Johnny Simmons

Few people believe that Disney had anything good to offer at 1994’s brilliant The Lion King. Luckily, I’m one of those few. I think Mulan is an obvious choice as something excellent, but the one that I hold even dearer and the one’s that less remembered is 1997’s Hercules. Only recently Luke pointed to a brilliant musical piece from the film, so I guess I’m not the only thinking about it at the moment. Of course, the film isn’t really an accurate account of the Hercules myth – like all thing’s Disney it’s simplified – but enchantingly so. I’d probably be moved to call the score for Hercules its triumph, and it’s really one of the best they’ve put out.

The story begins with the five muses who begin to recount the story of the great Hercules. It’s a clever choice from the filmmakers. It’s more personal than a narrator, but narration is necessary and the five muses (who are hilarious, I might add) do just enough to make this story accessible while keeping it in its time. This was back in the day before all animated films needed recognisable voices, since the film is littered with big Broadway stars that most of us probably don’t know. And it’s Broadway star Susan Egan who delivers on point voice work as Meg who stands out as the film’s star. Her role is shorter than most heroines, and she’s definitely more nuanced and Egan’s atypical smoky voice (atypical for Disney at least) that make her so memorable. It’s a pity she only gets one number, but she knocks it out of the park with “I Won’t Say I’m In Love” accompanied by the muses.

However, like so many of the stories from Disney Hercules is not just concerned with legend and romance. Like The Lion King before it (and in some ways even The Little Mermaid and Beauty & the Beast) it examines the relationship between children and parents. It’s not quite as invasive as The Lion King but it does a good job nonetheless. And Hercules is also lucky enough to have one of Disney’s most macabre villains. Unlike so many animated films it doesn’t aim to drown all its poignancy in silliness and though it does give in to the sentimental on occasion it still manages to remain honest. Sure, it doesn’t make my top 100 – but that doesn’t mean that I can’t love it still. It’s worthy of your time and remembrance…and that’s the Gospel Truth!

The cultural significance of Titanic are colossal and difficult to miss. Its fourteen Oscar nominations and eleven wins are unsurpassed. Up until Avatar it was the cinema’s biggest money maker. It marked a deep reworking of technology in films. It reworked and essentially launched the careers of Oscar nominees at the time Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio to super stardom and it spawned a number of spoofs about jewels in the water. It subsequently became one of the most, if not the most reviled Best Picture winner that few were willing to express affinity for. Luckily, I’m not a proud person because I feel no sense of embarrassment in citing Titanic as on of my favourite films.

Titanic is not my favourite film, but I marvel at the sheer scope of the piece. The film spans over three hours and yet persons who’d bemoan the cumbersome nature of other excellent pieces (like The English Patient, Gosford Park even The Lord of the Rings) would be willing to take an uninterrupted gander at it. Call it what you will, but few films of such length can keep the audiences interested for so long. As a narrative Titanic is split, evenly more or less, into two parts – the romantic half (pre-iceberg) and the action half (post-iceberg). Of course, like any film with a split narrative there are moments where the two overlap, and both “parts” are mediated by the words of our narrator in question Gloria Stuart. If forced, I’d probably single out the first half as my favourite even though each has things going for it. It’s the in the first part where the ensemble nature of Titanic is most evident. I’ll admit, Cameron is no E. M. Forster with his writing but I’m always wary of his critics who seem to officious. I’m not sure if it’s his skill for the inane, or the actors skill for the camp but it all works gloriously – like Fisher’s bedroom confession to her daughter, “Do you want to see me working as a seamstress?”; or Winslet’s much-too-verbose Rose’s soliloquies of sorts “Look, I know what you must be thinking! Poor little rich girl. What does she know about misery?”. The words are not the beacon of the film, but there’s some sort of sadistic thrill as I watch hearing Billy Zane tear through lines like, “Yes, you are, and my wife. My wife in practice if not yet by law, so you will honor me. You will honor me the way a wife is required to honor a husband. Because I will not be made a fool, Rose."

The thing is, even though it’s the first half that sets Kate and Leo up as dramatic actors it’s the second half that solidifies their skill. Certainly, they’re nowhere near the top of their game but the work they do as the ship begins to sink should not be ignored. It’s the difficulty that countless actors today cannot overcome. Winslet and DiCaprio need to effectively act against the already overwhelming backdrop of the special effects and they emerge doing credibly good jobs. The sinking of the ship is a thoroughly amazing visual spectacle, and yet we rarely forget the ill-fated lovers, for each actor carves a true character against the almost impossible. For Winslet it’s the film’s most deliciously ridiculous moment – as Rose is lowered into the lifeboats only to subsequently jump off, Kate has no lines and it’s up to her to sell a plot device that’s borders on fanatical; and she does. It’s an indicator of the brilliant actress to come. For Leo it’s later, and shorter. The moments just before his “death” are poignant, even if in its deliberateness. “you're going to make babies and watch them grow and you're going to die an old lady, warm in your bed."

          

Of course, the crux of my argument for the film should lie in its consummate technicalities, but I won’t bother. The costumes, the art direction, the visual effects and even Horner’s score which manages to remain poignant despite the recitative nature. What makes a film good? I don’t know, but I do know I’m willing to sit down and look at Cameron’s film whenever it’s on. I know the narrative like the back of my hand, I can recite the “inane” lines as if I wrote them and when anyone is moved to lambast it for its faults I’m often moved to imitate Rose and Jack; when the infuriating footman tries to warn them about the folly of their ways the turn around to him in unison and say “Shut Up!”

       

Titanic appears at #23 on my list of favourites.

I cannot talk about The Wings of the Dove without revealing what could be some psychological issues of mine. The Wings of the Dove is based on a novel by the talented Henry James. I prefer the film. Surprisingly actually, because I’m quite fond of Henry James as it is. The eponymous Dove of the title is an American heiress Millie, you’d assume that Kate Croy, ostensibly the lead of the film/novel is the dove – but I suppose she’s closer to a hawk or a vulture. Of course, I don’t think she is, it just seems to be public consensus. I don’t like Kate because Helena Bonham Carter plays her. My love and sympathy for Kate Croy’s character has nothing to do with Helena, but with my thoughts on the entire plot of the story.

                                                 

Millie is an heiress and she is dying – quickly. Kate befriends Millie who forms an attraction to Merton Kate’s [secret] boyfriend. Kate, ever the thinker, suggests that Merton pretends to love Millie – she’s dying anyway – and then when she dies he’ll be rich and they can get married. There is a thin line that this film must tread on. Kate does not want Merton with money because she is some sociopath money loving woman. Kate is the type of young lady who realises that nothing can come of poverty, and she knows, more than many that without money oftentimes goodness leaves with it. Perhaps she is just a bit too selfish, but she’s not a villain. At least I’d like to think she isn’t. Reading Henry James, I can’t help but feel that he’s not all too fond of Kate, but looking at Helena’s characterisation in Ian Softley’s underrated piece I feel for Kate, palpably more than I can when her story is told through the eyes of Henry James.

                            

I never realised how small Helena Bonham Carter was until The Wings of the Dove. Physically, her figure is so slight, even in A Room With a View she did not look as delicate. Knowing how big a fan I was, Joe said he’d like to here my criticise her. It’s not the greatest performance of all time; but I can’t recall that there’s anything I found obviously inconsistent in her performance. There was a general enigma surrounding the performance, but I figure that the character is a bit of enigma, so Helena was just doing her job.

                             

But Helena is not the only one responsible for the goodness of the film. In such a weak year for supporting women it is a tragedy that Alison Elliot’s delightful performance as Millie could not be recognised [despite love from the SAG]. She’s the perfect antithesis to Helena and with such a resplendently good character she never gnaws at you or makes you annoyed. I suppose in a way that Linus Roache's  Merton is a bit overshadowed, but he shines in the early and final scenes with Bonham Carter. Though I can’t say I care too much for his role his performance is not at fault – or, it shouldn’t be. Michael Gambon has something of a cameo and he, along all the other bit players are good in their roles.

                                              

I can always assume that the reason that this film wasn’t as well received as it should have been is because it touched on so many deep issues. Even this age of social consciousness and modernised view &etc, money is still a startlingly taboo topic. But in an age where we can regard the importance of the dollar I think we can understand Kate’s plight a little more. However, I err in making this plea. If you have seen this film there’s no telling what your reaction to Kate is. It really is up to you whether or not you think she is a character worthy of our esteem. What are your thoughts on Kate Croy? Or have you not seen this yet? And if you haven't. You should. It's on youtube for christ's sake; and it's my #75, I'm assuming that means something to you...

If you ask someone what they remember about 1997 they’ll say Titanic if they’re honest. If they want to go against type they’ll say Boogie Nights, and if they’re a ''serious'' film enthusiast they’ll say L.A. Confidential. All of these films are great but one film I wish would get some remembrance for being wonderful in 1997 was Gattaca, one of my favourite science fiction films and #97 on my list of 100 favourite films.

Gattaca is thoroughly science fiction film, there is not other genre it could be placed in. It takes place somewhere in what may or may not be the near future. The world has become so technologically adept that parents are able to choose what type of children they want so that their offsprings are as perfect as possible. In this perfect world, of course these perfect specimens are the ones who get the superior jobs and they’re the ones who are respected in society. Enter Vincent, played by a brilliant Ethan Hawke. Vincent is an imperfect with a weak heart. According to science he should be dead by now. All his life he has lived as a degenerate with no respect from the world. Ignored by his parents in place of younger, perfect brother he has lived life in the shadows. But like the typical dreamer he has big aspirations; his are of becoming an astronaut. With his imperfect background these hopes are essentially unattainable. With the help of some underground personnel [Tony Shaloub in a deliciously cameo] he meets Jerome a miserable perfect who has experienced a crippling accident. With Jerome’s genes makes attempts to win the respect of this perfect world and a perfect woman played by Uma Thurman.
I don’t know what it is about this film that makes me love it so much…but I can guess. First there’s Ethan Hawke. He is one of the most underrated actors in the industry right now being recently notoriously snubbed for one of the best male performances this century in Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead. Vincent is not a showy character, so I can understand why recognition is not wrought for his performance in the film. But the beauty of the film rests on his shoulders. His Vincent is an everyman character. We root for him. He’s not annoyingly good, he’s not exceptionally good looking, but he’s relatable. We want Vincent to win, and seeing that most of the suspense in the film comes from whether or not Vincent will succeed Hawke does a good job.

With Ethan Hawke as the lead, the producers needed to cast an actor who would be the epitome of perfection…and they couldn’t have done worse than Jude Law. This is the first Jude Law film that I remember seeing and I was very impressed with his performance. I guess some would want to say that he was showboating, and maybe he was. But the performance demanded it. Jude’s tortured character is an important part of the film and his rapport with Ethan Hawke is impressive. There is a finale scene where the crippled Jerome drags himself up some stairs and the acting on Jude’s part is truly heart wrenching.

Where the film is not as strong for me though is with Uma Thurman’s role. Uma does a good job of playing Irene, a perfect woman whom Vincent falls in love with. The character seemed a bit undeveloped and it didn’t allow Uma to do as much as she could have. As is typical with so many science fiction films the women are little less than ornamental figures. Uma, as she usually does, makes her character [the only notable female] as strong as she can, but the film is not particularly working in her favour. Still, it doesn’t spoil the entire success of the narrative.

Gattaca is a superbly directed film. With the tight shots and the quick editing the pacing is wonderfully. It’s enjoyable and yet it’s not a vacuous experience. It’s a sci-fi flick, but it’s not some action ridded drivel lacking in plot. Despite being a big fan of a certain guy called Oscar, I have realised by now that goodness is not synonymous with Oscar, but this film deserved recognition from any awards ceremony.

Jude and Ethan really gave great performances and the in the face of the weak male performances that year it’s unfortunate that they didn’t gain any buzz. Of course, this was the 90s when science fiction had no correlation with awards worthy. But even better than the acting, the technical aspects of Gattaca are its strong points. From the bleak and almost repressive set design and costumes, the cinematography and editing, the sound and most important the haunting score. It’s regrettable that only the Art Direction received any Academy Award nominations. But no matter, this is still a great film…a great film that unfortunately has become forgotten. If you haven’t seen it, do so, something will impress you?

Have you seen Gattaca? What did you think? Or what science fiction films do you like?