Flashback: Philadelphia

I’ve said before that I don’t care for Denzel Washington or Tom Hanks. I’ve also said that the two remind me of each other, both exude that slight tinge of cockiness, they both have their two Oscars and both are widely and (wildly) loved. It’s strange, though, when they teamed up for Philadelphia in 1993 I actually like them together. I often think I don’t like Philadelphia, but I saw it again this past week and I realise that even though I have a distinct resentment of the case of the stolen Oscar that belonged to Anthony Hopkins (or at the very least, Liam Neeson) Philadelphia is a fine film – and Tom Hanks is excellent in it. It would probably seem a bit archaic now, the struggle of a man who was fired for having HIV/AIDS but for more than its implications of society then, and its potential historical worth Jonathan Demme's Philadelphia is significant, even on a purely cinematic level.

Something that I thought of while watching, that I think is often overlooked – is Mary Steenburgen. I’m a fan of Steenburgen, from her often forgotten work in Melvin & Howard (incidentally, the Oscar winning role which Jonthan Demme also directed) to her rewarding supporting turn in Joan of Arcadia. She’s such a naturally warm person I’m always impressed that she pulls off the steely lawyer-role in Philadelphia. Perhaps, it’s not quite searing but playing such a stock character I always consider her performance a notable part of the film. Philadelphia is filled with interesting supporting turns. From Antonio Banderas’ turn as Hanks’ lover – I’m always used to him as playing brash or at the very least suave – it’s nice to watch him being not the least bit assertive. Or Jason Robards and Bradley Whitford, both riddled with the usual stock villains – but still very much realistic portrayals, in their ways and acting legends like Joanne Woodward showing up just to stay in the background, but still make an impact.

Of course, the film belongs to Hanks and Washington – the former more than the latter, naturally. What strikes me about both men is how I’m most impressed with them when they shut up. True, both moments seem to be a little obvious, still...there’s that moment in the library where Washington's Miller watches Hanks’ Beckett dealing directly with his problem. Denzel Washington isn’t a subtle actor, but his starkness works well in the scene. You see the wheels turning in his head, but you’re supposed. For Hanks, it’s a quieter scene – it probably doesn’t even have that much significance narrative-wise. It’s just a scene of him standing on the street, the snow falling and his face is that of a man completely broken. I’m often unwilling to believe I’m watching anyone but Tom Hanks when he acts, and it makes me think that the reason is because when he’s out of makeup Tom Hanks is too obviously Tom Hanks. I’m not an advocator for prosthetics enhancing performance, but it’s as if when I’m forced to forget Hanks’ physicality I’m more willing to believe in his performance. I don’t know...whatever it is, Philadelphia works. Deliberate? Yes. Manipulative? At times...but still, I’ll ignoring my issues with who deserved what Oscar (at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter) – it’s one worth seeing.

                   

What do you think of Hanks? Of Washington? Philadelphia?

1993: Beautiful Periods

Martin Scorsese is my favourite director so it’s no surprise that he makes quite a number of appearances on my list of 100 favourite films. People love Scorsese...even his films that don’t get all the love [King of Comedy, Mean Streets, Casino] are still widely loved...expect for this. I could be wrong. Maybe there are people out there who love this...but I’ve never met them. I think this is Scorsese’s most underrated film. It is not ostensibly about deception, anguish or war as Good Fellas, The Departed or Raging Bull. But The Age of Innocence is as profound as Scorsese’s other works. The story is adapted from Edith Wharton's novel of the same name. It tells the story of a Newland Archer, a wealthy New York Bachelor. He is engaged to May Whitfield – a pretty, rich and dim young lady who seems infatuated with Newland. Newland is ready to set down and all seems to be going well until the appearance of May’s cousin – Countess Olenska. Olenska is European and divorcing her husband – scandalous in New York. May encourages Newland to befriend Olenska – she a social pariah...and their friendship becomes something more...

I wasn’t around in the days when the phrase Merchant Ivory signified brilliance but I’m still appreciative of the great work they’ve done in adapting classic literature to classic film. Few have done it as excellently as they have. The Remains of the Day was their final juggernaut that triumphed with Oscar – and yet the film won none of the eight Oscars it was nominated – a pity really. Something The Remains of the Days shares The Age of Innocence is a relationship between two protagonists that doesn’t go too far; in some ways I suppose it’s even going far to call the relationship between Stevens and Miss Kenton a romantic one. But it is. Isn’t it? And like Scorsese’s flick The Remains of the Day is concerned with changing social norms.Stevens has a definitive connection to his home and it’s a bit tragic to watch as it’s auctioned off, bit by bit.

The Age of Innocence is a beautiful period piece...but above all else, it is an actors’ flick. Michelle Pfeiffer, Daniel Day Lewis and Winona Ryder give outstanding performances as the three leads. If I ruled the world Daniel Day Lewis would have won a second Oscar for either this or In the Name of the Father and Michelle Pfeiffer would have also been on the receiving end of a nomination and battling it out with Emma Thompson for the win. I always marvel at how these performances were ignored. Winona Ryder was the lone cast member to make it to the Oscar race. On first viewing I was smitten with the performance. It does not hold up as well, but it is still a good performance. It’s a difficult character. Is May really that bland or is it Winona’s characterisation? It’s a tough call...but I think that May is just an unremarkable young lady. But the ending of the film makes you reassess everything that you thought earlier. Is May in fact the least honest character in The Age of Innocence? It doesn’t seem outlandish to assume that perhaps May knew of Newland’s attraction to Ellen throughout, and that one assumption makes her character so much fuller. May just may be the most artful wife. It’s a typically Scorsese turn – even if the inclination is provided by Wharton.

And speaking of endings, who can forget the lovely departure Emma Thompson makes in The Remains of the Day. My allegiances do lie with that other Thompson/Hopkins/Merchant Ivory flick. But even I won’t deny that Emma and Anthony are quite excellent here. The Remains of the Day is Anthony’s story completely and nothing he has done before or since feels as profound, real and iconic as his Stevens. It’s a wondrous thing to watch him as he shields his emotion. In some ways his Stevens seems to be the perfect companion to Helen Mirren’s Mrs. Wilson. The two would have existed in perfect cohesion. The film is all Anthony’s, but this never prevents Emma from making her mark – and with so little time. Pragmatic and yet attractive Emma is excellent throughout, but it’s here tears at the end of the film that always get to me. Such skill.

             

I know everybody was going crazy in 1993 about Schindler’s List and The Piano – two great films. But my three favourites of that year were The Remains of the Day, In the Name of the Father, The Age of Innocence. Their ranking changes from year to year but these three films had the most profound impact on me – for different reasons. I already spoke of In the Name of the Father; The Age of Innocence appears at #47 on my list of favourites and The Remains of the Day at #33. Which do you prefer?