In The Heat Of The Night 1967

The Film:

I've heard a fair bit about this film - I can quote its most famous line ("They call me *Mister* Tibbs) and I know it's a Sidney Poitier classic (and I used to think it was the one he won the Oscar for, but I know better now...). Other than that I am fairly ashamed to say I didn't really know very much else before I started to do a bit of research in the lead up to watching this.                                                                                                                                       It's quite a change from previous films this decade. So far every film we've watched (and the last two that are still to come!) has had at least one (and often two) of the following qualities - it's been set in contemporary New York, it's been a musical or it's been set in historical London. This one doesn't fit any of these categories. It's contemporary, but it's significantly set in Mississippi, with all the racial tensions that the setting implies.

Having read a bit more about it I'm really looking forward to it. It will be good to see Rod Steiger again, a decade on from On The Waterfront and I'm intrigued as to how far it will hold up more than 50 years on, when it is no longer a contemporary drama - will it hold up as a historical piece? And will it (sadly) still have things to say to a 21st century audience? And, above all, is it any good?

The Ceremony:

The ceremony was originally scheduled for 8th April 1968, but was postponed for two days following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jnr. (In less unusual news, it was at Santa Monica and Bob Hope was the host!)

Due to the marked decrease in the numbers of black and white films being put forward for consideration, from this year onward any awards that still had separate b&w/colour categories had these categories merged into one.

It was the first time that three different films were all up for the "Big Five" (picture, director, actor, actress, screenplay - so far only It Happened One Night had actually won all five). Although none of those three films - Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner - actually won Best Picture.

It is also the last time to date that a film has won Best Director and absolutely nothing else. The film in question was The Graduate. (I'm writing this on the night of the 90th Academy Awards - but I predict that this is extremely unlikely to change!)


Other Notable Winners That Night:

Finally!

I've already mentioned that Best Film and Best Director were split that night. Best Actor went (deservedly so in my opinion) to Rod Steiger. After eight unsuccessful nominations, Katharine Hepburn finally won her second Oscar, thirty four years after her first one. (She wouldn't have anywhere near as long to wait for her next one!)

The other most notable winner that evening was - finally! - Alfred Hitchcock, who was given the Irving G Thalberg award. Probably one of the most famous (and famously-snubbed) film-makers of all time, this was the only time he received any sort of Academy Award. It technically wasn't an "Oscar" but more accurately an "Irving" as you can see from the photo. I am sure Hitch had plenty that he wanted to say to the Academy, but instead he delivered one of the shortest acceptance speeches ever - "Thank you.....very much indeed!"


Best Song:

I don't get it. Doctor Dolittle is all very nice and everything, and "Talk To The Animals" works quite well in the context of the film - but it's just a little ditty that's speak-sung by Rex Harrison. (To be fair, I've never really got the cockerney Leslie Bricusse / Anthony Newley thing - except when David Bowie did it, that is....)

Other nominees included The Bare Necessities and The Look of Love. Just saying.....

What We Could/Should Have Been Watching:

Yes Ben, she's trying to seduce you...

With the possible exception of Doctor Dolittle (can you tell I'm not a fan?) the nominated pictures this year are all classics. And all a bit daring and edgy - a sign of a change in the style and subject matter of films that were being taken seriously by both the public and the industry. Any of Bonnie and Clyde, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner or The Graduate could have won it - and, in fact, the actual winner was the only one that I hadn't already seen. I'm ok with (and pleasantly surprised by) the Academy's choice - but I think my vote would have gone to The Graduate. It's clever, dark, dramatic and funny. It's got some great performances in it (including a very young Dustin Hoffman) and it's got a great soundtrack that is used really inventively. Oh, and William Daniels is in it (my favourite tv teacher and my favourite tv doctor) and that always a bonus in my book!

Our Verdict:

Expertly placed window.....

One of my first thoughts after watching this one is to wonder why I hadn't seen it before. Then to remind myself quite how long ago this film was made - right in the middle of the Civil Rights movement for one thing, and a fair few years before all the cop shows and movie franchises of the seventies and eighties (of which this is a superior prototype!).

My other main thought was about how good Rod Steiger was. It was interesting to note that a film which was basically about a Black cop struggling in a racist town won an Oscar for its White star, but not even a nomination for its Black star. Having seen the film, I get why. Sidney Poitier does exactly what he needs to do - basically, be Sidney Poitier. In other words, a smart, well-educated, well-spoken and dignified Black man. He does that really well, and (at that time at least) it needed to be him doing it, but it wasn't the biggest acting stretch of his career. Steiger, on the other hand, is just superb!

Body language is everything.....

A very significant slap!

The story itself is a good one - and very timely, given the reasons for the postponement of the ceremony this year. There is a murder in a small town in Mississippi and the local cops (who are clearly not really used to such things) go out "round up the usual suspects" as it were. Poitier is Tibbs, a homicide expert from New York who happens to be passing through, at the local station waiting for a train. He also happens to be Black - and so he is seen as suspicious and hauled to the Police Station as a suspect. The local chief Gillespie (Steiger) gradually realises who Tibbs is and what has happened - and the way he struggles to deal with this in the first twenty minutes or so after they meet is some of the best film acting I've seen. Steiger, with relatively few words, gives us a character who is basically decent, wants to do his job well, but also doesn't want to cause any fuss or stir up tensions - and is also a product of his upbringing in a racially segregated area.

Tibbs agrees (reluctantly) to stay on a few days and help with the investigation of the crime - despite the view of many around him that he probably won't survive the investigation, given who is involved and their views on Black people. Tibbs does his job, expects respect and - in most cases, particularly from Gillespie - eventually gets it.

Not quite a partnership - but a taste of things to come for
the buddy-cop genre!

If you take out the dramatic and social significance of the racial tension, the rest of the film is fairly standard cop drama stuff. It's done very well and, as far as we could work out, is probably the first of its kind. But there were many more that came after it (including a few sequels to this film, and a TV show). Among others, two decades later we had substituted Gillespie and Tibbs for Riggs and Murtaugh (and they are still going strong!). The soundtrack, the cinematography, the editing etc - all of these must have been something quite different to cinema-goers in the mid-60s. They became very familiar to TV viewers of the 70s and 80s.

It's not a perfect film by any means, and if we're looking at things on artistic merit then the Oscar should probably have gone somewhere else. But it is a good film, with social significance and an important story to tell (which it does without being preachy or mawkish) - and two great leads that elevate the whole thing beyond just the sum of its parts. I'm glad we gave ourselves a reason to watch it!

A Man For All Seasons 1966

The Film:

This is the first of a sub-group of Oscar winners that I know certain chunks of in far too much detail because they've been shown in my lessons. (The others in that group are Gandhi, Schindler's List and Million Dollar Baby!). I used to work at a school called Thomas More and our school motto was "God's Servant First" - so, naturally, this film was compulsory viewing.

I tried a bit of it on Year 8 last year when we were looking at British church history. Not having the Thomas More connection completely lost it for them. They couldn't get their heads round the double historical thing of a 1966 film set in the 1530s. They'd never heard of Orson Welles and just thought he was a silly fat man. And they found the whole thing slow and dated (and didn't like the background music....). I'm not sure if this is a damning indictment of the youth of today or if it just goes to show how filmmaking has changed in fifty years. But I didn't subject them to too much of it - once Henry had said his bit we went back to the textbooks!

I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the film again, outside the context of the classroom. It's a story I know well (and have studied the nuances of) and we've also seen the play live, with Martin Shaw as Thomas. Can I watch this film as Filmfan-Kath or will it forever be associated too much with Teacher-Kath?

The Ceremony:

Fred Zinnemann adding to his Oscar haul

10th April 1967 at the Santa Monica Auditorium - and hosted again by Bob Hope.

In terms of nominations, it was all about two films - A Man For All Seasons and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (both of them filmed versions of successful stage dramas!). They were the only two films to also be nominated for Best Director - and Fred Zinnemann took both of them.

The broadcast of the ceremony was threatened with cancellation/postponement due to a Union strike which was settled with just three hours to go - which was just as well, or we may have been deprived of Mitzi Gaynor's finest hour (see below!)

Other Notable Winners That Night:

Liz Taylor (and some fabulous jewels). By this time
she was on husband number five, and Oscar number two

The two favourites scooped up eleven awards between them, with Paul Schofield taking Best Actor  and Elizabeth Taylor Best Actress - so, one a piece. Sandy Dennis took another for Virginia Woolf as Best Supporting Actress, with the other Supporting Award going to Walter Matthau for The Fortune Cookie (a Billy Wilder/Jack Lemmon comedy - it is a wonderful thing that such films exist!!)

The other notable winner that year, as far as I'm concerned is the Documentary Feature, which went to British film The War Game. The War Game is notorious (and brilliant) for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's not really a documentary - it's one of the first examples of what we now call a Docu-drama. It depicted, docu-style, the aftermath of a nuclear war. Secondly, it wasn't shown in the UK for nearly another 20 years, as it was banned by the BBC in 1965 shortly before it was due to be broadcast. It did, however, get a limited release in the US the following year - hence the Oscar. It was directed by Peter Watkins, who is about as arthouse as I get when I list Directors I really like. I spent far too long (in Andy's opinion) at the Tate Modern one afternoon a few years ago watching a Watkins installation that completely mesmerised me - and several decades earlier I had been similarly mesmerised (and freaked out) by his film Privilege when I caught it late on Channel 4 one night. I still find it slightly strange that Watkins has an Oscar - he probably does as well!

Best Song:

It's a classic - although I will always end up singing Fletch's version...."Born free, til somebody caught me".

It beat out two other absolute classics though - Alfie and Georgy Girl. Both of them would have got my vote over Born Free (even though Matt Munro does sound lovely). Actually, both of them were much better received when performed on the night. Although Cilla had the (slightly) more famous version of Alfie, Dionne Warwick sang her version at the ceremony. And although The Seekers version will always be the definitive Georgy Girl, Mitzi Gaynor's performance that night is the stuff of Oscars legend. So here it is in all its camp sunshiney glory!

What We Could/Should Have Been Watching:

Burton and Taylor at their finest

It was definitely a year for film versions of famous plays - three of the five in contention had been big on the stage first. The two that weren't were "The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming" and "The Sand Pebbles". The other two that were are "Alfie" and "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" The latter was the favourite to win for a lot of people - and it still holds the distinction of being the only film ever to have been nominated in every category it was eligible for. The voters eventually went for English restraint over US emotion - but I think I'd have been happy either way.

Our Verdict:

Just a silly fat man in a red dress (apparently!)

I don't think I was quite in the mood for this when we actually watched it this time. Or maybe it was just that I was still all loved-up by our previous two musical films that this one fell a bit flat. But, my verdict this time has to be that it was, well, a bit flat.

There is no denying that this is a great film. I am very pleased that it exists (not just because it helped my planning when at Thomas More, Willenhall) and I'm very pleased that it got the recognition that it did. It's really well made and really well acted. I just wasn't feeling it this time.

Rumpole playing accuser rather than defender....

There are several people that cite it as one of their favourite films (including director Kevin Smith, so that's ok by me!) and the number of gushing 10/10 reviews on IMDb surprised me. But, again, pleasantly so.

The film is beautifully well shot, using the English landscape to its full advantage. It is really well acted - particularly Paul Schofield who is a wonderfully understated and measured Thomas More, Robert Shaw who is wonderfully over-the-top as Henry VIII and Wendy Hiller who makes the most of her role as Thomas' wife. The script is superb. Bolt doesn't change a great deal from his original play, and the set piece speeches are wonderfully written - the English language used masterfully in homage to More himself, who was an expert in its nuances!

Thomas, we're going to need a bigger religion! (I know,
I know - the line was said *to* Quint, not *by* him, but hey!)

However, I totally understand why my students didn't get it. Whichever way you look at it, it is still a play that takes a very specific (and legally technical) view on a specific aspect of British history. So much of what drives Thomas is to do with his particular view on a particular part of his faith - and he tackles it with a clever legal mind. As a Catholic RE teacher with a law degree, I think this is brilliant. I'm not sure how far others would agree? (Genuinely - I'm curious. My lawyer husband is also a Catholic who knows his history, so he's not got much of a different perspective on this!)

Behind every great man.....

Clearly the mid-sixties Academy loved it - or, at least, they loved it more than Burton and Taylor drinking and shouting in a similarly clever and verbose fashion. And hooray for that! It's still a great film - and, if nothing else, it's great for spotting some future stars in earlier roles (as well as the aging Welles in one of his later roles!). A very young John Hurt plots some dastardly things with Rumpole of the Bailey and a goblet that originally belonged to Mildred Roper - for Brits of a certain age that's a bit of a weird set up in itself!

The Sound of Music 1965

The Film:

I can't remember a time when I didn't know this film - and all the songs in it. It is indelibly imprinted in my childhood memories. We had the original release of the film soundtrack on vinyl - it's one of the things I remember listening to with my cousins on my Nana's great big sideboard record player in her front room, and I can't have been more than five or six at the time. 

I have no idea how old I was when I first watched the film, but I probably wasn't old enough to understand Nazis (although I always understood Nuns!). I have no idea how many times I've seen it - but my most memorable viewing was one that was interrupted by our Curate popping round halfway through, just at the point where they are serving Pink Lemonade. It became a thing, and next time Fr McMahon came round we served him Pink Lemonade! (it was very pink!). A friend of ours called Maria walked down the aisle at her wedding to Maria's Wedding March and I have jumped up and down those steps with my classmates singing Do-Re-Mi on a school trip to Salzburg. Suffice it to say, The Sound of Music has always been ringing in my ears!!

Andy had never seen it until he met me - he was fairly ambivalent to the music and had just never really fancied watching the film. I converted him first time round. Which is just as well, because we're about to sit through three hours of Nazis, Nuns and singing children yet again. I can't wait!!

The Ceremony:

It's the only time that the Oscars have been held on my birthday - well, to be correct, exactly six years to the day before I was born, but on my birthday nevertheless. 18th April 1966 at Santa Monica again, and hosted by Bob Hope again! It was also the first ceremony to be broadcast live in colour.

There were two big contenders on the night - The Sound of Music and Doctor Zhivago both had ten nominations and won five awards. They are also - still to this day - two of the top ten most commercially successful films of all time. A fairly rare occasion where the Academy and the public were in complete agreement.

Other Notable Winners That Night:

Neither of the two big films won any awards in the acting categories (and, in fact, only had three acting nominations between them). Best Actor went to Lee Marvin for Cat Ballou (great film, one I haven't seen for ages) and Julie Christie won Best Actress for the very trendy, very of-its-time Darling. 

The Sound of Music took the two big ones, leaving Doctor Zhivago with a Screenplay award along with lesser sound and vision awards (which is fair enough, because it does look and sound great!)

Also worth noting is the Animated Short winner for this year. Again, something very of its time, but something I remember really clearly from my childhood - Norman Juster's "The Dot and the Line: a Romance in Lower Mathematics". A real classic, and here it is:

Best Song:

Nothing from The Sound of Music, because none of them were originals for the movie. And no "Lara's Theme", because it didn't have any words until after Doctor Zhivago was released, (Incidentally, I used to have a musical jewellery box that played Lara's Theme while a little ballerina spun round. Which just shows how commercially influential the film was....)

Instead we get The Shadow of Your Smile from The Sandpiper. (It wouldn't have been my choice - I'd have gone for The Ballad of Cat Ballou all the way!!!!)

What We Could/Should Have Been Watching:

Lara and Yuri heading a spike in demand for furry Russian hats!
(insert appropriate Seinfeld reference here!)

Of course I'm going to agree with the Academy on this one. The Sound of Music all the way for me!

However, it could have gone one of two ways on the night. The other three nominees never really had a chance (Darling, Ship of Fools, A Thousand Clowns) - but Doctor Zhivago probably wasn't very far behind in the voting. It's a really good film and one I haven't seen for a while, so I would have been very happy to watch it again (and I will do some time soon!)


Dubbing Alert:

Bill Lee - one of the best singers you've heard, but never heard of!

No dubbed Marni this year, although she's still around (see below!). We do have a fair bit of it going on in The Sound of Music though.

The sound of the Von Trapp children was enhanced by several other voices, including that of Charmian Carr's sister Darleen - who also sang Kurt's high notes!

Peggy Wood didn't do her own singing for the iconic Climb Ev'ry Mountain - it was Margery MacKay. If you look carefully, you can't see her face when the song starts. Her wistful look out of the window at the beginning is not an artistic decision, it's because she couldn't get the timing right when miming to the pre-record.

Most significantly, adding to the reasons why Christopher Plummer really couldn't stand the film, all of the Captain's singing is provided by Bill Lee. Like Marni, he was well known for doing a great job of sounding like the people he was dubbing for - and when you listen to Edelweiss particularly, he really sounds like you'd expect Plummer to sing. Lee's other most famous job was probably on South Pacific, where he sang Younger Than Springtime, among other things. He can also be heard in several Disney cartoons of the 60s and early 70s - and was the voice of one of the brothers in 7Bfor7B. It's very sad that most of his credits listed on IMDb weren't actually credited in the films themselves.

Our Verdict:

There she is!!!!

 It will come as no surprise that this review is going to be quite gushing. I love this film and, even more so than with My Fair Lady (or pretty much anything we've watched previously), it is impossible for me to be objective. Also, I'm guessing that most people that are ever going to read this blog have already seen it too - so I'm not sure what I can add to the experience.

I was definitely relieved when I showed Andy the film for the first time. He had been given the impression that it was going to be a bit sickly sweet and cheesy (and wasn't too fond of the music). That's certainly the impression that Christopher Plummer likes to give of the film. He famously called it "The Sound of Mucus" and really didn't enjoy making it. Thankfully, Andy agrees with me and not with Plummer. I actually think that one of the strengths of the film is that it *isn't* too sugary or cheesy when it could so easily have been. This is a film that runs just short of three hours and is, all things considered, about the Austrian Anschluss. It has some pretty heavy politics running right through it and it doesn't water them down. It also has Nuns who talk quite deeply and seriously about their vocation and it has a central love triangle that takes some dramatic turns. When you take the film properly, as a whole, it's quite a serious drama - and it's all the better for it.

Marni alert!

Having said all this, there are lots of songs and there are seven singing children - and this is the aspect of the film that most people remember (and what really makes it the classic that it is). They dress up in old curtains and run around Salzburg singing, as well as performing several different set pieces in their lavish mansion. Julie Andrews is looking after them, just as she looked after the Banks children the year before - and the combination of Julie and the singing children melts the heart of the stern and grieving Captain.

Awww. Don't they scrub up well?

The songs are so well known - and probably overdone - that it's hard to appreciate them back in their original context. Particularly songs like My Favourite Things and Do-Re-Mi. But they are very good songs, and so are the others on the soundtrack - they punctuate the film very well and all serve their purpose. And I love the fact that Edelweiss is thought by many around the world to be an Austrian folk song, despite the fact that most Austrians have never heard of it!

There are several other great characters in the film - Max has always been a favourite of mine, and the Baroness is an interesting and (potentially) complex part of the story (Andy and I disagree about her motivations - he's much kinder toward her than I am!). The various Nuns are shown as both very holy and very human - and one of them is actually Marni Nixon, actually on screen! The Nazis are suitably menacing, without being too scary for a family film, and the character of Rolfe gives a more rounded and human side to the Austrian response to the Anschluss.

Not too sweet, not too sour.....just too pink!

More than anything else, I enjoy watching this film. It looks great, it sounds great, it is well paced and tells a good story with a satisfying ending. It hasn't dated and still plays to packed cinemas today (mainly ones full of people in fancy dress singing along!). Robert Wise produced and directed two Oscar winners in the 60s. Two quite different films, but two of the greatest film Musicals ever. And I still can't decide which one I like better!

My Fair Lady 1964

The Film:

This the second of the four Oscar-winning musicals of the 60s. It's not a personal favourite - although it is definitely one of Andy's favourites!

We're definitely now getting to the point where there are an increasing number of films that I already know pretty well. I've seen this one many times, although not for several years now. It's not a go-to film for a rainy Sunday or when I'm feeling ill (like stuff with Fred, Bing, Gene, Judy or Doris tend to be) but it is definitely a classic Bank Holiday treat sort of a film.

I've always felt a little ambivalent towards Audrey Hepburn in this film. When I was young, my Dad had the original West End soundtrack on vinyl, so I am just as familiar with Julie Andrews singing these songs as I am with Marni Nixon's versions (for it was she - not Audrey!). I still feel slightly cheated out of a Julie version of this on film. However, history played out differently and I'm grateful for that, because we got Mary and Maria instead and the world is a better place for that!

I do wonder if I've been unfair on Audrey because of this - so I'm hoping to put Julie Andrews to one side and be more impressed by her this time round.

The Ceremony:

April 5th 1965 at Santa Monica Auditorium - and hosted by Bob Hope - for the fourteenth time!

It was the first time that an award was given for Best Make Up and also the first (and, to date, only) time that three films were nominated for twelve or more awards Mary Poppins, My Fair Lady and Becket.

It was also the first time that none of the acting awards went to Americans (three Brits and a French-Russian). This didn't happen again until 2007 (two Brits, one French and one Spanish).

It was an elaborate and star-studded event with many big stars taking part, including many from the "Golden Age". The highlight was a performance by Judy Garland: a tribute medley of Cole Porter songs. Here it is:

Other Notable Winners That Night:

Funny how things turn out.....

The producers of My Fair Lady took on lots of the Broadway cast when they were putting the film together. However, the story goes that they didn't want to risk the lead to a relative unknown like Julie Andrews - they wanted a star instead. Julie went on to make Mary Poppins instead and did what her replacement had done several years earlier, winning Best Actress with her film debut. (Audrey didn't even get nominated)

Rex Harrison won Best Actor - up against such heavyweights as Burton, O'Toole, Peter Sellers and Anthony Quinn. He was very good as Henry Higgins - but I'm not sure he was *that* good.

Anyway, My Fair Lady won eight and Mary Poppins won five - which didn't leave very much for anyone else. Clearly, the Academy that year really loved people dancing on the cobbles of Edwardian London!

Best Song:

With no original songs in My Fair Lady we get some more Mary Poppins. Despite the universally-acknowledged strangeness of Dick Van Dyke's cockney accent, this song is wonderful. I had it on a "Best of Disney" LP when I was very little and the record used to jump at a certain point in this song. It still sounds strange when it doesn't jump.....

Dubbing Alert! 

Marni actually playing Eliza on Broadway

This was the third of Marni's most famous dubbing jobs (after The King and I and West Side Story) and the second of her three appearances in Oscar winners (the third is on its way!). In a similar scenario to that with Natalie Wood a few years earlier, it wasn't that Audrey couldn't sing, it was just that she couldn't sing that particular part that strongly. There are a couple of the "character" songs that still have a bit of Audrey in them - you can spot the join in "Just You Wait" - but it's mainly Marni that you can hear, including a cockney Marni in "Wouldn't It Be Loverly".

It's getting a bit obvious that I'm a big fan of Marni Nixon. (She's also the mother of Andrew Gold so, for better or worse, we have her to partially thank for the Golden Girls theme and Building a Bridge to Your Heart....!)

We also need to pay tribute to Bill Shirley here - who made wet Freddy slightly less wet by giving a bit of oomph to "On The Street Where You Live", dubbing for Jeremy Brett.


What We Could/Should Have Been Watching:

The other musical of 1964 set in Edwardian London!

There were some big hitters nominated this year - and the Best Picture list matches the Best Director list exactly. Of the other four films, I've not seen the Burton/O'Toole "Becket" (which had twelve nominations overall) but I'm sure it was lavish, worthy and probably very good. Zorba the Greek is one I have seen - and really liked. I should probably watch it again sometime.

If I was a bit cooler, or still in my 20s and pretending to be hip and clever, then my vote would go to Dr Strangelove (etc...) which is very funny, very clever and I'm really pleased it was nominated (as were Kubrick and Sellers).

However, I'm a shameless musicals fan and this year was the battle of the Edwardians. I think I'm ok with My Fair Lady winning the big one (especially as Julie got her Oscar!) but I'd have Mary Poppins as a close second. In terms of a film that has stood the test of time there are very few in any genre that can touch it - I know people in their 50s, 40s, 30s, 20s, teens and younger who claim this as their favourite childhood film and still watch it regularly. We've got more than 50 years to go to find out if Frozen has the same staying power!


Our Verdict:

Tying with Dick van Dyke for dodgiest cockney accent of 1964 -
but she does it with far more charm!

By George, I think they've got it!

 This is a tough one to critique - partly because I know it well, but also because if I'm not careful all I'm going to do is compare the whole thing to the original Pygmalion, and/or Audrey to Wendy Hiller and Julie Andrews. And really, this film needs to stand or fall on its own merits or failings.

The Julie stuff I've already mentioned so I'll just get Pygmalion out of my system and carry on. The 1938 film of Pygmalion is brilliant. It won George Bernard Shaw an Oscar, making him the only person to have won both an Oscar and an Academy Award until Bob Dylan joined him a couple of years ago. Leslie Howard and Wendy Hiller are both brilliant as Henry and Eliza - and no one playing those roles in My Fair Lady is ever going to be able to match up, even though they are saying many of the same lines. Pygmalion is a comedy-drama, a character study and a social commentary. My Fair Lady is first and foremost a musical. It depends what you want - and I'm glad we have both. But the knowledge of Howard and Hiller's performances does slightly take the edge of Harrison and Hepburn for me (probably unfairly, but there you go!)

All togged up for a night on the town

What My Fair Lady does - and does really well - is provide a lavish and enjoyable feast for the senses. It looks wonderful and it sounds wonderful. It's a nice easy thing to watch without ever being trite. It's visually stunning (and you can see the money right there on the screen) without compromising on the subtler layers of the story. The four key leads (Harrison, Hepburn, Holloway and Hyde-White) are all very at ease with their characters and yet play them with the hidden depths (or suggested hidden depths) that Shaw originally gave them - in this sense, Freddy is the only real disappointment, but I'm going to blame Lerner and Lowe for that, rather than Jeremy Brett.

A bit of authentic London wit and charm.

I definitely need to give Audrey more credit than I usually do. It's not her fault that Julie Andrews wasn't considered - and it's not her fault that her voice wasn't up to it. And it's unfair to just say that she looked the part and leave it at that. Dodgy cockney accent notwithstanding, Audrey acts the part of Eliza very well. She is clever, funny, satirical, dramatic when she needs to be - and totally sympathetic. There is as much about gender politics as there is about the class system in Pygmalion - and this transfers across well to My Fair Lady, partly because of the way Audrey plays Eliza. She will not be talked down to, she will not be treated as property and she expects and demands respect from Higgins. The character could so easily have become a clothes-horse who mugs a lot and sings a bit, waiting to hit the big lines where they count. But Audrey is better than this. I'm glad Julie won her Oscar, but Audrey should have been nominated!

Unlike Andy, I'm never going to see this as one of my favourites - but it's a great film. It deserved its award - even up against Mary Poppins. I enjoyed watching it again, and I'm sure it won't be the last time. The time flew by (it's nearly three hours long - only 30 mins shorter than Lawrence of Arabia, which just goes to show how far time is subjective when watching a film....) and it was time well spent. Which is just as well, because there's another three hours of Musical coming up next time!

Tom Jones 1963

The Film:

My response to "what are you watching next then?" has inevitably needed to be "Tom Jones - not that one, Albert Finney!" And most people are none the wiser. This is one of the winners that needs to go into the "forgotten" category, along with the likes of Lost Weekend and All The King's Men. Those two were both superb films - so it's got a lot to live up to.

I know very little about the film except that it's very "British" - a period piece based on a Henry Fielding novel. It's also very "bawdy", so I'm sort of expecting a Carry On film with some literary clout. It's a Tony Richardson film, which gives even more clout - British acting royalty and all that. The Tony Richardson films I'm familiar with are all pretty gritty kitchen-sink type things. So I am intrigued.....

It's also absolutely rife with women, which is such a relief after the last film. And they are not just the ones that our titular hero encounters intimately in his "bawdy adventures" but several other character actors - leading to three of the five Supporting Actress nominees going its way.

I have the generational disadvantage of always thinking of Albert Finney as either Scrooge or Daddy Warbucks. I'm slightly apprehensive, but generally looking forward to sexy-Finney. And interesting characters, comedy, women with actual dialogue and the lush greenery of the English countryside couldn't come soon enough after the camels and sand of last week!

The Ceremony:

The 36th Academy Awards were held at Santa Monica Auditorium on 13th April 1964. The host was Jack Lemmon and the whole thing was broadcast by ABC.

There was a bit of an envelope mix up (not of 2017 proportions!) when Sammy Davis Jnr had the wrong type of musical score award envelope in his hand and, therefore, read out the wrong winner.

There was a new category this year, for Best Sound Effects - which shows how things were changing and developing in movie making. It was won by "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad world".


Other Notable Winners That Night:

Despite the nonsense that won the big two awards, it was otherwise a landmark year for the Oscars. Twenty four years after Hattie McDaniel, Sidney Poitier became the first Black man to win a competitive acting award. Best Actress went to Patricia Neal for "Hud" (despite the part technically being a supporting role!). Best Supporting Actor was also from Hud (Melvin Douglas) and - despite three nominations for Tom Jones, the Best Supporting Actress award went to another strong British character actress, Margaret Rutherford.

In fact, none of the nominees for Best Supporting Actress were American. And the Foreign Language Film winner, Fellini's "8 and a half" was also a contender for Best Director along with three other nominations (it also won for Best Costume, black and white). The Oscars were starting to get more colourful (in more ways than one) and more international.


Best Song:

A song I know - "Call Me Irresponsible". A film I've never heard of (Papa's Delicate Condition). A quick check on IMDb and a look at this clip and I think I'd quite like to watch the whole thing.

What We Could/Should Have Been Watching:

Yes, of course this is just a shameless excuse
to post up a picture of this beautiful man again!

Having now watched the thing, I think the response to this category is "anything but Tom Jones"!

The other nominees were Kazan's "America America" (which I've only just heard of and read about, and surely deserves more recognition?), "Lilies of the Field", Ford's epic "How The West Was Won" and the ultra-epic mega-flop "Cleopatra". Out of those films I am completely baffled as to why the award went to a stupid bit of sub-CarryOn nonsense. It should probably have gone to How The West Was Won - extraordinary cast, great critical reviews and massive box office.

Two other bona fide classics were among the wider nominees - Fellini's "8 and a half" and "Hud" one of Paul Newman's best films. As ever, I am biased towards Newman for several reasons (some more spurious than others). But Hud is a great film and it's a while since I've seen it. I would far rather have been sitting through it again than wasting my time on the nonsense we ended up watching.

Our Verdict:

"What a lovely pair!"

I think my first response to this film has to be "What?????" closely followed by "Why?????" (and yes, all those question marks are justified). I still don't think it's quite as bad as Gigi (Andy disagrees) but at least I can sort of see why people at the time thought Gigi was award-worthy. I have absolutely no idea what on earth was going on at the Academy when this pile of nonsense won Best Picture. I was expecting something a bit quirky, a bit clever, a bit different - but in a good way. It was definitely at least two out of those three, but in a bad way!

"What a lovely pair!"

The plot, for what it's worth, is as follows. Tom Jones is a foundling, parents suspected but unknown, who is brought up by the kindly Squire Allworthy. He turns out to be handsome (and, actually, a young Albert Finney is rather nice to look at in 18th Century attire!), kind and rather fond of women. He falls in love with Sophie (Susanna York, also looking lovely) but the course of true love doesn't run smoothly - partly due to the Squire's sneaky snivelling nephew and partly due to Sophie's overbearing aunt (the splendid Edith Evans - by far the best thing in the film!). Things take a dodgy turn for young Tom and he heads to London. He has various japes and scrapes along the way, including a stupidly filmed Benny Hill-esque escape out of a window after possibly-nearly shagging someone who may or may not turn out to be his mum (thankfully not, as it turns out). Some other stuff happens (I'd lost the will to care by this point), David Tomlinson does something unseemly to Sophie which may have now ruined Mary Poppins for me. And Tom Jones gets arrested and sent off to be hanged. But its ok, it turns out that he's not a low life foundling after all and is actually quite rich, so he gets off and can marry Sophie after all - and all is well.

"Fancy a bit of leg?"

Along the way there are some ridiculous farcical scenes that were already being done much better on a smaller budget by Sid and Kenneth and co. There are several scenes that are way too long and self-indulgent: a long, long sequence with Tom and Sophie mooning all over each other was just about bearable, but the equally as long hunt scene was needlessly violent and realistic (and long) for a bawdy romp in the English countryside. As was most of the over the top "realism" that involved several chickens and dogs getting kicked by drunken yokels at different points. In fact, the over-laboured realism of the sights, sounds and smells of the countryside reminded me of early Paul Verhoeven, particularly Flesh and Blood (which I still swear I could smell!) - but at least Flesh and Blood was meant to be visceral and repulsive (and it had Rutger Hauer in it...). This was a comedy - why hurt horses and cover everyone in mud??

Thank heavens for Edith Evans!

The breaking of the fourth wall, with various winks to camera etc would have been clever and endearing if there hadn't been an air of trying too hard. When the comedy came it was generally either too broad for my tastes or too wrapped up in something tasteless or unnecessary in a different sense.

I liked one or two things about the film. Albert Finney was good, there were some nice bits of dialogue in there (which were probably Henry Fielding's rather than John Osborne's) and Edith Evans was superb! But otherwise the whole thing was nonsense. Pretentious and pointless nonsense. And I don't intend to ever watch it again!

Lawrence of Arabia 1962

The Film:

Camels and sand. And Khaki (again - what is it with David Lean and Khaki?). And Arab uprisings. And Omar Sharif appearing on the horizon. And beautiful shots of deserts and sunrises. And absolutely no women. And it goes on for hours and hours. And there's lots of camels and sand.

That's my review of Lawrence of Arabia before watching it this time. I've seen clips, I've read stuff. I've really not been looking forward to watching this one - in my head it's basically three and a half hours of camels and sand.

And yet it's very highly rated on IMDB, and one of my favourite people (who I share an office with, and who has to listen to my ramblings about the Oscars on a regular basis) thinks it's a wonderful film.

We're about to give up three and a half hours of our Saturday to this - I really, really want to be proved wrong!

The Ceremony:

I've been waiting for this one - one of the most notorious Oscar ceremonies ever, for the most fabulous of reasons! But lets get the stats out of the way first.

Santa Monica, April 8th 1963, hosted by Frank Sinatra (unfortunately - imagine what fun Bob Hope would have had with all the shenanigans!). Nothing else really significant to report except......

Hagtacular Bette!

This was the year that Bette Davis hoped to secure her third Oscar (having been nominated a record - pre Meryl Streep! - tenth time. However, her co-star in the gloriously over-the-top "Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?" (one-time winner Joan Crawford) was not nominated. The two were already notoriously at loggerheads, and had been throughout filming. This only served to fan the flames. Crawford went up a few gears into super-bitch mode and - so the story goes - targetted Bette's rivals for the award. She offered some of them the favour of acting as their proxy - going up to collect their award in their absence. One of the nominees who accepted Joan's kind offer was Anne Bancroft, who was appearing on Broadway at the time and wouldn't be able to attend the ceremony. And guess who won?

Joan Crawford clutched that Oscar all night, as if her life depended on it. In all the photos (such as the one below) you would be forgiven for thinking that she was the winner. And if you want to know what happened next, I recommend HBO's "Feud: Bette and Joan" which recreates the ceremony really well in Episode 5 (of 8!). I'm Team Bette all the way, but I have to admit Joan played a blinder here!

Other Notable Winners That Night:

Spot the person who didn't actually win an Oscar that year -
doesn't she look proud of herself!

Peter O'Toole quite famously never won Best Actor, despite being nominated eight times. This was his first and, arguably, his best shot. However, he was up against a great literary hero being played by an actor being nominated for the fifth time. He didn't really stand a chance against Gregory Peck's portrayal of Atticus Finch.

The aforementioned Anne Bancroft won Best Actress for playing Anne Sullivan in The Miracle Worker and Patty Duke took the supporting Oscar for playing Helen Keller in the same film. Aged 16, Duke was the youngest winner (at that time) of a competitive Oscar. However, she wasn't the youngest nominee that year. Mary Badham was nominated in the same category for playing Scout Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird. She was 10. 

The other actor on the photo is Ed Begley who won for Sweet Bird Of Youth. My generation are more familiar with his son (Jnr) who was one of the stars of St Elsewhere (among lots of other things!)

Best Song:

The theme song from Days of Wine and Roses, a film about an alcoholic couple (played by nominees Lee Remick and Jack Lemmon). This was the only Oscar it received, from five nominations:

What We Could/Should Have Been Watching:

Fatherly advice - "stay away from camels, the desert is even hotter than
Maycomb county, and very very dry!"

I suppose I can't really argue objectively against "one of the greatest films of all time" - and, yes, there is so much that is spectacular about Lawrence of Arabia. However, the other nominees deserve mention. There's The Longest Day (John Wayne and the D-Day landings), The Music Man (great musical with the fabulous Robert Preston) and Mutiny on the Bounty (the first big remake, with Marlon Brando). And then there's To Kill A Mockingbird. The film was released within two years of Harper Lee's book being published. The book itself has been on every list going (including the list of GCSE recommended texts, until Gove decided it was too modern and not British!) and the film still features high on lots of lists of great American cinema. I would always rather watch a film with great characters than great sunsets, and I really love this one. My Oscar vote would have gone to the Finches!


Our Verdict:

Really clever editing

LofA (for brevity's sake!) won 7 Oscars. When you look at what they were for, it's very difficult to begrudge most of them.

Best Editing - absolutely, the editing is superb. Not just the famous cut from Lawrence's match to the flaming sun, but throughout the film (although I would have edited out at least an hour - I'm going to blame that on Direction....)

Best Art Direction - very much so. So much of the film (particularly the first half) presents as if it were a painted picture. Can't argue with that one.

Best Sound - considering the conditions/locations in which the film was shot, the sound is excellent.

Masterful cinematography

Best Score - for Maurice Jarre. I'm fine with that. The music is iconic and sets the scene really well.

Best Cinematography - for great British cinematography legend Freddie Young. The most deserved of all the awards. It is an extraordinary example of the art and craft of actually filming something. Young perfected several techniques on this film and invented a few others. This, by far, is my favourite thing about LofA. The cinematography is amazing!!!

And then I get a bit unsure. Best Director and Best Picture. Objectively I really can't begrudge either of these awards (apart from still wondering why David Lean found it impossible to make a reasonably-lengthed film!).

Even greater, extraordinary cinematography

However, try as I might, I still don't really like this film. And I still just want to sum it up as "camels and sand". I was intrigued, surprised and hopeful for at least an hour and a half. I really loved the journey to Cairo (always from left to right across the screen). I was starting to warm to our decidedly dodgy leading character (who is played superbly by Peter O'Toole!) and I was enthralled by the spectacle I was witnessing. I even started to care about what happened to our intrepid travellers. I recommend the first 90 minutes of the film to anyone who wants to marvel at the craft of film-making whilst still enjoying the results.

Then they arrived at Cairo. And I got bored, and started to text emojis of camels to my aforementioned co-worker. By the time anyone had done anything remotely interesting, Mark and I had decided (via text) to set up a camel-based taxi service called "Camels R Us" - and that's the most interesting thing that happened for the rest of the film. This was the point at which I was expecting some action, some big crowd scenes, some jeopardy and some sort of resolution. I suppose, technically, all these things happened. However - apart from the aftermath of the train derailment (which revealed more about Lawrence's character than the preceding hour or the rest of the film) I was left cold.

....and some reasonable attempts at characterisation.

I'm clearly missing something that so many people get. But I don't get it. It was a political story - so maybe I wanted more political intrigue. It was a war story - so maybe I wanted more fighting. It had elements of a buddy movie, with the journey etc. - so maybe I wanted more of that. Or maybe, ultimately, the character of T E Lawrence just leaves me cold (however superbly he was played). It almost certainly deserved the Best Picture award, but I didn't really like it (sorry Mark) and I don't think I'll watch it again.