1967
In The Heat Of The Night
4 out of 5



Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier), a black homicide detective from Philadelphia is travelling in the deep south when he is arrested for murder, based simply on the colour of his skin. When the bigoted chief (Rod Steiger) realises his mistake, he is forced to accept Tibbs’ equally unwilling help in catching the real killer. 

This otherwise ordinary police thriller is given a lot of character by the mood, setting and above all the fantastic cast. Race is the driving force of the plot, but it is handled more subtly than you might assume. Sydney Poitier is brilliant as the quiet, but confident Virgil. Rod Steiger probably has the harder role as the Chief and he is fantastic, better even than his work on On The Waterfront. He’s bigoted, heavy handed, but also vulnerable and intelligent. He clearly wrestles with his own and his towns’ horrible views, while realising Tibbs’ is essential. The interplay between these two men is enthralling, first as they come to an understanding and then eventually to something that could almost be a friendship, or mutual respect at least.

American cinema has always done very well at interpreting foreign methods and tailoring them for their own ideals. This is a looser style to previous entries and likely reflects the French New Wave. It’s ideal for the moody, fractious, character driven environment and this is the first in this marathon I’ve noticed using songs for the soundtrack alongside a traditional score.

Steiger got a well-deserved win for Best Actor, but I was disappointed that Poitier wasn’t at least nominated. It was also nominated for screenplay and I’m a bit torn there. Characterisation and dialogue as I’ve been saying are beyond first rate and there are several stand-out scenes with wonderful language, but the murder plot is weak and some thugs a bit obvious. I might be being very picky, but I can’t buy that the police are quite that stupid as to arrest the wrong people twice. Actually, no, three times counting poor old Virgil himself! Although it importantly uses the racism as an effect, rather than a cause, it concerns me that no-one ever solves a crime correctly there! I did like that Virgil is briefly shown to be prejudiced as well though. The audience would love to see him “bring the fat cat down off his hill” of course, but life isn’t that neat.

The concerns about the plot are very small. This is a fantastic thriller that has stood the test of time and is possibly still relevant and the central performances are captivating.

By the way, Poitier starred with Richard Widmark in No Way Out some years before this. It deals with similar issues (Poitier's plays a Doctor treating a bigoted white man responsible for race riots) and is also very good indeed.

1975
One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest
5 out of 5



McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) is a petty criminal who’s playing the insanity card to get an easy stint at the local loony bin. There he meets an assortment of people with mental problems and Nurse Ratched, whose routine he is determined to mess with.

1975 was an excellent year. One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s got a well deserved Best Picture oscar and I was born.

Jack Nicholson gives one of his signature roles as McMurphy and he is superb throughout, as is the stone faced Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher) and their little battles are great fun.

I can’t think of another film that can so easily and successfully switch from being exhilarating to heartbreaking in a single scene. The fishing trip is a massive highlight as is the basketball game with the wonderful Chief. Of course setting it in a loony bin helps. All extremes of human emotion are played out by an excellent cast of character actors including Danny DeVito and Christopher Lloyd at various stages of being completely nuts. The strange score, played out on glass rims and saw blades somehow works very well to evoke just the right mood.

The contrast of emotions is no more vivid than in the films legendary final moments. It’s just a beautiful experience from start to finish. Somehow I want to liken it to The Shawshank Redemption and while that doesn’t feel quite right, I do think you will enjoy this if you liked Shawshank.

One dose of Vietnam is enough for one marathon! Unless I was doing a Vietnam marathon of course... So, anyway, Platoon can sit this one out, as I've only seen it quite recently anyway. In comparison with the Deer Hunter though, it doesn't try in anyway to present these men as having normal lives to return to. Stone's movie is about the raw conflict and there are few better. Well, he was one of the few filmmakers actually to have been there and it makes a difference.

I'm also missing two of my favourite movies, Dances With Wolves and The Silence of the Lambs, again because I've only seen them recently anyway. The latter is one of the best thrillers ever, a very intelligent film and has two amazing performances. By the way, the "Ultimate Edition" is amazing quality. First DVD I played on my new Blu-Ray player and although the BR would be better, I can't see the need of an upgrade in this case. It looks gorgeous.

Costner's epic was slated by some because it denied Scorcese his Oscar. Tough titties. Dances With Wolves is far better than Goodfella's and while I do like that film, I also find it blurs the line a little in Scorcese's career between true brilliance and slight indulgence. So there. 

I just realised that means I've missed the 80s entirely. Ah, well. The 80s was an odd decade, art wise. Everyone went a bit shit for a while, especially music and clothes...

1993
Schindler’s List
5 out of 5



Tells the story of Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson), Nazi party member and war profiteer who nevertheless went on to save the lives of over 1100 Jews, right under the noses of officers like Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes).

There is little I can or should say about Schindler’s List, but you know me! I’ll find something. It is the only film I have seen that is above criticism because it’s too important. What do you need to read if you haven’t seen this film? That it’s well acted? Well written? Has a great score maybe? It has all those qualities and more, but none are a good enough reason to watch it. It is directed brilliantly and the director was finally rewarded for a successful career, is getting somewhere, but still, you should see it because it will humble you and you will tell lots of people about the story and maybe this atrocity will never be allowed to happen again. All because this film in a small way is an “absolute good”. It at least led directly to the Shoah Foundation which isn’t just important, it’s essential.

I hope we can assume that merely watching it is a moot point, so it’s better to speak about what happened in its wake, because there was criticism, as there should be. Schindler was no hero to begin with and an unattractive prospect to start a story. He was a Nazi party member and sympathiser who would profit from the war. He was probably the last person that the Jews thought they could get help from, but they did get help and how is an inspirational development.

How apt then that it should be directed so personally by the person least expected to pull it off. It’s hard to imagine now, but Steven Spielberg was unfairly dismissed by many critics as a glorified popcorn seller who would never produce something truly important. In the same year as Jurassic Park, how he proved them wrong! And I can’t think of any film that could be more important. Maybe Ikuru, but even then, Schindler’s List relates to such a huge event that to even call it a film does it a disservice.
 
Some didn’t like that it concentrates on the 1100 that lived, not the 6 million who didn’t. I can’t agree at all, because it’s important to that no matter how bad things get, there is always a glimmer of hope. But it’s a weak criticism anyway because you’re never in doubt of the scale, not for an instance. Some sequences seemed like hell itself to me. And it’s no small victory when the direct descendants of the Schindlerjuden (6000) outnumber the Jews left in Poland (4000). Schindler was a great man, of which there should be no doubt.

Like any film of an historical event, it has to dramatise some things, but facts like that one above prove its validity. Anyway, the story is much worse than depicted of course. For instance, the train of women accidentally rerouted to Auschwitz were trapped there for nearer three weeks than the mere hours depicted. Spielberg is an entertainer at heart and though this is him at his most brilliant and raw, there are brief moments that you may think are indulgence, such as Oskar’s final scene. His judgement in moments of black humour, even during a devastating “Ghotto Liquidation”, is beyond reproach though. It’s an astonishing achievement and when he speaks of being profoundly changed by making it, I believe him. You might be profoundly changed by merely watching it.

We sometimes talk of films making you think for days after. This will make you think and feel for years. It is a devastating experience that will nonetheless leave you with a glimmer of hope.

I read about that at the time. I should say I was speaking strictly of film critics who generally couldn't agree on whether Spielberg would ever deliver on his early promise. I always found it an odd view, considering he'd already done Empire of the Sun.


"Deep dislike"? Goodness, that's strong! Sounds like fuel for a decent thread elsewhere. No love for Jaws? Duel? The Sugarland Express, even? He certainly isn't as potent as he once was, but how about Munich in recent years?

I know we differ immediately on Spielberg's talents, but with this story any director would have been the same if so committed and passionate. Most aren't. I have seen other work, including Night and Fog, the acclaimed documentary by Alain Renais. Is it better? Does it matter? Much as I respect Claude Lanzmann's opinions, ask the average guy on the street who he is and they'll have no idea. Ask them if they've seen Schindler's List, more than likely. Let's be honest, that same average guy would never get anything from Night and Fog. Spielberg knows how to communicate with a mass audience and he goes straight for the heart. And has Lanzmann's work led to something on the scale of the Shoah Foundation?

But your main problem seems to be with the fundamental story, so the real culprit is surely Thomas Keneally. First I strongly disagree that it's purely a redemption story. Schindler is our guide, not our focus, which is why his final scene seems indulgent.

 I can only go by my own reactions and bear in mind that my generation, here in England, had no connection with WWII. I'd been taught about the Holocaust at school, briefly, but our curriculum was pretty bad and concentrated on WWI and local Victorian history. I'd read more about it since though, and before Schindler's List. It never seemed real and Schindler's List for the first time made it real. The first time I saw it I had no feelings of hope, I was devastated.

So in one sense, by concentrating on Oskar Schindler, it helps the entirely ignorant understand the bigger picture (I include myself and would appreciate if Eric doesn't comment! ). I for one never thought he in any way alleviated the situation or offered an explanation or even a vague promise it wouldn't happen again. By concentrating on the 1100 who lived, it goes some way to humanising what was lost and making it impossible to ignore how huge it was. "Whoever saves one life, save the world entire" indeed. That's the important message and it doesn't remotely dilute the Holocaust.

I don't know why I'm so apologetic for it though. What was the alternative? To not tell the story of those survivors? 

1994
Forrest Gump
4 out of 5



Forrest Gump (Tom Hanks) is the most innocent of figures and we see a generation of America develop through his eyes.

Criticising Forrest Gump is like kicking a puppy in the face. Well pucker up, Pooch! I’m gonna have a go… oh what’s the use? That’s the thing about Gump. To continue the puppy analogy, he just keeps coming back until he eventually makes you laugh by leaving a turd on the carpet or trying to hump your leg. It is a lovable film that has many good points, but it’s as dumb as its hero when it comes to delivery. Maybe that’s the point though. That it is in all respects, a simple, unassuming tale, representing something much bigger than its hero. Black Beauty then. Sorry, first puppies, now horses. Keeping up?

Tom Hanks is marvellous as Gump, but Oscar worthy? He was for Philadelphia, but considering the incredible talent he was up against, here I’m not so sure. As I said once before though, Oscar loves the afflicted and they obviously see being thick as a disability! Best Film no excuse though because I should have been watching The Shawshank Redemption tonight. It’s the first time I think the Academy truly lost all common sense.

Although as subtle as a sledgehammer, it is fundamentally clever. Gump has nothing but an iron clad sense of right and wrong instilled in him by his “momma” (Sally Field) and that’s how he sees everything good and bad America has to offer through several decades. Told in flashback as he sits on a bench waiting for a bus, his habit of simplifying huge events is endearing and unavoidably stark. Some of the effects work when he appears in original footage is incredible (though the John Lennon sequence was misjudged). His effect on people is wonderfully uplifting, tempered by a strong sense of irony that crops up occasionally. The best sequence is in Vietnam and can represent the entire film; he barely has any idea of why he’s there or why anyone’s there. He’s just dealing with it, along with his friends, the equally dumb Bubba, whose stories about shrimp are hilarious, and the brilliant Gary Sinise (whatever happened to him?) as soon to be disabled Lt. Dan. EDIT: As Jimmy reminded me, the soundtrack throughout is amazing, evoking the perfect mood for each era. I wouldn't normally edit a review because of comments, but it really is that good and so important.

The other big influence on his life other than his mother, is Jenny (Robin Wright), the little girl who is the only one to show him kindness and whose life runs parallel to Gump’s. While he is like the feather at the start, just letting the breeze take him everywhere, she seems constantly in search of something, always refusing his devotion. I thought this was the films weakness, because like everything else, you have no idea where she’s going to end up, which in itself is fine, but then they kind of shoehorn in the last chapter. I didn’t like how she came across and I didn’t like that it was almost an afterthought. It was too much to tack on as an epilogue when the rest of the film was on the bus stop bench.

The bad points are largely inconsequential. You’ll love it or hate it, regardless. It is an original film with a good heart and a fiendish sense of humour. By the end, I was sold on the character and even the theme stopped annoying me!

However: “Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.” Read the card, you pillock.

 

Stupid is as stupid does. I'm a idiot! That soundtrack is one of the best points of the film and I had meant to mention it. Those sort of soundtracks seem rare in Oscar winners.

If you enjoyed it once, Jimmy, give it another go one day. This was the second time I'd watched it properly and at first I was struggling. It's so damn nice I expected a bloody flower to grow out of my telly! Urgh. But then I started to see the ironies that are razor sharp and it gave the film a little bit of a backbone. Not much of one, but it's there all the same.