No Ordinary Man

So it's been a busy week. My fiancee Tim and I went and visited what seemed like our 20000nth potential wedding venue and actually couldn't find anything we hated about it. Believe me this is a miracle. Really, we have rejected places for such reasons as the following: ugly carpet, low ceiling, too big, too small, bad smells (eww I still shudder at the thought of that place), weirdly shaped room, freaky wedding coordinator and the list goes on. So to actually be seriously considering a place is very exciting. But, I haven't forgotten about Oscar and have spent two nights and one afternoon with him (one night was a monage situation with Tim joining us).

So, I've watched three of the nominees for best film from the 53rd Academy Awards (1980). It was only 30 years ago, but it just seems like a completely different time. The one thing that I've noticed that is common between all three films is that the directors/writers appear to be presenting these films to a more intelligent audience. Unlike a lot of the movies of today, which often have predictable endings, the exact same storylines (boy meets girl, girl rejects boy for a more attactive one, but then realises the love of her life was right in front of her the whole time - YAWN) and the same actresses (e.g. think every Katherine Hiegal movie - except Knocked Up, love that movie), these movies were very different, highly unpredictable and (some) were highly captivating. Two of the films were even black and white, which I took to be meaningful in very different ways.

Ordinary People (Winner)
Starring: Donald Sutherland, Mary Tyler-Moore, Timothy Hutton
Director: Robert Redford

Wow, how tortured are these people!! This was my thought when I watched this movie. Yet sooo repressed. The emotional unrest is like the elephant in the room, that nobody talks about. You feel it in every scene. Whilst I couldn't relate directly to the content, the thing I liked about the movie, is that anyone can relate to what I think is one of the key themes coming through the film: the feeling of loving somebody, who does not love you back and the pain of not being able to talk about that (hello every high school crush I ever had).

So basically, the film is about this middle class, American family, living in suburbia, where everybody knows everybody. The film starts out, just after the son has returned home from a mental health facility (he attempted suicide following the death of his older brother). The father (Donald Sutherland) is the kind and loving peace maker in the family, the son Conrad (Timothy Hutton) is a very damaged teenager due to the death of his brother and his mother's emotional dettachment from him and the mother (Mary Tyler-Moore) the home maker and middle class, middle aged socialite, who is quite cold and shut off from her son, but interestingly not her husband. The film depicts the family's life not long after the death of the eldest son and how they cope with this. But I think the mother's lack of love for Conrad, goes back before the older son's death in the form of favouritism. It's just so sad. Coming from a family background of being an only child and having an overbearing mother, it was really sad to watch. She literally cannot reach out to him and is almost mad at him for attempting suicide, like it was an embarassment to her. The son ends up going to a therapist and has to deal with all his issues relating to his brother's death (they were on a boat and the brother drowned, so he blames himself for not saving him), as well as the family issues. In the end he actually confronts both his parents and the father is almost forced to choose. Conrad actually comes to terms with his mother's lack of love for him and stops being angry about it, even giving her a hug towards the end of the film, which doesn't sound like a big deal, but there was literally no physical contact between them other than this moment. The mother is unable to change her feelings, which is too much for the father to deal with and in the end he has to admit he doesn't love his wife anymore. The saddest part is, he really did love her so much before he came to the realisation that she can never love their son. He is forced to end their twenty plus year relationship. I was so in awe of his courage, I have to admit. It would have been easier I think for him to keep burying his head in the sand and keep reassuring the son that it was "all in his head" and his mother does love him (which is what he did at the start of the film). However, he cannot live with that and choses bravely to face the truth, which ultimately brings him closer to his son, but at the cost of his marriage. AHHHHH tortured!!!!

I give it a 6/10. The characters were strong and the story was original. It was a bit slow moving and long, which is why I didn't rate it higher.

Raging Bull
Starring: Robert De Niro, Cathy Moriarty, Jo Pesci
Director: Martin Scorsese
Hmmm, at the risk of being stabbed by the film community (haha as if they are reading this, "whatever" the film community is), I did not like this movie. The characters were unlikeable, the story was kind of blah and it was kind of difficult to follow. I know this opinion will be vehemently opposed, as after I did some reading, I've realised some rate it as one of the best films of all time. But sorry I'm just not feeling it.

The movie is based on the autobiography of Jake LaMotta. I think this is why it is almost what I would call a "gritty realist" film, because it's based on a true story. It's even filmed in black and white, which I think is to create more a gritty depiction of the "mean streets" of the Bronx and to keep the focus on the story. No bright colours to distract the viewer. No fantasy. This is the real world and it's ugly. It's set in the Bronx, everybody swears and the fighting is fixed by Italian crime bosses. The movie is almost a montage of Jake's fights in the ring, with in between scenes of fights in his "real" life with his brother (Joe Pesci) and wife (Cathy Moriarty). None of the characters are likable. Jake is a self-destructive, jealous, volitle and violent man. His brother Joey is skeezy, sneaky and also violent. Seriously, I don't even think Vicky LaMotta his wife is that likeable. She is quite volitile too, but also quite passive. As the viewer, we don't really get to know her story, but I guess it is based on an autobiography, which means it is coming from one perspective, but still I would have liked more focus on her and more of an exploration of why she stayed with him, despite his jealousy and controlling ways. I guess it was because she loved him or maybe she was afraid to leave, but if it was either one or both of this reasons, I don't think they came through strongly in the film. Overall, I didn't really get it. Nothing much happened. Jake kind of just burned out, stopped fighting, opened a night club where he was the host/comedianm (random considering he was so angry for the first three quarters of the film), then went to jail for letting under age women in and then came out and continued with life as per usual (although Vicky left him at the end).

Overall, I didn't like it. I guess it was Scorsese-esqe. But I just didn't feel it. Sorry. 3/10

FILM OF THE WEEK
The Elephant Man
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, John Hurt
Director: David Lynch

Wow, easily my favourite movie of the three. Warning though, you need to watch this when you are able to dedicate yourself to it completely. It requires your complete concentration and can be difficult to follow, particularly at the start. It was also filmed in black and white, but for completely different reasons than Raging Bull.

The film is about a surgeon Fredrick Treves (Anthony Hopkins), who takes on the care of a man with a serious genetic disorder, John Merrick (John Hurt). It's called the Elephant Man, because John was in a freak show and was cruelly named the "Elephant Man" by the owner because of the disfigurement to his face, which resemble elephant features. John is whipped, beaten and emotionally abused by this man, to the point where he does not speak, is unable to breath properly because of a raging chest infection and is just generally traumatised and tortured. Frederick agrees to take John in for medical care to treat his bronchitis, but then offers him permanent shelter and refuge in the London Hospital, with much opposition from other medical professionals. The film is about Frederick assisting John to come out of himself. John is actually very intelligent, but has been so traumatised, he is unable to speak or share his knowledge. He has such a gentle soul and whilst it might sound "cliche", the movie I guess is about showing true internal beauty, which despite his hideous external appearance, John has. His mutilated face not only result in him being treated cruelly and stop him from forming close relationships (at least at the start), it also restricts him physically. He is unable to lie down in bed, as this restricts his breathing, so he has to sleep upright.

The movie concludes with John being kidnapped by the freak shower owner, being freed by the "other freaks" and finding his way back to Frederick and the London Hospital, but finds out he is terminally ill. Rather than leaving his death in the hands of destiny, John takes charge and does the one thing he has always wanted to do, lies down in bed. This leads to his death. Ultimately he dies a happy man, having experienced love and friendship from Frederick and having been exposed to human kindness through Frederick and a famous actress who befriends him, invites him to the theatre (a big deal for somebody who never goes out in public) and dedicates the show to him.

Loved it loved it loved it. So moving and a wonderful story, showing all aspects of the human condition. 8/10

Stayed tuned for Tess (1980), The Coal Miner's Daughter (1980 and if I can find it, having some difficulty) and the first of the 54th Academy Awards (TBA)!

Until then, "make like a tree and get outta here" (Biff, Back to the Futre)