Category Archives: Best Pictures

“The English Patient” (1996) — The 69th Best Picture: Two Star-Fated Lovers

Posted on by

There were swimmers in the Sahara Desert. Not now. Long ago. In a cave, an ancient artist painted lithe figures — swimming, diving and floating weightlessly, where now there is only rock, sand and unremitting heat. The desert breaks the spirit of the traveler and pulls down those who challenge its domain.

Geographic explorers discover the swimmers near the start of World War II. Two of those explorers fall in love. The movie follows those two, Count Lazlo de Almasy and Catherine, into the war, to Italy and back to that desert cave.

“The English Patient” won the Oscar for Best Picture in 1996.

This is a sad searching story of two star-fated lovers, Romeo and Juliet in North Africa, trapped by the warring families of the second world war.

Unlike Shakespeare, this tale can’t stay in the present. It flashes back and forth across the years, beginning where it ends and ending where it began. Our lovers are the swimmers. They exist and move above time and space in a place of their own, as lovers often do. Unfortunately, we, the viewers, are fixed. We would share and understand their world but the sands shift too often and too far, and we lose our way as they lost theirs.

A worthy undertaking, the beauty of the cinematography and poignancy of the acting render a breathtaking and heartwrenching visual and emotional experience. Alas, the challenge of the story-line is too great for us, the watchers, as it is was for Almasy and Catherine, the actors. In the end, we part unsatisfied and uncertain.

Were it not so and Shakespeare and iambic pentameter could solve the problem, but the film falters and does not reach the poet’s pinnacle. As one critic reviewed, this picture may be better watched twice. The moves forward and flashes back are too mixed and muddled to be seen clearly in a single showing.

Here is what our ethnofamilymovieography viewers had to comment about “The English Patient”:

Set in the deserts of North Africa and hillsides of Italy leading into and during World War II, “The English Patient” was recognized for the beauty of the cinematography, the captivating accompaniment of the music and the pathos of the tragic love story presented; unfortunately, the presentation of that story failed the ethnofamilymovieography audience — they found the back-flashing to unravel the events tediously long, poorly presented, excruciatingly slow, overly complex, difficult to follow, overly dramatic and uninteresting; and the viewers did not like the graphic nudity, the glorification of adultery and the mercy killing at the end; a monumental undertaking, the picture did not reach its viewers and managed only an average rating of 6.00 out of 10.00, placing the show tied for #59 of the first 69 Best Pictures, very near the bottom of the Oscar-winning movies viewed to date.

The film is mature and not for children, perhaps unnecessarily so — a theme that seems to have been advancing in filmmaking since the ’60s. The story itself is fascinating, captivating — but perhaps more than can be managed in a cinematic presentation.

Another factor that may be relevant to both story and cinema is “message.”

One of the ethnographic survey questions is:

Do you feel the message of this film is still relevant today? Circle one:  YES  NO  Maybe

For this film, there were more no’s and maybe’s than yes’s. This is a difficult parameter to interpret, but it seems to happen with the less substantive shows. Think about that.

Enough for this show. There will be no Best Picture showings until after Christmas and New Year’s, when we return with the movie “Titanic.” I will continue to blog, but the ethnofamilymovieographers will take a break.

Back soon with something new,

Grandpa Jim



“Braveheart” (1995), The 68th Best Picture: Truth And Freedom Do Triumph

Posted on by

On August 23, 1305, William Wallace, a Scottish farmer and minor noble, was tried in London as a traitor against Edward I of England, known as Longshanks. Wallace had led bloody uprising after bloody uprising against Longshanks to displace the English from his native Scotland. At the trial for his life, William’s response to the charge of traitor was: “I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject.”

Wallace was convicted and carted to his public execution, where he was slowly strangled, allowed to recover his breath, and then viciously and repeatedly tortured.

Near the end, the chief executioner bends over and speaks softly into Wiliam’s ear, offering one last chance to lessen the agony. “Beg for the King’s mercy,” the black-robed figure whispers, “Just say, ‘mercy.'” William Wallace draws a final brave deep breath and shouts from his heart for all to hear: “FREEDOM!”

For that final free defiant act, Wallace was beheaded and dismembered. His head was placed on a spike on London Bridge, and the pieces of his body were carried to various cities throughout England and Scotland to be publicly displayed. This was done so that all could remember the traitor. It worked, but not in the way his executioners had intended. William Wallace was never forgotten then or now. His was the braveheart of a warrior who never stopped beating and fighting and bleeding and crying for the freedom of his native people and their lands, for his Scotland. He was and is remembered as a patriot, not a traitor.

Mel Gibson played William Wallace and directed the film, “Braveheart.” For that, he received the Oscar for Best Actor and film the Oscar for Best Picture of 1994.

“Braveheart” is a historical film. In the details of its presentation and players, the show may be as much fiction as fact. For that, the film has been criticized. Overall, however, the picture can be seen as telling a broader and, in its own ways, perhaps a more accurate story of William and the times he inhabited. They were, by all accounts, very difficult times, and the film reflects this. The battle scenes are surreal in their barbarity. The nobles, English and Scottish, are as false and unreliable as the power-grabbers of any age. The romance is touching, if fancified, and little different than the endearing and fleeting loves of more modern days. The companions of William Wallace are as good a group of companions as those of any friend at any place since the beginnings of fellowships. And the ending is as cruel and undeserved as the suffering of any true and honest person at any time and in any place. For all this accumulated agelessness and wisdom, the picture and the director deserve both merit and award.

But, I would not stand alone, this is ethnomoviefamilyography, and for that we must turn to our family of viewers to hear the summary of their reported comments:

This is Mel Gibson at his medieval road-warrior best as the 13th Century Scottish hero William Wallace, fighting and slicing his away across the highlands against the treacherous King Longshanks of England and the traitorous nobles to win the freedom of his beloved homeland; the film was most liked for its history (though much of that has been fictionalized) and its message that truth and freedom do triumph (which did happen and is the show’s redeeming grace); the picture was not liked for the cruelty, violence, brutality and killing (though much of this is probably accurately documented); as violent shows go, this one did well, receiving five Academy Awards, including Best Director and Best Actor for Gibson, and with our ethnofamilymovieography audience, an 8.50 average rating, placing the movie at #23 of the first 68 Best Pictures; the single word for this show is, of course, freedom.

Freedom: Freedom is more important than goods, power and wealth.

At the end and to the future: Truth and freedom do triumph.

This is a deep and not easily understood message.

Better seen than said, as many truths are.

Which may be why we have movies.

That can be seen in their ways:

To be more fiction than fact.

And more true even.

Than the facts.

Perhaps?

 

Grandpa Jim

“Forrest Gump” (1994), The 67th Best Picture: “Run, Forrest, run!”

Posted on by

Forrest Gump was born with an IQ of 7 and little chance of success in the world, except he had a loving, caring, encouraging mother who never stopped believing in him and helping Forrest find his way.

And what a way it was.

We meet Forrest Gump in 1981 on a bench in Savannah, Georgia, with a box of chocolates in his lap waiting for the bus to take him to Jenny, the love of his life. He offers a chocolate to one stranger after another as he proceeds to tell them each some of the memorable moments in his life.

About 1954, Forrest, in his childhood knee braces, teaches Elvis Presley how to swing his hips and become famous. Older and having run through his own braces, Forrest receives a scholarship to be a running back on the University of Alabama football team. He literally runs out of the stadium to become an All-American shaking hands with President John F. Kennedy in 1963 in the White House. After graduating, Forrest is drafted to Vietnam where he saves lives in a firefight and ends up in 1967 back at the White House to receive the Medal of Honor from President Johnson. Recovered from his war wound, Forrest becomes a world-famous ping-pong player and is invited back to the White House in 1972 to be recognized for ping-pong diplomacy by President Nixon who upgrades Forrest’s overnight lodgings to the Watergate Hotel where Forrest observes and reports the Watergate break-in that costs Nixon the Presidency. Back home, Forrest buys a shrimp boat in 1974, founds Bubba Gump Shrimp Company, and invests in “some kind of fruit company” called Apple becoming financially secure for life. Distraught over his on-again-off-again relationship with Jenny, Forrest in 1978 escapes to become a world-famous long-distance runner with a devoted following and his picture in the news. Jenny sees a picture and invites Forrest to visit her in Savannah.

Now we’re back to 1981, where we first encountered Forrest Gump at that bus stop, the chocolates are almost gone when Forrest learns Jenny’s place is just down the street. He jumps up and runs to arrive at her apartment and the surprise. The rest of the film is no less surprising in the small way it ends on another bench waiting for another bus.

That’s Forrest Gump and it’s just part of what you’ll see, hear and wonder about his life on film. This is a show that tracks, through the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, one the most famous persons who never lived in some of the most famous events that actually did occur.

Tom Hanks won the Oscar for Best Actor and the show the statuette for Best Picture of 1994.

Admittedly, there is an element of incredulity here — perhaps more than one, perhaps many more.

Still, before we judge let’s see how our ethnofamilymovieography audience reacted to Forrest and his portrayed life, if I might summarize their peruses as follows:

Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump sits at a bus stop and tells the story of his life with flashbacks while offering his listeners to share in a box of chocolates and telling them: “Mama always said life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.”; a curiously sweet movie, it is too good to be completely true and too unbelievable to be fully believable — many of the great events of the later 20th Century are attributed to the running abilities of Forrest who with an IQ of 7 is the unlikely recipient of praise, recognition, adulation and even Presidential award and amazement; at the end, the goodness, virtue and love of the characters and their story prevail over the unreality of the unbelievables and we, the watchers, become believers because this is just too much fun; overall, the ethnofamilymovieography audience could not resist the charm and awarded the film a 9.27 average rating, placing “Forrest Gump” at #9 of the first 67 Best Pictures; maybe it is true, as one viewer commented, “In some ways, you make life what it is, and in others, it just happens.”

In some ways, you make life what it is, and in others, it just happens.

I think that just about summarizes Forrest Gump’s life.

The only thing missing may be a happy face.

As Jenny said, “Run, Forrest, run!”

He did. Thanks, Jenny.

And thank you,

For you each reading.

Consider watching this show.

It’s always good to stretch the imagination.

 

Grandpa Jim

 

“Schindler’s List” (1993), The 66th Best Picture: Reluctant, Haphazard, Unexpected Good

Posted on by

5.9 Million: The estimated number of Jews killed by the Nazis in World War II.

2.1 Million: Jews in Poland killed by the Nazis.

1,200: The number of Polish Jews saved by Oskar Schindler.

SchindlerJuden. Schindler Jews. The Polish Jewish workers who survived in Oskar Schindler’s factories and whose names were recorded on his lists. In 2012, there were over 8,500 descendants of the original 1,200. Today, hopefully, there are more, many more; and they are all alive because one man did everything he could and spent everything he had for them. A righteous man, one righteous man, among many who were not.

It was a hard movie to make. It is a hard movie to watch. Steven Spielberg was reluctant to direct. The movie, “Schindler’s List,” was released in 1993. It received seven Academy Awards, including the Oscar for Best Director to Spielberg, the reluctant director.

A word on ethnofamilymovieography. Ethnography is the study of a people thing from within the people experiencing the thing. In its manner, ethnofamilymovieography is the newest branch of ethnography. The people thing being studied is the encapsulation of all the Academy-award-winning Best Pictures — viewed sequentially one-by-one. The people are the movie watchers within the study group, who themselves represent in microcosmic form the cultural amalgam all those to have viewed the film. To a real extent, the studiers are the studied. Each reviewer fills out a form after viewing a film reflecting his or her participation in the movie, individually and as a member of the group, as much as their appreciation of the Best Picture. A curious endeavor, this is the 66th film to be so ethnoexperienced, evaluated and recorded.

One of the questions on the post-film survey is this:

“You stop at a crowded intersection during rush hour in the rain. This movie approaches as a panhandler. Assume you have unlimited cash on your person and you regularly give to panhandlers. Circle how much money you would hand through the window:  NONE  $10  $1,000,000  More”

The coordinating ethnomovieographer collects, collates and presents the data in different formats. One “form” is a sentence of no less than 100 words that summarizes the “Likes” and “Dislikes” of the audience with a brief explication of how the movie fared with respect to the other Best Pictures studied to this point.

For “Schindler’s List,” this process resulted in the following sentence of 209 words. It was a long movie.

Steven Spielberg shares his personal view of the murder of Jews during WWII in Poland; our audience was captivated by the story, the acting, the cinematography, and the music, as they were saddened and horrified by the cruelty, killing, torture, brutality, hatred, and evil presented in this largely black & white picture of the Holocaust; yes, the movie is too long, but only one person commented on the length — the story is too captivating and too unbelievable to be as true as it really was; at the Oscars, Spielberg received the Best Director Oscar – this may be his best work of so many excellent films; the movie was awarded Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original score; the acting, which was great, did not take home a statuette — the story is so much that the individuals are lost in the overwhelming tragedy of the mounting scenes; at the end, our ethnofamilymovieography audience filled out their forms in a still room, awarding the show a 9.69-of-10 average rating, placing the move, in their estimation, at #2 of the first 66 Best Pictures, and, influenced by what they saw, they handed to the panhandler through their open car windows more money than a movie had ever before received.

Only “Ben-Hur” fared better in average rating, and no movie has inspired greater generosity on the part of its viewers than “Schindler’s List.”

“Schindler’s List” is a deeply troubling piece of filmmaking, a picture of good emerging reluctantly, haphazardly, unexpectantly and never completely in the midst of such horrible wrongdoings that to have survived and to be able to walk freely over the hillside in the bright sunshine at the end can only be seen as miraculous.

It is our reluctant director’s best work.

Grandpa Jim