a movie that's everyone's taste, and I understand that. With films like Transformers, which is all action and 'plot' and dialogue, I can see why this film would get pushed to the wayside, though it is an incredibly impressive film, should you choose to be patient, and understand it's different from regular films. Will it win Best Picture? No, it will not, but I still thought it was a mighty interesting film. 


7.5/10