Johnny Simmons

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.

                   

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?

I hate technology. Why? Because I'm addicted to it. There was a time when I'd just read. Little TV, a fair amount of music...and a lot of books. Now with this blasted technology thing I'm addicted. Oh well, we had this massive power outage today in this area for twelve hours. So yeah. That sucked. Hence I caught the results to StinkyLulu's Smackdown a little a lot late. So you should head over there and take a look see at the year 1993 and what the Smackers chose. What are your thoughts on 1993? Good year [are you crazy]...bad year? What would your slate look like...and ummm, why are you still here? I said to head over to Stinky Lulu. NOW!

In the Name of the Father opens with an intoxicating melody from Bono. It’s a song that would not have been out of place in the 70s. In the Name of the Father is inspired by a true story – the story of the Guilford Four. Four young people who were wrongfully accused of terrorism acts in 70s England. Daniel Day Lewis stars as the protagonist of our story. He is Gerard Conlon – an Irish rogue living in the slums with his parents and two sisters. Gerard is the typical antihero. He is not a bad person. He takes part in recreational drugs, he smokes and he swears. He doesn’t quite understand his father Giuseppe [Peter Postlewaite] and after yet another run in with the law he leaves for Britain. One happenstance after another leads to Gerard and three of his friends being accused of the Guilford bombings.

                                             

Scene after horrific scene we watch as Gerard is put through some of the most ludicrous and appalling torture sequences. If we weren’t so engrossed we’d laugh. Now is probably an opportune time to address the fact that this film is not a book by book account of what happened to Conlon and the rest of the Guilford group...but this is a film. Is Billy Costigan’s pain, Sophie’s anguish, Laura’s depression any less potent because these characters are not real? Certainly not. Good performances elevate anything that is fabricated – and it so with Daniel Day Lewis in this film. That same year Daniel gave another great performance as Newland Archer. Gerard is the stark opposite of Newland – but not for one moment do we doubt that Daniel is Gerard. If you thought that the story had run the gamut of tragedy, you’re wrong.

Gerard and his three friends are sentenced to life in prison but even more ridiculous his father, and nine of his family members are sentenced to sentences ranging from fourteen to thirty years. Jim Sheridan’s direction is wonderfully taut. Those courtroom scenes are powerfully edited and the sentencing of the four is effectively shot. As outstanding as Day Lewis is, Peter Postlewaite matches his performance. In prison Giuseppe and Gerard face off as Gerard recounts the day he knew his father was weak. Daniel goes for the sky with his delivery of the scene but what makes the scene all the powerful is the expression on Postlewaite’s face. It’s heartbreaking – and all the more because it’s true. Giuseppe is not a fighter. He knows that. And thus begins the parting of the ways.

                                                 

Gerard decides to fight the power his way and Giuseppe fights them his way. We already knew that Gerard was innocent but the arrival of a man who confesses to being the actual bomber cements that. Giuseppe meanwhile begins working on an appeal with barrister Gareth played by the always effective Emma Thompson. Gerard’s animosity for her is palpable. He has spent years watching his father diminish day after day and this lawyer giving him false hope is not how he wants Giuseppe to spend the last days of his life. But that is how he spends it. Despite incessant soliciting on Gareth’s part Giuseppe is declined from being released and he dies in prison. Daniel Day Lewis and Emma Thompson’s reaction to the death is both realistic and shattering. Giuseppe’s death instigates one of the most obviously beautiful scenes in the film, as the inmates light pieces of paper and drop them out the window. It’s a vigil for this great man and one of the saddest moments of this bleak film.

It ends well for Gerard and the other convicts but after Giuseppe’s death the baton passes to Gareth to give the emotional core of the film. She handles it as best she could with her few scenes, but something is missing. Her Oscar nomination was wholly deserved with a build-up to that one courtroom scene that we were waiting for. That scene alone is worth her top billing in the film.

                                     

In the Name of the Father is not fact – but it is not fiction. Regardless of the source material it is a tour de force film...and the ending does lag. But it is still at #84.
                                                 
PLEASE VOTE
And don't forget to contribute if you can!

This is a film that I might never have looked at again had it not been for StinkyLulu’s Supporting Actress Smackdown. Sidney Pollack’s thriller based on John Grisham’s novel. This is Tom Cruise’s film and its one of those non-acting performances from him [re Top Gun, A Few Good Men] He’s capable, as are most of the cast. Gene Hackman, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Ed Harris, Holly Hunter, David Strathairn give able performances. The film is overly long for one of this genre [it’s two hour and a half] and towards the middle it does tend to flounder. By the end it picks up but by then you’re just waiting for it to be over and done with.

                                       

Now as you know the whole point of looking at this movie is to assess Holly Hunter’s performance in The Firm. I always thought of this nomination as a filler nomination and in some ways I still think so. I was two in 1993 so all the films I saw from that year were done way later. I can think of a heap of women who could have replaced her. It’s not like her performance is bad. Her role is short, and it’s supposed to be the sort of palpable supporting performance that Oscar likes. I feel I would have nominated Jean Tripplehorn over her if I had the chance. Not because her performance was so excellent either, but the character just felt a lot more rounded than Tammy, and obviously they wanted someone from the film. But as I said you can see what the appeal of Holly Hunter is. Not only she is playing a completely different character than she does in The Piano [the same year] – it’s the sort of aggressive/slightly femme fatale/heart of gold character they like [see Mira Sorvino, Marisa Tomei, Kim Bassinger, Mercedes Rhuel], although an insignificant character means she can do nothing with it.

                

In the film there’s a key scene where Jeanne Tripplehorn seduces Gene Hackman. It’s a scene that was originally given to Tammy’s character in the novel. I don’t say would have suddenly made her character more rounded and the nomination less of a head scratcher. But had she a reason for being there I could have liked her more, or maybe not…