"Cecilia!"

“A Rose By Any Other Name Would Smell As Sweet”

When I became au fait with the internet, and the large backlog of arguments concerning the Academy Awards “horrible” decisions Shakespeare in Love was one of the films that always popped up. Its name preceded it, and I didn’t see it until I could carefully explicate all the arguments against its shocking Best Picture. I had seen both Saving Private Ryan (which it “robbed” of Best Picture) and Elizabeth (which it “robbed” of Best Actress). So I saw it. As a staunch Cate Blanchett fan I was still convinced that she was incomparable as the Queen (more deserving than Palthrow who was admittedly excellent, too) but I was nonplussed as to the arguments bemoaning its Best Picture win. For, when it comes down to the argument as to which film deserved the Oscar in 1998 – I am firmly in the Shakespeare in Love camp. You can quote me.

The romantic comedy – the phrase is indicative of so much today. Even though other genres (example, drama) still manage to mete out a good romance every now and then, the good and original romantic comedy has become less and less and common. Shakespeare in Love is often referred to as another billowing period piece that Oscar fell in love with, and I’m always bewildered as to the claim. If American Beauty represents the recent Oscar flick most in tune with the time it represents, Shakespeare in Love represents the most irreverently out of its time and yet still within; a paradox of course. We’ve all been forced (I was willing, though) to study Shakespeare and the connotations of any Shakespeare play are obvious. The usual words – boring, cumbersome, indolent etc. What Shakespeare in Love does (and good grief, it does it excellently) is take the man we’ve become so remiss about and turn him into something that is in keeping with its time, but still accessible to our time and all without being anachronistic. Take away the corsets, take away the Queen – and Shakespeare in Love is still a completely enjoyable romantic comedy; but one with brains. This is because of the excellent script by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard. I am hard-pressed to find any Best Picture winner in the last two (even three) decades that is as highly quotable, and not just because of the references to “Romeo & Juliet”. Norman and Stoppard are able to do something that would sound blasphemous; they mix their own prose with that of the Bard and makes it sound just as excellent. Their imagination is expansive as they use Shakespeare’s own quotable quotes as incidental conversation. But, I’m getting ahead of myself. It’s not just they who makes the film works, it’s the actors.

                   

I recently cited Shakespeare in Love as having the best ensemble cast of nineties, and it’s a claim I believe wholeheartedly. Just as Shakespeare gave the smallest character a host of witticisms, the writers here do the same. Geoffrey Rush, Tom Wilkinson and Ben Affleck are stuck with roles that shouldn’t be so good, but the great words coupled with their complete understanding of their characters (the tics Wilkinson adds to his money lender are amazing) are thrilling to behold. Colin Firth has never been so despicable (not even in that other Best Picture winner) and Judi Dench in a matter of scenes creates a character to be extolled. I’m perfectly fine with her Oscar win. She deserves it only for her line reading of “Mr. Tilney have a care with my name. You’ll wear it out.” But it’s more than her line readings, she shows emotion in her character when you least expect, and it’s not jarring just authentic. If I must speak of the (supporting) cast of Shakespeare in Love I must pinpoint Imelda Staunton who has unfortunately turned into a forgotten character. It’s (arguably) the smartest allusive move from Stoppard. Imelda scintillates in each of her scenes, and she is given as much importance (and humour) as the original Nurse of "Romeo & Juliet" was given. Still, of course, these excellent players are only incidental when we come to the root of the film – William and Viola.

               

Yes, I do believe that Cate should have won the Oscar, but that doesn’t make Gwyneth’s contribution any less excellent. For an actor who’s always thrived on the (sometimes annoyingly) subtle, Gwyneth evokes a memory of old Hollywood with distinct ease here. Am I the only one reminded of ladies like Katharine Hepburn, Irene Dunne or Rosalind Russell in their youth? As Viola skips through the film, changing from male to female and back again, you can’t help but be arrested by her. Her innocence is her key to the role as we notice how her voice breaks just a little as she asks “Are you – are you Master Shakespeare?” or the profundity with which she utters those lovely monologues or the newer lines like “This isn’t life, Will. It’s a stolen season.” True, you can see her ACTING sometimes, but it works in context because Viola is a mere player, and she’s so honest that you can’t help but be charmed. Still, no one comes close in skilful excellence to the eponymous Shakespeare. I have a longstanding bone with the Academy because of their egregious snub of Fiennes who gave one of the best performances of the decade. The film depends completely on his performance. He knows to play the comedy, even the slapstick portions. However, he also knows to rein it in for the quieter moments. His moments with Gwyneth never come off as ordinary –  even though it should be clichéd...(and about that sex scene...) More than anyone in the cast, he knows how to use those lines to his benefits and he gives the best reading of lines in the film. ‘Tis a pity we’ve not been privy to more of him on the screen.

 

In the end Shakespeare in Love represents one of the most enjoyable films I’ve seen (Oscar winning or not). It’s smart, funny, romantic and just beautiful to watch and it does it all without pandering to stupidity or being condescending to the audience. Would I call it perfection? I don’t know. Maybe. But it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what I call it, it’s still #28 on my list of favourites and it’s still exceptional. Or do you disagree?

1994: Get Out Of Jail...and Go to Broadway

People always lament the state of 1994 because Pulp Fiction lost to Forrest Gump. You know me well enough to discern that I’m not too hot on Tarantino (even if I will admit that Pulp Fiction is one of his more tempered pieces). The thing is, neither of the two was the best film that year so it’s really an argument to no end. Morgan Freeman is a bit of an anomaly as far as I’m concerned. I genuinely like the man, and he’d be somewhere in my top 100 perhaps even my top 50 actors but I’m never particularly fond of his performances. Time after time, he just seems to be on autopilot. Still, I can let these moments of autopilot pass because there is one Morgan performance that never fails to impress; his enviable performance in The Shawshank Redemption. It’s a brilliant performance that stands out in an ensemble. Incidentally, the same can be said for Dianne Wiest in Bullets Over Broadway, the other juggernaut from 1994. Woody has always had a thing for big casts, and in Bullets Over Broadway (though not his best film) he found his most expansive and talented cast. It’s a bit of a tug-of-war for me when I think of 1994. On one hand lies the sedate and poignant Shawshank Redemption and on the other hand Woody’s atypical comedy of show business Bullets Over Broadway.

                

The two films could shake hands when it comes to their heroes. Tim Robbins has gone on to win an Oscar, but he and John Cusack have much in common. Both have thing for playing the innocuous heroes, and in both The Shawshank Redemption and Bullets Over Broadway they’re surrounding by a group of zany characters. I suppose the similarities stop there. Andy’s incarceration at Shawshank is a far cry from David’s predicaments in New York. It’s weird, though, that Shawshank Redemption made a mere 25 million at the box-office, but it’s even more ridiculous when you realise that Bullets Over Broadway made just about half of that. What’s the reason? The films are conversely different, each playing to different emotions and yet neither found (immediate) success with the audiences. I like to think of Bullets Over Broadway as Woody’s most structured film. It’s not my favourite of his, but it’s easily the tightest (it’s just below 100 minutes), and the script is just so quick-paced. The Shawshank Redemption goes on for well over two hours, and though it’s based on a novella, it never drags. Presentation is everything, really. The quickness of Bullets Over Broadway is as essential to the joie de vivre of New York as the meticulous detail is necessary to the jail at Shawshank.

                 

Darabont makes The Shawshank Redemption sneak up on you, a little. I always seem to forget that it’s such an ensemble piece until after I’ve seen it. It’s the opposite with Bullets Over Broadway. It’s so short, and it’s not really about everybody, but it seems so. Sure Morgan Freeman and Dianne Wiest each seem to think that they’re the leads in their respective piece, though. Morgan...I like him much, but I like few of his performances. Still, I won’t argue with the brilliance that is him in The Shawshank Redemption. It was the perfect opportunity to give him that Oscar, but at least Dianne got hers. On the subject of Oscars, though. It’s so weird that neither Tim nor John went nominated. As brilliant as Morgan is, Shawshank depends completely on Tim he easily trumps the majority of that sorry actor lineup, so does John actually – and three of his co-stars were nominated. Both films actually went home empty handed for the most part, between the two of them they racked up 14 nominations and the only one was for Ms. Wiest. They should have at least won their respective screenplay categories, but why am I lamenting on the fickle Oscars?

                 

The Shawshank Redemption is a brilliant ensemble drama, a poignant tale and a story worthy of remembrance. I know three people who are very fond of this film – Emma, M. Carter and The Mad Hatter. Three people whose opinions are valuable, and they’re not wrong. The Shawshank Redemption is that good. Unfortunately, Bullets Over Broadway doesn’t seem to have as many people championing it, but it’s just as good. The Shawshank Redemption ranks at #43 on my list of favourites and Bullets Over Broadway at #35.

                 

What were your thoughts on 1994 in film? Is either of these your favourite?

Purple Reminder

I’ve been a bit scatty recently, but that’s probably not only recently. None the less, I’ve forgotten to put out reminders for you to take part in my running feature over at the LAMB – Lamb Casting. The film up for casting is The Color Purple. I suggested that you cast it along musical lines (perhaps bringing the Broadway musical to screen); but no pressure – don’t go out of the way to find singers. Just give me your ideas for recasting the classic. You can find the characters here. Send your ideas to me at my address.

            

Happy Casting!

Wrapping Up: Performances of the Decade (Males)

Little by little I’m doing my bit to exorcise the past from my regular posts. I’m on the verge of wrapping up those “decade in review” posts I began ages ago. You though I’d already finished, didn’t you? Well, not quite. I’ve already given you the fifteen male performances I’ve admired most this decade, so I’ll unveil the entire fifty. Before I do, though, if you're wondering about the picture of Anthony...he's the actor of the 90s in my book and I just love him in The Remains of the Day.

     

Click on the links for performance reviews of the top 15.

                    

*Albert Finney in Big Fish

*Alfred Molina in An Education

*Ben Foster in The Messenger

*Ben Whishaw in Bright Star

Benicio Del Toro in 21 Grams

Benicio Del Toro in Traffic

*Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading

*Brad Pitt in The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford

Casey Afleck in The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford

Christopher Walken in Catch Me If You Can

Clive Owen in Closer

*Collin Farrell in In Bruges

Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York
Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood

Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda

Ed Harris in The Hours

Ed Harris in Pollock

*Ethan Hawke in Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead

Ethan Hawke in Training Day

*Ewan McGregor in Big Fish

*Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge!

Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon

Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain

Ian McKellen in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings

Jackie Earle Haley in Little Children

Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain

*James McAvoy in Atonement
Javier Bardem in Before Night Falls

*Jim Broadbent in Moulin Rouge!

*Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

 Joaquin Phoenix in Walk the Line

Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean

*Jude Law in Closer
Jude Law in Cold Mountain

*Leonardo DiCaprio in Revolutionary Road (WINNER)
Leonardo DiCaprio in The Aviator

*Leonardo DiCaprio in The Departed

*Mark Ruffalo in You Can Count On Me

*Paul Dano in Little Miss Sunshine

Paul Giamati in Cinderella Man

*Paul Schneider in Bright Star

*Philip Seymour Hoffman in Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead
Philip Seymour Hoffman in Capote

Russell Crow in Gladiator

Sean Penn in Mystic River
Tim Robbins in Mystic River

Tom Wilkinson in In the Bedroom

*Viggo Mortenson in A History of Violence

*Viggo Mortenson in The Road

Willem Dafoe in Shadow of a Vampire

       

Musings on the list:

- As noted by the asterisk, 22 of these performances were not recognised by Oscar, it’s a shame on the Oscars part. But then again, it’s not really that surprising.

- I've got waaaaaaaaaay to few supporting performances here, don't I?

- I love all the performances above, but the bolded ones are the top half. So they're my twenty-five favourites...Fifty is so much, and I still feel like I left out some exceptional ones.

- Unsurprisingly Leo features the most on the list with his three performances. I did say before he was favourite actor of the last decade. Greats like Day Lewis and Seymour Hoffman among others are there twice.

- I find it so weird that Viggo Mortenson came out of nowhere to give two (perhaps even three, or four) great performances in this last decade. I wonder if we can expect more great things to come from his this decade.

- Ewan McGregor and Mark Ruffalo both impressed in the first half of the decade, but they’ve faltered since. Is a comeback imminent for either?

                    

What do you think of the list? Which performances do you feel I’ve egregiously snubbed here? Which inclusions surprised you most?

Obscure Quoting Game

You know that I’m fond of these vague guessing games, so I’ve got another one for you. As you can tell from the name, it’s quote related. I think it’s difficult, but this quote has always stuck with me.

        

So I’m giving you four clues:

1) The film won a number of Oscars (but not for writing)

2) It was said by the lead actress of the film, an Oscar winner, but not for this film (though she was nominated

3) The first shot of the film is in black and white…but the rest is not

4) In the quote, the speaker is referring to a work of art

           

I think I’ve given you quite much. Here’s the quote.

             

“[It’s like being]... in a dream; there’s truth but no logic.”

          

Have fun. It's really easy if you saw the movie recently...

Daybreakers: Review

Hey! Now that's weird.. I actually like a movie with Ethan Hawke in it.... Weird

Daybreakers takes place in a world where vampires has taken over the population. And for the most part, they have become civilized. They have formed a civil society, these vampires have homes, they have cars, they have jobs, the only thing different is that they rely on human blood to live. But as the human population begin to dwindle, the vampires have no choice but to hunt the remaining humans and farm them for their blood. In comes Ethan Hawkes character who is working on creating a blood substitute to ensure the survival of the vampires and the human race.

Now I'm watching this film and I gotta tell you, this has got to be the most original vampire film I have seen since Dead and Loving It. Daybreakers brings the mythology of vampire films to the next level with the experimentation of what the world will be like if vampires really did take over. And the things they do around here to portray the vampire dominant world is so genius, I want to make out with the screenwriter of this movie.

The guys who directed this  are the Spierig brothers and they did this with an incredibly small  budget.  But my God did they blew this out of the park. Daybreakers  looks like a $100 million film, easy. The art direction in the movie can  match that of Minority Report's and every little detail, even the  obscure ones were so original it blew my mind to heaven.

We have emo vampire children committing suicide just by exposing themselves to sunlight, the vampires have their own blood version of Starbucks, African blood Cappuccino and everything, we have special built cars for daylight driving, every little detail about how a vampire world would be like was really well thought out to the point that it blows me away and scares me the same time.

Ethan Hawke was really great playing Ethan Hawke in this. Can he do anything else but be himself in every single movie he's in? The best performance in this was Willem Defoe, who I strongly suspect is a vampire cause that guy looks exactly the same way he did in Platoon in the 1980's, that guy never ages man.

But with all the things I love about Daybreakers, I just wished that the story would have been thought out a little bit more. This movie is only 1 hour 15 minutes long and I can tell you that there are at least 20 minutes worth of scenes here that were irrelevant to the story.

One being the whole side story with Isabel Lucas. Now this girl is fine as hell, I've said it since I saw her in Revenge of the Fallen and she is a decent actress. Only her character had absolutely no reason for being in this movie. She had no interaction with any of the main characters, none of them even knew she existed. Her story kind of comes up like an intermission between the second act and the third act which left me going, "Wha?"

But she's still fine as  hell.

And I was really disappointed that the movie ended in a rather shitty way. I mean they start off with a really big bang. They have one of the most original ideas since sliced bread, they build up great conflict and tension in the first two acts and everything collapsed in the third. I felt like I was watching two different movies. Or watching The Matrix and The Matrix Revolutions back to back. Great beginning, lousy ending.

I can honestly say it was such a letdown walking out of the cinema because I believed that Daybreakers had the potential of becoming the next District 9. But I still loved the hell out of this movie for it's originality.  Hopefully, in a few years time they will consider remaking this again and give it a bigger budget and another look at the script because this is an idea too good to waste.

RATING: 6/10