If I Picked the Winners: Best Picture 1956

     After spending seven weeks covering the major categories of the most recent Academy Award nominations, I thought I would mix things up a bit by going retro this week, so I picked the first Best Picture category in which I saw all of the nominees: 1956. Don't ask me why 1956 was the first year in which I saw all the Best Picture nominees, because I'm not quite sure myself. 1956 was well before my time (it is even before my parents time), and it's not like these movies are all that famous or well-regarded either. In fact, as you are about to learn in a moment (assuming you read this article all the way through), I'm not too keen on any of these movies. It would be hard for me to stand in front of you and, with a straight face, seriously argue for the merits of any one of these as "Best Picture worthy".

     Over the ten or so editions of this article that I have written, I have had to make some excruciatingly tough ranking decisions due to the high quality of the contenders. For instance, how can anyone really decide between Jack Nicholson's characteristically eccentric performance in "As Good as It Gets" and Dustin Hoffman's savant political guru in "Wag the Dog"? Or to bring up a more recent example, the decision to put Mark Ruffalo's laid back sperm-donor father ahead of Christian Bale's crack addict Dickey Eklund is one that I still have my serious doubts about. This week turned out to be just as tough as some of these previous examples, but for a much different reason. This time, the task was to try separate the miniscule differences between boring mediocrity and sub-par work. It's a much different process (and much less fun), but no easier nonetheless.

     The category does serve the purpose though of illustrating why I consistently consider the 1950's to be the worst decade in cinema history. There were some exciting things going on in the world of cinema in foreign countries, but for the American studio system, it doesn't get much uglier. At a time where the studios felt extremely threatened by the new, up-and-coming media known as television, they seem fixated on the idea that the only way to beat TV was to make everything BIG! Whether it be gimmicks such as CinemaScope, 3-D films (something that has unfortunately been resurrected), or the regrettable Smell-O-Vision (I don't know who thought that was a good idea), or simply the self-consciously over-the-top, scenery chewing madness that many actors embraced in the predictably "heavy" plots of the typical melodramatic awards fare, it is all too apparent that "subtlety" was not in the vocabulary of anyone working in Hollywood during the 1950's.

     Right on cue, the year of 1956 is a prime example of everything that was wrong with movies at this time. Each of the nominated films I am about to cover at least partially contains something symptomatic of a dying system that was grasping at straws, frantically doing whatever it could to tread water and keep its head afloat. Even outside of these five nominated films, there isn't much to speak of from the films of 1956 which I have seen. The only American film from the year that comes to mind as something praiseworthy is John Ford's "The Searchers", and even for foreign films the only thing I have seen that is of considerable merit is the Japanese film "The Burmese Harp". Hopefully, there are more films which I have yet to see that will come up big at the plate, but of what I have seen so far (and these five films especially), 1956 is a year best forgotten in the cinema history books. However reluctantly though, on to the countdown.... ?

5. "Around the World in 80 Days"

     "Around the World in 80 Days" is commonly sited as the worst film to ever win the Oscar for Best Picture, and I would be hard pressed to argue the point. This is a truly miserable film, with few to no redeemable qualities. How voters justified nominating this film for Best Picture, much less giving it the whole damned prize, I do not know. As I stated above (and am in the middle of expanding on), 1956 was a weak year in cinema, so the only thing that prevents the Best Picture Oscar for "Around the World in 80 Days" from being a crime against humanity, and the only way I can even begin to explain the award, is its competition wasn't all that hot. Even still, this movie is clearly the worst of bunch, and the mark of shame that the Academy was branded with by giving the movie its highest honor is still visible today. I saw this film the one and (thank god!) only time after reading the Jules Verne book as a child. The book (at least as a kid) was a fun and imaginative adventure, always keeping you wanting more and capturing the sense of exploration that made me obsessed with geography when I was younger. The movie on the other hand uses the Verne novel like a dirty whore, simply as a pretext to parade a cavalcade of 1950's stars across the screen. The Golden Globes every year are accused of the crude term "star-f@#$ing" (nominating big names for the sake of having them appear at the awards), and while I think this true, the Golden Globes can't hold a candle to "Around the World in 80 Days" when it comes to star-f---ing. The list of celebrity ponies that appear in the film include Noel Coward (playwright among other things), John Gielgud, Trevor Howard, David Niven, Charles Boyer, Cesar Romero, Reginald Denny, Ronald Colman, Shirley MacLaine, Charles Coburn, Peter Lorre, George Raft, Red Skelton, Marlene Dietrich, John Carradine, Frank Sinatra, and Buster Keaton just for the hell of it. In other words, their strategy was to include all the voters in the Academy on the film, that way they would all vote for it as Best Picture. Apparently it worked, because only insiders giving each other a nice big slap on the back would see fit to award something as artistically ruinous as "Around the World in 80 Days".

4. "Friendly Persuasion"

     This was actually the film I have most recently seen (which is still some time ago), but it is the one that I have the hardest time remembering (not a good sign). Why do I have trouble recalling the film? One word: boredom. Based on the book of the same name by Jessamyn West (which I had to  read an excerpt from for school as a kid), "Friendly Persuasion" tells the tale of a quaker family living in Indiana during the civil war era. The William Wyler film is one of the typical "slice of life with a message" films that plagued the era (as well as decades before and after for that matter). The formula is simple: showcase the typical lives of some "exotic" characters from a different time and/or place (1860's Quakers in this case), have some quirky fun moments to get the audience attached to the characters, then ratchet up some dramatic existential crisis in the final act that was (not so subtly) hinted a throughout the movie. In this case, being Quakers (who are pacifist) caught in the middle of civil war, the big moral theme that the characters must deal with war, and if it is ever appropriate to raise arms against another human being. Frankly, I find the whole question pretty boring to begin with, but when you add in the fact that this is a film from the 1950's, meaning the themes are handled with all the precision and nuance of a Charlie Sheen tirade (I haven't made a Sheen joke yet, so cut me some slack), and the result is something hard to look at. It doesn't help that all the cute "aren't we all having fun" moments are painfully self-conscious and manufactured. The film stars Gary Cooper, doing his usual "firm but supposedly still loving" (not from what I can tell) shtick that he built his career on (think of a bad version of his performance in "Sergeant York"). The film also received an Oscar nomination for the performance of Anthony Perkins as Cooper's war eager son. For the time it's a decent performance, but compared to today's (or any other era's) standards, it's a bit overwrought. If you still don't believe believe about the mediocrity of this film, consider this. When they re-released the film, to get audiences back into the theaters to check out the movie, they went with the tagline, "YOU'LL LOVE SAMANTHA, THE GOOSE!"

3. "Giant"

     If you polled critics and self-proclaimed film gurus across the world, out of the five nominated films in this category, I would bet "Giant" would be their consensus choice. There is some reason for this too. At it's best points, "Giant" is far ahead of the curve compared to its competition. In particular, the scenes with James Dean, in his last role (which was sadly only his third role in films), are absolutely astounding and all too clearly remind us what a tragic loss to cinema his untimely death was. Had he continued his amazing work, I have no doubt that he would be commonly sited as one of the all time greats along with the likes of Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson, and Robert De Niro. The problem with the film though is that it just can't sustain this level of drama and intrigue throughout. A movie which desperately clings to every notion of the word epic, clocking in at a monumental 201 minutes (3 hours and 21 minutes for those of you to lazy to do the math), "Giant" simply is just too damn long, trying to cover anything and everything under the sun. Based on the book by Edna Ferber, the film follows the whole "The Times They Are A-Changin'" life of a Texan ranching couple, "Bick" Benedict (Rock Hudson) and Leslie Benedict (the recently deceased Elizabeth Taylor, in a serviceable, but not spectacular performance), during the early 20th century. As I mentioned before, the film is at its best during the storyline dealing with the couple's rivalry with ex-ranch hand Jett Rink (James Dean), who strikes it rich when he finds oil on his small property, leading him to become a cowboy oil tycoon. Had the film stuck strictly to this plot, we might have had something, but being a 1950's epic, you know that they couldn't stop there. No, director George Stevens couldn't resist covering all sorts of important socio-political topics of the day, such as racism and women's unfair and unequal role in society. This is made worse by the fact that, again, by the very nature of being a 1950's melodrama, these issues are handled absolutely no tact or attempt to make them flow naturally out of the film's events, because the important thing was that their hearts where in the right place, no matter how artistically insincere it comes off. It's too bad, because "Giant" has a lot of potential, but in the 1950's (even more than 1960's despite what any hippie tries to tell you), having a shocking political bent was seen as a superior substitute to real drama about humans being the imperfect creatures that we are.

2. "The Ten Commandments"

     Okay, the Cecil B. DeMille epics are just as guilty as any other films of the era for being spectacularly overdone and over-inflated, but here's the thing. DeMille's films don't have any pretensions of being masterful art pieces. At all times through a DeMille film, you know you are watching a glorified soap opera with high production values, but that's okay, because you're suppose to know that. The best thing to do is sit back, relax, and enjoy the cool imagery being flashed before your eyes. Taking this sort of attitude, I count 1952 Best Picture winner "The Greatest Show on Earth" (not quite as derided as "Around the World in 80 Days", but still not fondly looked upon) as one of my "guilty pleasure" films, and I view "The Ten Commandments" in a similar fashion. Chances are you have seen at least part of the film during one of its perennial showings around the Easter/Passover time, so you likely know the sort of "THIS. IS. EPIC!" feel that the movie goes for. Starring Charlton Heston as Moses (in the type of role that was tailor made for his "abilities"), Yul Brenner in a perfect villainy role as Rameses, and Anne Baxter as the overtly nefarious Nefretiri, the cast is appropriate for this sort of camp. And make no mistake, camp it is, with all the good and bad connotations that go along with it. I have never seen DeMille's 1923 original silent version of "The Ten Commandments", by I'm guessing his whole motivation for remaking the film went something like this, "I can make it bigger!". As a film with this sort of mindset, "The Ten Commandments" is far from flawless, and if you want to let yourself notice its blemishes, there is a lot to see (some pock marks are hard to miss). The film is by no means great, but calling it out on its imperfections feels a bit like criticizing a bear for malling someone. Yeah, it's wrong, but what do what? It's a bear.

1. "The King and I"

     I'm shocked (and somewhat ashamed, to be honest) to crown any musical a "Best Picture" of any year, but here I am. Look what you've done to me 1956. I hope you're proud of yourself. If you have read any of my "Top 100" films articles (and if you haven't you can catch up with them by clicking any of the ten links to the right), you'll know I am a huge fan of the use of music in films. You might think than that musicals would be a no-brainer for me. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Music works perfect to set the context for the action on the screen, multiplying the emotional impact of the events. As a substitute for actual plot developments, the "drive-by singing" antics of the typical "stop-and-sing" style musicals of the 1950's is a horrific mess that are literally hard to look at during its worst moments. What than sets "The King and I" apart from its schmaltzy contemporaries? It's hard to nail down exactly, because it does share many of the genre's typical problems (which is why I said at the outset that I have problems with every one of these films), but much like "The Sound of Music" (a film I like even more than "The King and I"), this musical has a sense of fun throughout that is either absent or poorly manufactured in most of its peers. This is largely due to the Oscar winning performance by Yul Brynner as the King of Siam. Brynner has perfected the role years before on stage, and it shows in the movie, as every decision he makes as an actor is done without thinking. He was clearly confident in his approach to the character. To be frank, the performance is stereo-typical, cartoony, and maybe even slightly racist, but this is what makes the film fun. As long as you don't take the movie as 100% historically accurate, no harm is done, and the goofiness is a refreshing break from the terrible melodramatic moments of some of it's competitors. Many other musicals of the day also (unsuccessfully) attempted to add in moments of levity, but the reason why this succeeds where others fail, is yet again Yul Brynner. At all times he continues to play the straight man, never once acting out of character with a wink and a smile towards the audience (a lesson actors in other musicals could have learned). "The King and I" is far from an ideal choice for Best Picture of any year, and I hope that once I have seen more movies from the year, there will be ten superior candidates to "The King and I" as Best Picture of 1956. Given the five nominated films though, "The King and I" is making lemons into lemonade.

     That's it for this week, so until next time, if you happen to have any strong opinions on any of these films, leave your comments below.